Serving the orders upon me at the union office was the first of a series of blunders on Swart's part. For many months the committee had been discussing what action the union should take.
In the event of Swart making an attack upon me or any other official, and opinions were divided. Some members felt that a call from the union to take militant action might meet with resistance from the rank-and-file workers. (How utterly wrong subsequent events proved them!). But the show of the ugly hand of tyranny in the union office removed all differences and, when I returned from my private office, where I had invited the detectives, I immediately sensed the change. I explained to the committee the significance of the orders. For a while there was an uncanny silence, then sobbing. And it took some time for the members to recover from the shock. I made it quite clear that I had never been intimidated before and had no intention of running away from the struggle now. Division and hesitancy disappeared and gave way to a spirit of unity and determination such as I had never seen. Even those who had hesitated before were ready to do everything possible to fight back. Grief was turned into indignation, and indignation into action. For myself, I had no difficulty in deciding what course to follow. Fascist tyranny must always be fought. If we fight, we have a chance of winning and, if we go down, at we least leave a tradition of struggle behind us to inspire others.
I was in Berlin in 1933, when Hitler became Chancellor. The German workers then had the chance to fight, but did not take it and later paid dearly for not resisting tyranny. I decided to defy the Minister and take the consequences. As I did not want to involve the union, I chose the order prohibiting me from attending gatherings for a showdown.
The central executive committee adopted unanimously a resolution expressing indignation at the action of the Minister and decided mobilise all the members of the union and call upon the rest the trade union movement to fight Mr. Swart's action. A shop wards' meeting was to be convened the following evening to plain the position and to call for immediate strike and other action.
As soon as the meeting was over, I called at the home of the counsel who often appeared for the union and had a long consultation with him. He advised that application be made to the Supreme Court to have the two orders set aside. I then issued a press statement, denouncing Nationalist tyranny, stating that I would resist the orders with every means at my disposal.
On Tuesday, the 20th May 1952, the daily press published the action taken by Mr. Swart against me in banner headlines. This soon became the talk of the town and the workers in the factories sent messengers to the union office to find out what had happened. At 5.30 p.m., about seven hundred shop stewards of the No. 1. Branch of the union (European) assembled at the Trades Hall and at 7.30 p.m. an equal number of shop stewards from the No. 2 Branch (Coloured) came to a meeting.
The following brief report of the two meetings appeared in the Garment Worker of May/June1952:
"The shop stewards unanimously adopted resolutions protesting against the high-handed and tyrannical actions of the Minister and expressing the fullest confidence in Mr. Sachs and deepest gratitude for his services to garment and other workers in the past twenty-four years. They called on all members and branches of the union to stage a one-day protest strike and to fight with the utmost determination for the cancellation of the orders against Mr. Sachs.
"The No. 2 Branch meeting deleted the words 'one day' from the resolution, as they felt that the strike should last at least a week. Many workers took up the cry: 'Thirty days, thirty days'.
"The meetings protested against similar orders to other trade union leaders and called upon trade unionists and their leaders to defend the trade union movement and workers' standards, which the Nationalist Government were threatening to destroy".
After the shop stewards' meetings, the central executive committee decided to call a public protest meeting on the City Hall steps, Johannesburg, for Saturday morning, the 24th May.
The workers in the factories showed not the slightest sign of hesitation or cowardice, but on the contrary, only a firm determination to resist to the bitter end. Numerous factories and individual workers sent telegrams to the Minister. I quote one sent by a factory employing over eight hundred workers, which was typical. "To the Ministers of Justice and Labour:
"We, the workers of United Dress, want Mr. Sachs as our secretary and no-one else. He fought our battle loyally and we will stand by him. We will choose our leaders. Your persecution of Sachs makes us more determined to stand by him. Long live Solly Sachs, the workers' courageous leader. Hands off our union".
On Saturday, the 24th May, shop stewards assembled at the Trades Hall at nine a.m. and, when I arrived, I was greeted with loud cheers. I was touched by the loyalty of the workers. All the years I had been secretary, I had felt that the workers trusted and respected me. I was their servant and leader and they were members whose interests I had to serve. From the moment I received the orders, I became a person in their eyes. I had had no reason to doubt their loyalty, but had not known what their attitude would be in times of trouble. Their complete devotion and magnificent courage were a great inspiration to me.
