Mr. Chairman, when the debate on this Vote commenced on Wednesday, the hon. member for Durban North discussed the Legodi case. He intimated that not one of us on this side of the House, not one of the legal men here, would be prepared to hold a different view in respect of this matter to the one he himself held. I want to tell him that I differ completely with him and with the hon. member for Houghton. I differ with them because I took the trouble—and it was very easy to do so—to ascertain the true facts in regard to this matter. I want to tell you immediately, Sir, that the hon. member for Houghton put certain questions in regard to the Legodi case here in this House. If one considers her questions, one sees that those questions were not put with a view to ascertaining facts. Her questions were put with a view to making propaganda against the State of South Africa.

The hon. member for Houghton sprang astride the Legodi horse like a Don Quixote, and the hon. member for Durban North, like the faithful old retainer, Sancho Panza, sprang astride the donkey behind, for he was afraid that she would perhaps make a little disclosure which he would not be able to make. He also forgot to do his homework, for if he had done it, he would never—I say never—have made those statements about the hon. the Minister of Justice in this House which he did in fact make on Wednesday evening. Those two hon. members both made Press statements, on various occasions, in which they furnished distorted facts. But, Sir, their distortions met with a response in the halls of the Sunday Times. I think that one finds the best reflection of the line of thought of hon. members on the opposite side in an article, a disgraceful article, which was written about Ephraim Legodi in the Sunday Times of 23rd April.

This article was a leading article, and one consequently assumes that it was written by the editor who is supposed to be a responsible person. His story, in brief, is as follows; and this is the U.P. line of thought; this is the story the U.P. tell in this House, and this was the basis of the attacks the U.P. launched on us in this House on Wednesday evening.The story goes as follows: In November of last year, Mr. Legodi went for a quiet innocent stroll in Johannesburg; a murder was committed before his eyes. Mr. Legodi, this newspaper says, was so public-spirited that he remained standing on that spot and waited for the Police to turn up. The Police then turned up, and took a statement from him. Suddenly, this newspaper claims, Mr. Legodi was a very important witness, and out of gratitude for his behaviour as a loyal citizen of our country, the Police suddenly picked him up and put him in gaol for 129 days, in solitary confinement. The newspaper went on to say that this is a disgrace to the State. Referring to Legodi, this newspaper states—

Sir, I want to tell you that according to the facts of this matter, a person could say: “This article corrupts, and this paper corrupts absolutely.” Let us consider the facts. I want to furnish as few as possible of the facts. I checked the facts, and this was easily done. But the hon. the Minister will at a later stage furnish the House with the full facts. I just want to point out to you that there are five misrepresentations, five distortions of the truth and incorrect assumptions here, and an absolutely unjustified conclusion.

Sir, the Sunday Times said that in November of last year Mr. Legodi was an eye-witness to a murder. If my hon. friends on the opposite side and the editor of the Sunday Times had taken a little more trouble, they would have found that last year. If he had made further inquiries, he would have discovered that the person concerned had been a man by the name of Mr. John Howell who was strolling innocently along the street, who had then been surrounded by a gang of tsotsis. He was robbed and stabbed to death with a knife, and left there. There was no-one at the scene of the crime subsequently— not Legodi, nor anyone else for that matter. Sir, this is supposedly the man who was taking such a leisurely stroll in Johannesburg. He was there; that is correct: but what did he say at the provisional hearing? The record of the provisional hearing is a public document. He said that he was not a member of the gang, although he knew all the people who were there by sight. But they implicated him. They said that not only was he a member of the gang, but that he participated in the murder, and that is why the Police arrested him. Where did the Police arrest him? He did not stand waiting at the scene of the crime, as the Sunday Times states. The Police arrested him in Hammanskraal, three months later, on 17th August; it was then that he was arrested for the first time. But listen to what the Sunday Times has to say about him—

Do you know what happened, according to Legodi himself? He said that he cleared off after the murder; he went into a darkened cinema. Sir, if a man flees after a murder and runs into a cinema, then he does so with only one object, and that is to mingle as quickly as possibly in the dark with a group of people so that he cannot be identified. This classic article, however, states further—

Sir, the story of Legodi was told by other Bantu who were arrested. The other gang members were arrested, and they told the Police that Legodi was one of them, and the Police then arrested Legodi. But, Sir, listen to what this newspaper says—

