CHAPTER 34: The first statement

CHAPTER 34

The first statement

NEIL HUDSON AGGETT

Born on 6th October at Nanyuki, Kenya.

Youngest son of J.A.E. AGGETT residing at:

P.O. Box 136,

Somerset West.

I

My father was a farmer in Nanyuki, and I had one elder brother, Michael and one older sister, Jill. I went to school when I was six at the Nanyuki primary school, where I was a weekly boarder. After that I went to the Nyeri primary school, where I was a boarder until the age of ten. In January 1964, my family and I left Kenya by ship and arrived in Durban. My father sold his farm and invested his money in South Africa …1

TELL US YOUR BACKGROUND … HOW SIMPLY HE BEGINS: CHILDHOOD encapsulated in a few sentences. When he comes to his student days and conjures up a vivid image of Liz and himself in their early days, there’s even a fleeting touch of his former poetry:

LIZ FLOYD came to stay with me in Constantia in 1974, and we spent the next two years together, studying and staying on the farm. We did not go out much, but spent our time on the beach or in the forest, or sitting around a fire at the cottage …2

Nevertheless, even in this account of youth, the occasional awkward sentence points to a jabbing question. There’s a telltale phrase like, ‘My friends at this time were …’; ‘At this time I was friendly with …’; ‘It was during this time that I met …’ Each detainee is expected to produce, in capitals, a who’s who.

Gavin’s name appears for the first time when Neil writes of coming to Tembisa Hospital around September 1977 after not being able to find work in Cape Town. ‘It was during this time that I met JENNY CUNNINGHAM, ANNIE SMYTHE [SIC], TAFFY ADLER and GAVIN ANDERSON [sic].’ He puts his best friend at the end of an eclectic list.

As Neil explains the evolution of his political outlook, his sentences become dense, his tone more intense. He gives rational grounds for what seems so irrational to his interrogators, why a medical doctor should be working in a trade union: ‘sometimes I would stitch up a patient, only to have him return the following week due to alcoholism, unemployment, or extreme poverty, with another assault wound’. Many medical problems were ‘basically social problems’, including those of people injured at work. ‘Even if they did get their compensation, they often lost their jobs, which meant that they could not get another job due to the disability, and them and their families were without means of support.’3

There’s nothing that’s illegal here, just common human concern. So it’s not surprising that he takes an interest in workman’s compensation and says ‘yes’ to Taffy Adler when ‘he asked me if I would be interested to work in the Industrial Aid Society’.4 Neil says nothing about the highly charged debate between ‘workerists’ and ‘populists’ of two years earlier … and nothing of how Gavin and Sipho were marginalised after their banning by those taking charge of IAS and MAWU. By reversing roles with Taffy in how he enters IAS (‘he asked me’), he hopes to seal up questions that might lead towards the Group of 7, Woodworkers and the network of discussion groups. At least Captain Naude from East London hasn’t picked up on this. He has been more interested in Neil’s links with Sisa, Thozamile and SAAWU. But Whitehead?

Neil tries to be as brief with his introduction to Food and Canning. Jan comes up in 1978 with a delegation of AFCWU workers to start a branch in Johannesburg and they stay with Neil in his house in Bertrams. Then, early in 1979, Oscar Mpetha comes up to continue the work and stays with Neil. Prompted by a question, or perhaps knowing that this is already in their files, Neil tells how Lisa Williamson, sister of the spy Craig, took Oscar to a meeting:

He [Oscar] told me she had an elaborate plan to get money from overseas from her brother to set up Unions in South Africa, presumably S.A.C.T.U. It sounded far fetched, and I told Oscar so. He was not interested in her plan, and never took up the offer.5

This was before Craig Williamson had finally been exposed, but Neil had been able to pass on Gavin’s warning. Here, he keeps to the bare bones. However, he still needs to explain how he has come to work in the union. So, between minimal details, he inserts a long philosophical passage in which Oscar, while staying with him in Bertrams, asks if he would be prepared to work unpaid: ‘I felt that if I worked in a trade union I could at least contribute …’6

Patiently, earnestly, Neil explains a set of fundamental values, relating ‘rights’ with ‘respect’, outlining the open nature of his contacts and work in factories, where ‘even the management seems happy now because there is a relationship of mutual respect …’ While his interrogators want a picture of him as a conspiratorial communist, trying to undermine society, Neil presents universal liberal values as the basis of his actions effecting gradual change. ‘So when Mr. MPETHA asked me if I would be prepared to work for the A.F.C.W.U., I said that I would.’7