At 9.30 a.m., proceeded by banners and with Johanna Cornelius and myself at the head, the shop stewards marched to the City Hall steps. Meanwhile, workers from all suburbs, many marching in formation and carrying banners, began to assemble. When we arrived, there were about fifteen thousand people present, including many who were not garment workers. Within a few minutes, ten thousand Coloured garment workers, marching eight abreast, reached the meeting place. I was anxious to know the attitude of the mass of Europeans towards them. I did not have to wait long. Loud cheers greeted the Coloured workers. In the face of the common enemy, racial barriers were forgotten. The meeting, one of the largest South Africa had seen for many years, was most impressive. Anna Scheepers, president of the union, opened it promptly at 10 a.m. and speakers from various organisations, including the United Party and the Labour Party, addressed the assembled crowd.
At 11 a.m. I came forward to speak. Scarcely ten minutes later, some fifty police rushed from an entrance in the City Hall behind the platform. They seized me by the shoulders and tried to drag me away. There was a tremendous commotion. Some of my supporters held on to my legs and would not let the police take me. For a minute, I was in danger of being torn in halves by the tug-of-war between the police and the workers. Then they let go, and two detectives, accompanied by a dozen policemen in uniform, rushed me through the City Hall, pushed me into a prison van and drove me to Marshall Square. There, I was searched and made to take off my collar and tie. A stupid police sergeant even demanded that I should take off my spectacles. After a while I heard, for the third time in my life, the grating sound of the warder's keys turning the rusty lock of the prison cell. I found my new lodgings extremely unattractive. The cell was about fifteen feet square, with no window. An electric bulb in the ceiling supplied light. Some dirty, rough, woollen blankets were lying on the cement floor. There was nothing else-only the bare walls, which previous lodgers had covered, almost from floor to ceiling, with poems and witticisms.
The prison warder was a pleasant young Afrikaner and, after I had been locked up for a few minutes, he opened the door, looked in and said: "Oh, you must have a bed". He shouted in Afrikaans to Kitchen, an African long-term prisoner, who was helping to run the "King's Hotel": "Kitchen, bring a bed for the master". Even in prison, the superiority of the white man is not overlooked. The warder and the African took the blankets out of the cell and dusted them and I then lay down on the iron bedstead to sum up the events of the, day and to plan for the future.
Half an hour later I heard loud cheers outside. Thousands of garment workers had marched to Marshall Square and were demanding my release. The police became frightened and armed themselves with rifles and sten guns. To prevent bloodshed, I offered to address the crowd. My offer was declined, but I was allowed to send out a message to the demonstrators, thanking them for their loyalty and urging them to remain calm.
At first, I was not permitted to see anyone, but later my lawyer visited me. My four-year-old son, Andrew, also came, with his mother. He took me by the hand and said: "Daddy, must come home". When he saw the warder jingling his keys, he understood that Daddy could not just walk out.
I was released at seven p.m. I then learned that Dulcie Hartwell had read my speech to the crowd after I had been carried off and that the police had charged the crowd several times and assaulted over a hundred people, many of whom had been taken to hospital.
Johannesburg was agog. The brutality of the police caused bitter indignation, even among Nationalists. From press reports, it was clear that public resentment against the Government was widespread. In twenty-four hours, I had become the symbol of resistance against Nationalist tyranny. The Sunday papers gave these events the greatest publicity.
I now hoped to see the struggle against fascist dictatorship raised to a higher level. Here was a unique opportunity to convert the people's anger into large-scale action against the Government. I urged my colleagues in the trade union movement to call a general strike.
The mass of non-European workers would have joined in gladly. Probably several hundred thousand European workers, who loathed Nationalist tyranny, would have stopped work. The general public, incensed by Swart's Gestapo methods, would have co-operated, and so would a large number of industrialists, who hated Nationalist policy.
Had the South African Trades and Labour Council called a general strike, it might have led to unity among all the anti-Malan forces, which potentially were far stronger. The mass of white and non-white workers were prepared to fight, but the trade union leadership did not measure up to the task.