Do you know what really happened, Sir? At the provisional hearing the public prosecutor realized that he had to get one of these people to testify against his companions so that justice could be done in a case where a White person had been murdered in the streets of Johannesburg. He then asked Legodi whether he would testify for the State against his companions. Legodi agreed, and the Police granted him indemnity. After the indemnity had been granted, Legodi disappeared. He supplied the Police with a false address. He disappeared from the scene completely. They only caught up with him on 17th November in a different place altogether, in Diepkloof. But this article states—

No, Sir, he could give evidence in a criminal case; he was an accessory in this case. He gave the Police the false address, and then disappeared completely. When the Police got hold of him and questioned him again, it was quite clear that the other gang members had been working on him, and therefore the Police exercised their rights in terms of section 215, and what did they do? They went to the Attorney-General and requested Legodi’s detention in terms of section 215. But hear what this newspaper has to say—

Sir, the hon. member for Houghton put a question to the hon. the Minister. She asked whether anyone had been notified in regard to Legodi’s detention. This question is on record. A woman, by whom he had had two illegitimate children, was notified. The second part of the reply was that a cousin of his was notified. In fact, that cousin of his brought clothes to him in prison. But hear what this article goes on to say—

Sir, this is a misrepresentation of the Act. It is not a case of “suspected”; the Act provides that—

This is more than “suspect”. There must be a danger that such a person will be tampered with. The Attorney-General exercised his discretion in the implementation of his duty, and then this newspaper insinuates that this man had been thrown into gaol for no reason at all. The editor of this newspaper says—

Sir, I say that this editor acted in an absolutely irresponsible way. He owes an apology to the thousands of people who read this newspaper and who accepted these stories as facts. I tell you, Sir, I was shocked at this article. If these allegations had been true, it would have been a shocking state of affairs. I say that it is the hon. members on that side who did not do their homework and who echoed here in this House what the Sunday Times had said, who ought to resign, and not the hon. the Minister of Justice.

Mr. Chairman, I was very interested to hear the hon. member for Prinshof in his defence of the State’s action in the Legodi case. I am not interested in what the Sunday Times wrote; I have no responsibility for the article in the Sunday Times. What I want to know is why it was that the hon. the Minister, when he was asked questions in this House about Legodi, did not give the correct impression. Why did he not make a statement to the effect that Legodi was not just an innocent witness who happened to pass the scene of the crime? Sir, he made no effort whatsoever to correct the impression which had originally been created, and if conclusions were drawn from the hon. the Minister’s reply in this House, it was his own fault. He had every opportunity to put the matter right; why did he not do so? It is not the asking of questions about the State’s actions that gets this country into trouble; it is the answers that hon. Ministers give if they are not accurate. Sir, let me come back to the Legodi case. I did take the trouble, whenI knew that this matter was coming up in the House, to get extracts from the court record. I got the relevant extracts. It is absolutely true to say that the man was not the innocent witness as originally appeared. [Interjections.] Wait a minute!When he originally appeared before the court he was reported as being an innocent witness. Following on that I put questions to the hon. the Minister and he did nothing whatever to dispel the impression that had been created by the original report. But let me now tell this House that although Legodi was originally considered an accomplice, at the preparatory examination the public prosecutor decided that he was not an accomplice and the man made a statement to the Police and he was subsequently called as a witness. I have the judge’s statement in the case and I will read it verbatim—

I am quoting Mr. Justice Margo—

Now, let us continue and see what use it was to keep this man in solitary confinement for 129 days. I now continue reading what Judge Margo said—

Not even the judge, Sir, was apparently told. Then he goes on to say—

Now, Sir, what have you got to say about that? I place the onus on the hon. the Minister fairly and squarely for not disclosing the true facts in this case when he answered questions, and I further say that even so, even though he was originally arrested as a suspected accomplice, he later was not an accomplice, and the court decided that they could not accept his evidence for the simple reason that his evidence was suspect because of the circumstances in which this man had been held and he was sent from the court forthwith.