He keeps details about Liz to a bare minimum. She too will be questioned about him, and the less said the better: ‘In about mid 1979, LIZ FLOYD came up to stay with me in Joburg. We had personal problems and I felt it would be good to get away for a while …’8

Describing his trip to Umtata and Mount Fletcher, he sticks to his medical duties as a locum. After his return to Johannesburg, Jan comes up with a delegation for the Fatti’s & Moni’s boycott and stays with Neil and Liz. They discuss Neil’s appointment to the union. In the abbreviated telling, Neil says nothing about Jan’s reservations about him, including the business of avoiding army call-up. Instead he focuses on his resignation from the IAS, outlining how he handed his work over to three women doctors, Liz Floyd, Liz Thomson and Jenny Cunningham. Although he and Liz have now moved into 420A Fox Street, ‘generally we agreed not to discuss our work too much with each other, as we each had our own problems and were very busy’.9

A brief paragraph follows, perhaps in response to a question about social life:

We were also involved at this time in a vegetable garden … and we would share the vegetables. It was a good way of getting out in the sun and using our bodies after a week in the office. It was here that I had met Dave Dyson [sic]. We also played together in the soccer team that used to play occasionally on Sundays. I also visited GAVIN ANDERSON [sic] a few times while he was living with his wife in Bertrams, in Ascot road, and he was also involved in the vegetable garden and playing soccer.10

They were like any group of friends engaging in normal weekend activity.

Describing his work at the union, Neil expands on events, meetings, boycotts, how the workers are organised, issues under debate. Many paragraphs are lengthy. There’s nothing to hold him back when talking about his work, including his union’s cooperation with SAAWU. Every now and again, he gives a list of names. Here, for the first, and only, time in his first statement he mentions his comrade Sipho taking part in a meeting on Prime Minister PW Botha’s ‘total strategy’. His interrogators must already have information and are cross-checking. To deny who was there would now be pointless:

We also had a discussion that I was invited to by GAVIN ANDERSON [sic], at which BARBARA HOGAN, CEDRIC DE BEER? [sic], SIPHO KHUBEKA, VALLEY [sic] MOOSA and AURET VAN HEERDEN were present.11

It was just a general political discussion on problems faced by the government, asserts Neil, attended by a wide range of people. Not illegal. As Neil elaborates some of the issues discussed, he must be hoping intensely that whoever has told the security police about this meeting has managed to be circumspect. In that case, the most that could be deduced by the police is that Sipho and Gavin had been breaking their now-expired banning orders.

The truth was that the ‘total strategy’ meeting had been called to plan a response to a predicted clampdown on increasingly militant unions. The question had been, as Sipho Kubeka recalls, ‘how to effectively continue running a union underground in case, when the leadership is arrested, offices are closed and money is taken by the government’. A solution would be to form underground structures that linked to the trade union movement via key shop stewards. But how, in those circumstances, would you ensure democracy?: ‘If they linked the legal organisation to an underground structure, who would call the shots? Because the underground structure might end up undermining the legal structure.’ No decisions were taken except to continue the discussion, but this is dangerous territory for Neil. If his interrogators have already elicited something about this ‘underground structure’ discussion from others, he knows that they’ll use it to accuse him of lying about his commitment to open democratic process. But, at the moment, they’re not revealing their hand.

From here on, in dense paragraph after paragraph, Neil itemises meeting after meeting, all above ground. They reflected an explosion of union activity, some of it clearly merging with wider community issues:

I attended a meeting in the Selbourne Hall around Republic Day at which Sisa Njikelana was invited to speak about the Wilson Rowntree Boycott. The speakers at the meeting were Curtis Nkondo, SAMSON NDOU, MR. MAVI and SISA NJIKELANA. MR NKONDO spoke about the fact that the Republic was only based on the votes of the whites, and was not a true Republic representing all the people … MR. NJIKELANA spoke about the dispute at Wilson Rowntree and called for the support of everyone in boycotting the products of Wilson Rowntree. After the meeting, the people present sang ‘We shall overcome’. During the meeting, a traffic policeman came in to say that there was a bomb in the hall, but the people present took no notice and the meeting continued.12

In recounting the failed bomb hoax, has Neil just rubbed salt into a wound? His catalogue of meetings and union activity reflect strong criticism of the apartheid state. But everything Neil cites is legal.