On the morning of Monday, the 26th June, eighteen thousand garment workers on the Rand and several thousand members of the union in other centres came out on strike. At 9.30 a.m. I appeared in court. My case was remanded. As I left the court, I was told that many thousands of workers had assembled outside the City Hall. I decided to address them, but as soon as I started speaking, Major Prinsloo, chief of the Security Police, tapped me on the shoulder and told me I was under arrest. I said that there was no need for the police to break any more heads and that I would accompany him quietly. When I was brought to Marshall Square, the same young warder greeted me like an old friend. Again, he and Kitchen saw to my comfort, and I must admit that the rest, after a long period of nervous strain, was most welcome. I made an urgent application for bail, but this was refused and I spent the night in prison-the first restful night in many months. The next morning, I appeared in court. The case was remanded and I was released on £250 bail. I was subsequently charged on two counts, for attending two gatherings in contravention of the Minister's orders.
Judgment was delivered on the 15th July 1952. I knew that I would be convicted and had prepared a written statement for submission to the magistrate, after verdict, but before sentence. Through some confusion, my solicitor handed my statement to the court, even before the magistrate started reading his lengthy judgment. My statement read:
"I am deeply grateful to Mr. N. E. Rosenberg, K.C., who appeared for me, for the very able and clear manner in which he presented the legal grounds for my acquittal and the mitigating circumstances in the case, and I merely desire to add the following:
"It has been suggested by the prosecutor that I have defied the law. With respect, I must refute that charge. I have always been law-abiding and have never been convicted of any offence in a court of law. I am a fervent supporter of the rule of law and a bitter opponent of lawlessness and disorder. It is not I who defied the law. It is the Minister of Justice, Mr. C. R. Swart, and his Nationalist Government, who has defied it and has made a mockery of the fundamental principles upon which the law is based. They have substituted the law of the jungle for the law of civilised communities. Civilised people find punishment without due process of law revolting. Without a hearing, without the semblance of a trial, without a single fact, without any evidence, in the secrecy of Mr. Swart's ministerial offices, I was judged by him, condemned and sentenced to lose my livelihood, my work and my liberty.
"The fascist tyrants who rule South Africa today have gone even further and have turned Parliamentary sovereignty, which our executive-minded lawyers treat with the sanctity of the Ten Commandments, into a farce, into an instrument of the Broederbond. They have destroyed the very foundation of representative government and constitutional liberties.
"When I refer to the law, I do not mean the out-moded legal doctrines which our executive-minded lawyers are so fond of propounding and which have no relation to factual realities and existing circumstances. The law to me 'is a fiery sword of freedom', as the late Mr. Justice Brandeis of the United States Supreme Court described it. It will be a sorry day for all the people of South Africa when the law becomes an instrument in the hands of tyrants, instead of a shield to protect the liberty of the individual.
"Yes, I am defiant, but not of the law-only of the wicked, lawless acts of the band of tyrants who, to maintain themselves in power, have wiped out every trace of liberty.
"The Act under which I have been charged and found guilty is named "Suppression of Communism". The "Suppression of Liberty" would be a more correct title.
"Why has Mr. Swart ordered me to resign as secretary of the Garment Workers' Union, which I have served loyally for nearly twenty-five years? Why has he deprived me of the right of attending any gatherings? Mr. Swart says that he took action against me to give effect to the objects of the Act, namely, to combat communism. Mr. Swart knows that he is telling an untruth, just as he told an untruth when he introduced the Act in Parliament, by proclaiming that the communists were planning to poison the wells of the country and were preparing for a coup d'etat, a statement which he later admitted to be totally untrue.
"The whole world knows the truth. Mr. Swart has taken action against me, not to combat communism-he knows that, since my expulsion from the Communist Party of South Africa in September, 1931, I have not engaged in any communist activities, that for at least five years I have been a loyal member and an active supporter of the South African Labour Party, of which body I am national treasurer. Mr. Swart has taken action against me and other trade union officials only to give effect to the policy of the Nationalist Party, inspired by Adolf Hitler, which aims at the capture, disruption or destruction of the free trade union movement.
"Seventeen years of slander, vilification and violence having failed to remove me from my position, Mr. Swart now employs the Suppression of Communism Act to effect the purpose of the Nationalist Party. He should realise by now that he made a grave blunder and his tyrannical action has only served to turn thousands of garment workers and others into bitter opponents of Nationalist Government tyranny. My crime is not that I am likely to engage in any communist activities, but that I have taught thousands of Afrikaner workers to love democracy, value human decencies, fight for a better living and loathe fascist tyranny and oppression.
"I am a criminal in the eyes of the Nationalist Government because I oppose racial hatred and intolerance and want to see South Africa a great democratic nation instead of a slave, fascist, police state.