Now I want to say something about the system of keeping people in protective custody in this way. It would have been better for Legodi, in fact, if he had been treated as an accused. It would perhaps even have been better in the long run if he had been sentenced to a short term of imprisonment, because at least as an awaiting trial prisoner, and even as a convicted criminal, he would not have been kept in solitary confinement, and I want to know why all these people are as a matter of course, although the hon. the Minister can make regulations under section 215bis as to the manner in which such people are detained—why they are always, it appears, as a matter of practice, kept in solitary confinement. Will the hon. the Minister kindly answer that. As an awaiting trial prisoner, he would have had access to legal advice. He would have been allowed visitors. He would not have been in solitary confinement. He would have had all the privileges of an awaiting trial person, and indeed even as a convicted person. I think this system of keeping these witnesses in solitary confinement is an appalling system and it completely conflicts with the words of the hon. the Minister’s predecessor, the present Prime Minister, who stated, when that particular section was being discussed in the House— I have his words here—“that we will treat these people well and make things easy for them and we will make them as happy as possible”. Well, I want to know, if the hon. the Minister and the hon. member for Prinshof and the hon. the Minister of Police, who are all implicated in this, think that they make people as happy as possible by keeping them in solitary confinement until they are finally needed as witnesses? It is not only Legodi who was in this unfortunate circumstance. I got a very frank reply from the hon. the Minister, for the first time, I might say, in all the years that I have been putting questions on this. I heard this year that 25 warrants were issued under section 215bis last year by the Attorney-General, and 12 were issued in the first three months of this year, and a lot of the e witnesses were held because they feared for their safety and it was necessary to protect them. To me it is utterly cynical that they get protected before they give evidence, but who protects them after they have given evidence, when they are surely much more liable to be the victims of vengeance than they are before they have given their evidence Others were taken into protective custody because it was feared that they might abscond, and Legodi was one of those who was taken into protective custody because of the fear that he might abscond. I do not think the hon. member for Prinshof’s statement in this House makes the slightest difference to the case. The fact remains that it is true, as I say, that he was not just an innocent witness. All the same, this man who was going to give evidence for the State, was kept in solitary confinement for 129 days, and I want to know where the happy situation comes in which was promised to us by the hon. the Prime Minister when he introduced this clause. I have no apologies to make for originally asking the question, and I believe that the hon. the Minister owes this House an apology for misleading the House in the answers that he gave.

Now I want to ask the hon. the Minister about another matter. At the moment there are 274 banned people in South Africa, or rather that was the position as at 30th June last year, a number of whom are under house arrest, in one form or another. Three new house arrestees had their names tabled this year. I want to know how long ago it was since the hon. the Minister reviewed any of the long-standing cases of banning. There are people who have had five-year bans re-imposed for the second time. I want to know whether the Minister just leaves all these in the hands of the Special Branch, because I want to tell him that I think he ought to take note of the comments of the Appeal Court made in the Dean’s case, that none of the persons called as agents of the Special Branch, had been found to be reliable witnesses in regard to any matter which was in dispute. If that is the case as far as the Dean was concerned, how does the Minister know that the Special Branch and the evidence they give should not in fact be in dispute as far as all the people who are banned are concerned. These people are never given an opportunity to defend the charges that have been laid against them. They never even know what the charges are. Does the Minister not think the time has now come for a thorough independent review to be made by a three-man judicial commission or any other form of independent inquiry, despite the fact that the law itself does not lay this down, in order to make sure that there are not among the 274 people at present under restrictions in South Africa, any who are not there by virtue of frivolous or inaccurate or unreliable evidence given to the Minister by the Special Branch. [Time expired.]

I am really sorry the hon. member for Houghton did not have an opportunity of speaking before the hon. member for Prinshof. I think she would have made a complete fool of herself. But I shall leave it at that for the time being. I am actually rising to reply to the speakers so far, but I think it is desirable that I should, before doing so, say a few things. I should like to say that this debate, under the Vote of the Minister of Justice and of Prisons, ought to take place in a calm atmosphere. I think that this should be the case because whatever one says, one is saying things which affect people who find themselves in some or other unfortunate position. Either they have clashed with the law and have just appeared in court, or they are in prison. I said that I honestly think that that ought to be the correct tone to adopt. I have been here for almost 22 years now, and as far as I can remember, this has always been the case. I am talking about debates under the Votes. This was not the case with debates on the Bills. My predecessor, the present Prime Minister, introduced very drastic legislation, and harsh words were used across this floor. In my time as well drastic measures were piloted through and harsh words uttered. But I say that when we come to the discussion of the Vote, one should be a little careful how one does so and how one puts things. I want to say that during the almost six years I have been here it has been my experience that this was in fact what was done from the opposite side, in the days when the hon. member for the Transkei was the main speaker on the Vote. I cannot imagine, or recall, his ever going out of his way to say things which hurt or caused feelings to run high. I want to say this of the present main speaker: When he originally came here he made quite a favourable impression on me. [Interjections.] I may as well be quite honest now and say that many of my colleagues differed with me, but that was my own impression, and I think I was entitled to it. Subsequently I had the privilege of meeting his wife, and she made an equally favourable impression. She is a friendly and handsome woman. In the beginning things went well, but during the past two years there has been a change of spirit here in this House on the part of the Opposition main speaker on Justice matters. I remember very well what happened last year. At that stage already it had begun to assume a different complexion. Then, on Wednesday evening I experienced what could really happen, and discerned where this whole business is heading. I must say that I can draw no other conclusion but that the speaker behaved himself like a fishwife.