What about Barbara Hogan? Yes, he says, he knows her, but his contact has been open and strictly limited:

I had seen Barbara HOGAN and at some parties and I knew that she had been involved in the Fattis and Monis Boycott. She was also active on the White Left but not wanting to get involved in White Left politics, because I saw my feild [sic] as being in the union and my actions under the control of our union membership, I was not keen to get involved with her. I knew that LIZ FLOYD was friendly with her, and saw her occasionally …13

Barbara was at his and Liz’s house for professional reasons on the night Whitehead came to detain Sisa. She had come to supper to continue discussions with Sisa, before he returned to East London, about setting up an unemployed workers’ union in the Transvaal. That’s what SAAWU and Sisa were developing in East London. Neil expands at some length on why he doesn’t think the idea will work in Johannesburg where SAAWU is still ‘very young and weak’,14 emphasising the professional issues.

So what about Thozamile Gqweta? Neil says that Thozamile has told him about his detention and torture and how the security police wanted to establish links between him and the ANC: ‘… but he [Thozamile] only said that he had gone either to Swaziland or Leshoto [sic] to meet someone from S.A.C.T.U. and ask for money for S.A.A.W.U. We did not discuss this matter further, as he was busy describing his detention.’15 Here too is a minefield. The line between SACTU and ANC is a fine one. Neil remembers Gavin’s debriefing, how Gavin’s interrogator called Alan Fine a ‘slim kêrel’ (clever chap) for asserting that his contacts were SACTU not ANC. But to Cronwright’s men, the legal distinction is an own goal by their government. It obstructs them from securing more convictions in court. Stoking an interrogator’s frustration can lead to fury.

Whitehead returns to Neil’s contact with Gavin, this time after his detention. What did Gavin say before escaping the country? Neil sidesteps. He just saw him briefly at a protest meeting outside Khotso House: ‘… and he seemed depressed because he had been released and the others had not. Later I heard that he was in Botswana. I then wrote him a letter to cheer him up, and assure him that he still had my friendship and support, as I had not seen much of him in the last year.’16 Neil knows that the security police must be kicking themselves for releasing Gavin. Regardless, he affirms their friendship.

The final pages of Neil’s first statement contain passages that read like a manifesto. Under ‘WHY I AM WORKING IN A TRADE UNION’, he writes:

When OSCAR MPETHA approached me to ask if I wanted to work in Food and Canning, I was already aware that this was a trade Union with a proud history, that it was democratically controlled, and respected by other unionists … My feeling was that I saw that changes in South Africa were necessary, and it was important that I contribute to these changes. I felt that the most positive area where I could be effective was in the trade unions, because here you were actually changing concrete conditions of existence and not just talking rhetorical politics.

I felt that if different people in all walks of life organized themselves in various democratic organizations, such as the Women’s Organizations, the Community Organizations and Trade Unions, then gradually the laws could be changed, and if all these organizations linked together then they would provide a strong call for democracy and universal suffrage.17

The strength of feeling behind his avowal of democratic organisation and universal suffrage is palpable. With the apartheid state the antithesis of ‘democracy and universal suffrage’, his declaration is like a gauntlet thrown at his interrogators’ feet. These fundamental moral principles, the basis of his loyalty to the union, are not negotiable.

When Whitehead pushes him to make a full declaration of his views on the ANC, SACTU, South African Communist Party and the white left, Neil asserts his truths as a principled citizen and unionist, without revealing his deeper radicalism. In a quiet, confident tone, he states that he is not a member of the ANC yet he is unwavering on the values of ‘a democratic non-racial society in South Africa, with one man, one vote’. To Whitehead, it’s a red rag.

In discussing the ANC and SACTU, Neil skilfully manages a difficult balancing act. Their alliance was ‘a valid one in the past’. Yes, he would have supported them when they were open and above-ground, but he cannot reconcile himself to organisations that cannot function democratically. It is essential that people are involved in the decisions that affect their own destiny. When it comes to the Communist Party, he prudently restricts his comments to the distant past.18 Neil keeps quiet about his intense dislike for the Party’s top-down approach and avoids engaging in current matters that would reveal the depth of his political life. He is genuinely committed to democratic process, but aware of its problematic tension with necessary underground organisation. He would have understood, for instance, Sipho’s classic example concerning self-defence in the township:

A meeting would be called asking for contributions, saying that some people will also be trained in how to use these things. But the community will never be told that so and so is being trained or went to buy arms. That is playing with fire. So where does democracy come in here?

This is a door to be kept firmly shut. Throughout his interrogation, Neil has striven to remain coherent and principled. When Whitehead requires him to provide a summary of his views at the end of his statement, he keenly hopes that this will be the final hurdle:

MY VIEWS ON THE A.N.C., S.A.C.T.U., S.A.C.P., AND THE WHITE LEFT.