"Mr. C. R. Swart is so frightened of facts that he had to withdraw the further order he issued against me under Section 10 of the Act, prohibiting me from leaving the Transvaal Province. Section 17 of the Act provides for the appointment of a fact-finding commission before action is taken under Section 10. Where is Mr. Swart's fact-finding commission? Why did he not appoint such a commission?
"All civilised people, whose vision has not been obscured by casuistry and legal technicalities, will know the true facts, and will also know who the real criminals are, and will not include me among them.
"I have no regret whatever at the action I have taken and, no matter what penalty the court impose upon me, I shall never give up the struggle for liberty and for a great, truly democratic South Africa.
"I know that my sentence will be received with joy by the Broederbond, the Transvaler and the leaders of the Nationalist Party. My only regret is that I shall not be able to carry on the fight against the fascist tyrants, who are ruling and ruining South Africa, but I shall find consolation in the fact that many people will begin to see the revolting nature of brutal tyranny. At all events, my sentence will be a small contribution towards the great struggle for human liberty, for which twelve thousand noble South Africans and millions of others only recently gave their lives. I have already tasted the humiliation of imprisonment, but I shall not be intimidated.
"Having been denied by Mr. Swart even those rights which are accorded to the worst criminal-trial by a competent court -and having been condemned and punished by him in a manner which all decent people in South Africa and abroad will find disgusting, from now on my indignation will crystallise into courage, energy and determination to carry on the struggle until South Africa is rid of oppression and tyranny.
"I have no desire to be a hero or a martyr, but I shall never submit to the dictates of fascist tyrants, nor 'bow and sue for grace with suppliant knee'. Proudly, and with a free conscience, I am ready to receive the sentence of the court".
The magistrate accepted this statement without any comment.
As expected, I was found guilty and sentenced to six months' imprisonment with hard labour on each of the two counts, the sentences to run concurrently. I lodged an appeal, which was dismissed by Mr. Justice de Villiers in the Transvaal Provincial Division of the Supreme Court. I then lodged a further appeal to the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court and decided to argue my appeal in person.
On the 24th November, I appeared before the five judges of the Appeal Court in Bloemfontein. I submitted several grounds of appeal; the most important being that the order of the Minister was vague. Since I was liable to three years' imprisonment for disobeying it, I was in law entitled to be told in plain words, free from ambiguity, what I could do and what I was prohibited from doing. What is a "social gathering"? Is a function given by a political party a social gathering or not? The term "social" is very wide and vague. Is standing in a bus queue, or in a queue in a bank or shop a "gathering" or not?
Judgment was delivered on the 12th December 1952.
The Chief Justice complimented me on the manner in which I had argued the case, but the five judges confirmed the conviction.
By a majority of three to two, the court suspended the sentence for a period of three years.
The suspension of my sentence was a relief to my numerous friends, who were happy that I was not to go to gaol. To me, it was a bitter blow and the worst possible outcome. For a time I had been the symbol of resistance to Nationalist tyranny. My open defiance of Swart's order, the splendid spirit shown by the garment workers and, more especially, the brutal and unprovoked assault of the police upon citizens at the City Hall steps meeting had roused all opponents of Malan.
Had the court set aside Swart's order, I should have resumed the fight with new energy. On the other hand, if I had been sent to prison, there would have been widespread indignation. The garment workers would have come out on strike again and might have been joined by other sections of workers. The suspended sentence allayed public feeling and tied my hands. I had escaped gaol but, in fact, the whole of South Africa had now become one vast prison for me.
In the Act, "gathering" is defined as:
"Any gathering, concourse or procession in, through or along any place, of any number of persons having a common purpose, whether such a purpose is lawful or unlawful".
Unless I lived in complete isolation, it was impossible for me to avoid gatherings. If I stood in a queue, travelled in a vehicle with others, or sat down on a bench with two other people, I was liable to three years' imprisonment, in addition to the sentence that was already hanging over my head.
In an application against the Minister's order, which I had made earlier to the Transvaal Provincial Division of the Supreme Court, Mr. Justice Ramsbottom, in a question to Mr. Pirow, K.C., who appeared for the Minister, observed:
"Surely a man must know what he can do or cannot do.
He must know what he is contravening, if he is liable to be sent to prison for three years".