He is a very good speaker.

The hon. member says that he is a very good speaker. [Interjections.]

Mr. Chairman, on a point of order, is the hon. member for Parow entitled to refer to me as a fishwife? [Interjections.]

Order!

Mr. Chairman, may I just explain? When the hon. the Minister made a remark in regard to the hon. member for Durban North, the hon. member …

Order! I do not need any explanations. Did the hon. member say it?

I did not say it. I said: “He did not refer to you as a fishwife.”

The hon. the Minister may proceed.

Mr. Chairman, I want to mention a few terms which were used here to describe the conduct of the Minister to whom this task has been entrusted—a very difficult and responsible task. I want to say that the Department of Justice is a difficult department, and the Department of Prisons is not any the less difficult. These are two very, very difficult departments. I think that any person who aspires to occupying this position one day should be careful. I think that apart from the fact that he must to a certain extent have a knowledge of the law he should also have a measure of good manners. I have taken a few extracts from his speech and the words he used were, inter alia, as follows—

After all, he always speaks in superlatives. [Interjections.]

Order!

He said—

He then said the following with reference to the Legodi case—

He then went on to say—

He also said—

He went further—

I must resign immediately, at once. He also said to me—

He also said the following—

A little further on he said—

These were words he uttered. I am just mentioning this in passing before I reply to his questions. I want to say to the hon. member that if this is the tone in which he is going to conduct his debates with me, and if this is the way he is going to behave in future under this Vote, he will hear me for the last time this morning. I shall quite simply ignore him. [Interjections.]

Order!

I am saying this to his hon. Chief Whip who I know feels ashamed, and I know there are other hon. members as well who feel ashamed of this. I need not say who they are. I say that they may as well convey to his hon. Leader that if the hon. member continues to adopt this tone, it is all over between him and me as far as I am concerned.

I shall now reply to the first question put by the hon. member for Durban Point. I am using the word “honourable” for two reasons only. I am using it, in the first place, because the rules of the House expect it of me, and, in the second place, I am using it out of an ordinary feeling of decency. Those are the only reasons why I am using it. If it were not for this, I would not use it.

I now want to refer to the appointment of magistrates as judges. This is one of the first matters which the hon. member mentioned and in regard to which he used these vehement terms. I want to state how this matter originated, and I also want to sketch the history and background, for the hon. member took it sorely amiss of me for not having reacted.