73.

THE A.N.C.

I support the principles of the Freedom Charter as being a basis for a democratic non-racial society in South Africa, with one man, one vote. However I am not a member of the A.N.C... They seem to be more active outside South Africa than within it, and not very active in the areas that affect peoples daily lives. I believe we must fight against Apartheid, but this can only be done by involving people in the day to day struggles on the factory floor and in the community. What are needed are democratic organizations that people are involved in and that are controlled by the people themselves. This will bring about gradual change in all spheres of life. Without these democratic, open, legal organizations, there is no gaurantee [sic] that the people will have any control over their destiny. Most people in this country, black and white, want to see change come about, but this will not be possible through the actions of just a few people, but only through open, mass organizations. Furthermore, if there is no democratic control over the leadership of the A.N.C.., their policies may not correspond to what is wanted by the South African people.

74.

However, it is no use if the forms of organization are dictated to the people by the State, such as community councils, and the present restrict[ive] clauses relating to registered unions. The membership must be free to choose their own constitution, and run their organization free from State interference.

75.

S.A.C.T.U.

I have read about S.A.C.T.U. and as a non-racial, independent federation of trade unions, I think its history is commendable. Our Union was itself a leading member of S.A.C.T.U. and I think it was the correct decision of the membership to affiliate at that time. Politics always cuts accross [sic] trade union matters, particularly in South Africa where influx control and contract labour directly affect the lives of the Union membership. For this reason, the alliance of S.A.C.T.U.. and the A.N.C. was a valid one in the past. It was also important that the workers had their own organization within the alliance, to make sure that their aspirations were catered for. However when S.A.C.T.U. dissolved and went underground, a basic contradiction arose. It is impossible to have an underground trade union, because there can be no possible democratic [control] over the policies of that union. A trade union must be open, legal, and run democratically. It is for this reason that I believe that S.A.C.T.U. is taking a wrong path, although it has a good history.

THE S.A.C.P.

I know nothing about this organization apart from what I have read. I know that in the 1920’s they took a very incorrect position of supporting the white workers in their struggles for protection against the black workers. This mistake has seemed to make them a spent force historically. I have also heard that they are close to Moscow, and this does not stand in their favour. What the workers and the people need are open democratic organizations in which they can participate.

THE WHITE LEFT:

As a trade unionist, I had neither the time nor the inclination to become involved in the circles of the white left. However, during the Wilson Rowntree boycott, S.A.A.W.U. needed any support they could get, and that is why we contacted Joanne Yawitch. Some of the white left were present at the first Wilson Rowntree meeting, and others did some printing in our offices, but I do not know their names. I used to be friendly with GAVIN ANDERSON [sic] and DAVE DYSON [sic], and met some other young people while we worked in the vegetable garden, but never discussed labour or politics with them.

* * *

Rereading Neil’s first statement almost thirty years later, Gavin is impressed:

… overall I’d say that he is holding up pretty well at this stage of his interrogation. He is keeping within the boundaries of what’s expected, and not being radical or giving anyone away … He comes across as a principled unionist, with exactly the values you’d expect from someone in his position at that time. Very impressive; he is well in command of himself at this point.

But Neil is also tired. In his final sentence, writing about ‘The White Left’, he states that he has neither the time nor inclination to become involved in its circles. But he then returns to the Vegetable Garden and how he ‘used to be friendly with GAVIN ANDERSON [sic] and DAVE DYSON [sic] … and some other young people … but never discussed labour or politics with them’. Neil has forgotten that more than halfway through his 27 typed A4 pages he has mentioned talking with Gavin about the bitter divisions in the labour movement. This is just the kind of ‘blip’ on which Whitehead will be ready to pounce and call him a ‘liar’.

1 Aggett, First Statement, 6-8.1.82.

2 Ibid, section 5.

3 Ibid, section 8.

4 Ibid, section 10.

5 Ibid, section 14.

6 Ibid, section 15.

7 Ibid, section 16.

8 Ibid, section 17.

9 Ibid, section 18.

10 Ibid, section 20.

11 Ibid, section 32.

12 Ibid, section 36.

13 Ibid, section 59.

14 Ibid, section 59.

15 Ibid, section 63.

16 Ibid, section 66.

17 Ibid, sections 67 & 68.

18 Gavin Andersson recalls that, only a few months earlier, Neil had led a discussion in their reading group about a paper by Joe Slovo and expressed very definite opinions.