In argument in the Appeal Court, I asked that the Minister's notice should be set-aside on the ground of vagueness. The Minister prohibited me from attending "any gathering whatever, other than gatherings of a bona fide religious, recreational or social nature". It may be easy to define a gathering of a religious or recreational nature, but what is a bona fide gathering of a social nature?
The Oxford Dictionary defines the word "social" as "living in companies, gregarious, interdependent, co-operative, concerned with the mutual relations of men or classes of men". Almost every human activity in relation to or in association with others may be termed "social". On the other hand, the term "social" might mean "festive". The Appeal Court judgment, far from clarifying my position, made it more nebulous. The Chief Justice, in his judgment, said:
"It may be conceded that cases may arise when it may be difficult to determine whether a particular meeting falls within the exempted category of gatherings. But the mere fact that there may be such a difficulty does not justify the contention that the notice is void on the ground of vagueness.
Each case must be determined on its own facts".
It is necessary to examine what the effect of this judgment meant to me in practice.
I lived in a flat in a big building. At 7.30 a.m. two Africans would come to clean the flat, and this constituted a "gathering". A few minutes later, I would go down in the lift. Other passengers might travel in it-another gathering. Buying a morning paper and a bottle of milk, a loaf of bread, perhaps some groceries, meant standing in queues-four more gatherings. To get to town, I would have to stand in a bus queue and then enter the vehicle- two more gatherings. Walking along the streets, I might be stopped by some people who would inquire how I was getting on, or find myself in the company of persons waiting on the corner for the traffic light to change. I might want to enter a bank, a post office or a public convenience. Mere attendance, without uttering a word, was enough to constitute a crime. Within a few hours, I might have attended twenty gatherings and made myself liable to sixty years' imprisonment.
Possibly all these gatherings were of a "social nature", but what if the courts held that they were not? Swart's Gestapo is in the habit of keeping a close watch on their victims and, under the judgment of the court; the only way I could obtain guidance was by risking a prosecution.
The court may have been perfectly justified in holding that Parliament had given the Minister dictatorial powers, with which it could not interfere. But, neither in the statute, nor by legal precedent, was the Minister given power to issue a notice which was grossly vague and embarrassing to his victim.
Indeed, my attendance at court to answer the charges that had been preferred against me was a crime on my part. There were many people in court and the proceedings were certainly not of a religious or recreational character. They might have been "social". Who knows?
My position in South Africa had become untenable. I decided to leave the country and, on the 30th January 1953, I sailed for England. The farewell message of Coriolanus to his fellow-citizens came to my mind. "For you, the city, thus I turn my back. There is a world elsewhere".
I was determined, however, to carry on the fight for a free, democratic South Africa and, for the last three years, I have worked hard to convert the worldwide sympathy for the cause of African freedom into practical support.
After my removal from office, the Nationalist Party continued with its campaign to take over the leadership of the union. They made a desperate attempt to get one of their nominees, a certain Mr. Hartman van Niekerk, elected as general secretary of the union. In a secret ballot, however, Johanna Cornelius secured ten thousand votes against van Niekerk's three thousand. Similarly, in the election for president, Anna Scheepers defeated the Nationalist nominee, Carel Meyer, by about the same majority.
In the past three years, Anna and Johanna have led the union in many struggles for better conditions and have proved themselves thoroughly capable leaders. In spite of the activities of the Nationalists within the union and constant attacks by the Government, the Garment Workers' Union, under extremely difficult circumstances, is still maintaining its proud fighting tradition.
New clouds, however, are looming on the horizon. Jan de Klerk, brother-in-law of Mr. J. G. Strijdom, Nationalist Prime Minister, one-time leader of the White Workers' Protection League and now Minister of Labour, has introduced a new Industrial Conciliation Bill, which is designed to split the entire trade union movement on racial lines. The Bill will, in due course, become law and the Garment Workers' Union will have to separate into three legal entities. This fascist measure will, no doubt, cause grave division within the ranks of the trade union movement, but if the White, Coloured and African workers remain united in their determination to protect their standards and their liberties, the efforts of Jan de Klerk will be defeated.
In November1953, the Appeal Court, in the case of Johnson Ngwevela v. Rex, delivered a judgment which, in effect, set aside all Swart's notices under the Suppression of Communism Act. The court held that persons upon whom notices were served were entitled to a hearing and, since none had been given a hearing, the notices were invalid.
Early in 1954, Swart introduced an amendment to the Act to close all loopholes.