The whole thing began at Tsumeb. I was privileged to have been called upon, on invitation, to open the magistrates’ offices at Tsumeb which had been rebuilt, modernized, enlarged and made far more comfortable. I was received in very friendly fashion, but that is by the way, I can mention that there was a very large audience. I was surprised at that. There were Whites and non-Whites, well-dressed. Among other things there was a group of non-White children who sang to us. I found it very interesting, and I appreciated it. I also want to say that I appreciated the arrangements and the conduct of the magistrate there. On that occasion, as one usually does, I made an ordinary speech which was entirely innocent. I said something about the town, and so on, and also something about the magistrate. When I had finished, a gift was handed over to me. The judge president of South-West Africa, Judge President Frans Badenhorst, was the speaker who preceded me. He made a very interesting and long speech. In this speech he pleaded amongst other things that the interests of magistrates should be well looked after. He referred to regional magistrates with the necessary qualifications. That I want to emphasize. He asked that the interests of these people should not be neglected. He said that it had already happened in the past, by way of exception, that officials had in fact been appointed. He then mentioned quite a number of examples. I shall refer to this again in a moment. He went further and said that he felt himself at liberty to raise the matter there for the simple reason that he was not the first person to talk about this matter. He referred to Judge President Beyers and said that he had, on the occasion of a congress of the Law Society of the Cape, at Beaufort West, expressed the idea that attorneys should be taken into consideration. He said, inter alia, that he knew of attorneys who were far better than some of the judges sitting on the Bench. You know, Sir, he states a matter in rather strong terms. Judge President Badenhorst made the speech preceding mine, and when he had finished speaking, I felt that I could not refrain from making any reference to the matter he had broached and that I should really say something in reply to his speech. I shall now tell the House what I said. I think I have a copy of that speech here. With reference to what the judge president said, I commented quite innocently that I noted with appreciation the high regard he had for our regional magistrates. I said that I had personal knowledge of the good work they were doing and of the good qualities they possessed. I also said that I was aware of the legal qualifications which they had. As hon. members may possibly know, they are required to have at least a B.A. LL.B. degree, in exactly the same way as practising advocates, or the Senior Public Service Examination law. I added that it was a matter which ought to receive serious consideration. I said that I hoped it would receive wider publicity, so that the matter could be discussed. I should like to repeat here in this House the precise words I used in concluding, for I think they are rather important. At a subsequent stage I had, upon request, to make what I had said available to the Bar Council. Let me do this all over again. My precise words were as follows (translation)—

I went further and expressed the hope that it would receive wide publicity. Then I said by way of conclusion and, I can almost say, in a humorous vein—

Those were my precise words. Let me just tell this story. After this function we were entertained to a mayoral luncheon. From thence I left on a few days holiday. I went to the game reserve and I also went to Oshikati and on to Ruacana. This function took place on a Tuesday, and the following Saturday I was back in Pretoria. Upon my return the week’s newspapers were lying there. I was curious to see the newspapers, for I had not heard any news for a week. I was on holiday in the wilderness. It is no use turning on the radio because of the poor reception. Upon my return I found a thick pile of newspapers lying there. I began to page through them. The first newspaper I picked up was the Star of the 21st. Now, all this had happened on the 20th. Let us see what the Star had to say. The headlines in the Star were “Legal honours”, and it was stated there that the writer conceded that there were certainly magistrates who were better than certain judges. The report went on to read—

The writer concluded the article by saying that this had not been the practice in the past. He also said that the appointment of advocates “was a practice based on principles and it should not be lightly discarded”. I have no fault to find with this. So far, so good. But strangely enough, the next newspaper I picked up was the Mercury of the 21st. As I expected, there was Mike Mitchell. But not only was he there, when I looked at the Daily News of the 21st, I saw, yes, there he was again, as large as life. I could see by the very headlines that this was fighting talk. I could see at once where it was leading. I then thought I had better read that report. I then read the following, which was attributed to Mr. Mitchell as being his own words. He said—

I have already told the House that he always speaks in superlatives. He then said—

Disgraceful!

In addition, he said—

He went further and said—

He said further—

That is what the hon. member had said. When I saw it, I thought that what was happening here was really an ugly business. The accusation had been levelled at me that I was going to appoint magistrates and that I was then going to manipulate them. The various Ministers and the Prime Minister could then just tell me in what way I had to manipulate them, and I would then do it. In other words, I had been accused by that hon. member. He said that I was obliged to furnish a reply, and that this House was the place where I should furnish that reply. As an accused I had to furnish the replies. Consequently I told him that I would do so. Because I had thought “No, I cannot speak for myself”, I waited a while, and then the hon. Justice Eksteen made a speech, I think in East London or Port Elizabeth, before the Law Society there. On that occasion he said various things. Now I want to say that after Mr. Justice Eksteen had delivered his speech before the attorneys in East London recently, I saw that indirectly or directly he was condemning the magistrates as such. Amongst other things he said, and the essence of his argument was. that officials were not independent and that, if the Government should appoint them, they would do what the German judges in Nazi Germany had done. In addition, he also said—

I then thought it is not only Mitchell who is accusing me, but the hon. Justice Eksteen as well; I am in an ugly position here. I thought I had better say nothing, for I could not speak for myself here. And so I said nothing.

The next thing that happened was that the Secretary of my Department, the head of my Department, who is in fact directly responsible, furnished a reply to this, and I shall refer to his statement in a moment. He made it clear that his reply was not concerned with the merits of the appointment of officials as judges, but with the insubs and derogatory remarks the judge had levelled at magistrates and officials of the Department. This was his intention. This is “the scandalous thing” he did, and which I had supposedly allowed. That is why “I should resign as Minister; I am not competent to hold office”, and I can quote a whole series of other similar statements.

I shall reply to you. [Interjections.]

You should resign.

You will have to reply by apologizing first. If you do not apologize first, I shall not listen to you. I then waited for the secretary to bring me the statement of the judge in question, and I studied it. I also studied the wording of the Press statement made by the Secretary for Justice. I must say that his statement was very controlled and civilized—as I have come to know him; the gentleman which he is—and I could find no fault with it. But I shall return to that in a moment.

I regarded the unfortunate incident as having been disposed of; I was quite prepared to do that. I thought, let me leave it at that. Now, however, the matter has taken another turn. The hon. member— oh I am again saying “hon. member”— the speaker on the other side broached this matter here. He demanded that I give him a reply. I could no longer keep quiet. I told him that I would furnish him with a reply. He compels me to state what my attitude and what my policy here is. I want to be very responsible, and I do not want to make any mistakes. My policy is that I. as responsible Minister, refuse to enter into a controversy in the Press with the Bench or its office holders at any level whatsoever. It is so vitally important that our administration of justice should remain elevated above the squabbles of everyday life that I prefer to endure accusations rather than to say anything or do anything which could tarnish the image of the judiciary or its office-bearers. That is why I said that I would in the interests of our courts have preferred to have forgotten about this unfortunate incident as well, but since I am now being compelled to adopt a standpoint, I shall do so. I must not be blamed for this. If any person is to be blamed, it is the main speaker of the Opposition on Justice matters. My policy further is that it is the task of the judge to administer justice and to officiate. When the judge presides in court and pronounces judgment, the Government and everyone concerned, including myself, accepts that judgment. For some the judgment is sometimes a source of great rejoicing, as happened again recently, and for others the same thing is less pleasant, but this is our system, and that is how I accept it. But judges do not only administer justice; they sometimes make speeches and express opinions on matters which are not their exclusive province. I have no fault to find with that. They probably have every right to air their opinions from public platforms if they so desire. I doubt whether it is always wise for a judge to do so. But in any case, it is their business. I leave it to them to make their choice. One thing I do want to say, however, and I should like the Committee to know this: If they express opinions in regard to matters in public they must sometimes expect to be contradicted. In court it is one thing, there they alone have the say, but outside, all power to speak, so that others are excluded, is not their right. That is my view. So let us understand one another well. If they prefer to make use of public platforms then they do it in the same way as any other person, with the risk of being criticized and contradicted. If they choose to become involved, then they must endure the blows meted out to them.

I studied the hon. Mr. Justice Eksteen’s speech, as I said, and as I also said, I would have preferred to have said nothing about it, but I am now being compelled to discuss it. It is my humble opinion that this was a most unfortunate reflection on the independence of our inferior courts, and a reprehensible reflection not only on our practising magistrates but also on a judge who is at present still serving, and on numerous retired judges who were appointed as judges from the Public Service. I say that this is a reflection on them. I am not simply making statements; I saw an advocate’s opinion, which was submitted to me, and I may add that this is an advocate outside the Public Service. He is a senior advocate, and I think he can speak with greater authority than the main speaker on Justice on the opposite side. It is very clear from this advocate’s opinion that the judge made certain slanderous allegations. Then I want to add: It is also clear to me that his facts are not always correct. What was the essence of his argument? The essence of his argument was that officials do not have a background of fearless independence; that they simply do not have. As he put it, the danger is that if they are appointed as judges, they will succumb to pressure and pervert law and justice. That is the implication. Now, our magistrates are officials. If they, when they are freed of the Public Service yoke, and when they are elevated to the office of judges, cannot then be fearlessly independent and will then continue to succumb to what the Government wants, and apparently to what the Minister of Justice and perhaps the head of the department wants, then surely it is an elementary deduction to say that the whole lot of them, all the practicing magistrates, are succumbing at the moment and that, instead of administering justice, they will first want to ascertain what the Government has to say about it. That is the conclusion one must draw. Who can have any confidence in our Government if the judge’s statements are correct? Sir, if any person—I do not care whether it is a judge or a Minister or who it is—does our administration of justice such a disservice, then I really find it extremely disappointing.

Now I want to ask: What is the further implication? If it is true that they as officials are not free when they administer justice, will they behave any differently when they are members of the judiciary one day? After all, it can only be the judiciary which will force them; that is the conclusion one has to draw. If one reads this hon. judge’s speech, and combines it with that of the main speaker on Justice on the opposite side, then I immediately become principal accused in this case. That is what it amounts to. Now you can understand why I kept quiet. Today the main speaker on the opposition side says that I should—or that I should have done this a long time ago—say whether or not I influence them. That is what he is actually saying, and he takes it amiss of me for not speaking, or rather for not having spoken out before. You see, Sir, he does not know what it is all about. That is the whole problem. Mr. Justice Eksteen implied that the Government influences or prescribes to—call it what you will; the result is the same—magistrates; magistrates are subject to some or other kind of coercion obstruction in their administration of justice; they are not “fearlessly and independent”. Whether the Government frightens them or what is supposed to happen here, I really cannot say. I can only say that in my time this has not happened. I also know that it did not happen in my predecessor’s time. I assume that it did not happen previously under the National Party Government either. But I should like to see the day when the United Party comes into power and the main speaker on the opposite side becomes Minister of Justice. He will take over the court himself! Sir, I have more respect for our law than to be a judge in my own case. I cannot here, where I am the principal accused, also be the judge and pronounce judgment on what is correct and what not. Judging from the expression on the hon. member’s face, this is still not getting through to him. He said that I would manipulate them; the judge said they were not fearlessly independent, and that if they were elevated, they would possibly succumb to pressure. From those two facts it has to be deduced that I am an accused, for I am after all the responsible Minister. My attitude is that I do not want to pronounce judgment where I am the accused; other people must pronounce judgment.

Now I should like to quote a statement. You must please excuse me, Sir—I had it with me here, but I cannot seem to lay my hands on it right away. I should like to have this statement on record, and that is why I am going to read it in its entirety. It was released at midnight on the 25th August, 1971, and it read as follows (translation)—

The judge said—

I just want to say in passing that the main speaker on the Opposition side adopted the same tone. He said that I wanted to tarnish and destroy this wonderful jewel which still remained in our system. He said: “He wants to break it down; he wants to destroy it.” The statement reads further—

To mention only two; I shall in a moment add the names of quite a few more—

The following is a very fair conclusion—

I want hon. members on the opposite side who are interested in figures, to consider the latest report of the Department of Justice. A limited number—I think 33 000, both criminal and civil—were heard in the Supreme Court, and if I am not mistaken, almost 1 400 000 were heard in our magistrates’ courts. Must we now conclude things went satisfactorily only in those 33 000 cases, and that in all these other cases magistrates are subject to pressure in their work and that they receive instructions through me, as channel, from the Government? I quote further—

This is indeed a disturbing insinuation, the more so if it is borne in mind that most criminal as well as civil cases are in fact tried in the magistrates’ courts. Mr. Justice Eksteen is the first judge, to my knowledge, who has delivered himself of such derogatory comment on the judicial work of our magistrates. On the contrary, I have at my disposal growing numbers of testimonials concerning magistrates furnished by judges and other jurists, who enjoy very high esteem in legal circles. I have been authorized by the central committee of the Magistrates’ Association to deny on their behalf that there is intervention at any time with the judicial discretion of magistrates by the Minister or the head of the department, and to say that they are as free as any judge to pronounce their judgement on the evidence led and under the laws of the country and in accordance with their oath of office.

Then he went on to say-—

It is clear that others did in fact draw this conclusion. They did draw this conclusion. On 11th August, after the speech had been made, Die Burger said—

On the same day the Rand Daily Mail stated

The Eastern Province Herald said—

The Secretary for Justice went on to say—

It is a reflection on our administration of justice as a whole. After all, our magistrates are also proud of a tradition of independence and impartiality extending over a period of many years. The Secretary for Justice went on to say—

Incidentally, Sir, he quoted the name incorrectly; it is not “Maurice Fitzgerald” as he called him; it is “Gerald Fitzmaurice”.

I want the main speaker on that side on Justice matters to know this. Those two judges were both public servants. They were in the departments of foreign affairs of their respective countries. They were not judges on the Bench. They were not practising advocates. The statement goes on to say—

Sir, I can find no fault with that. I agree 100 per cent with this. Now I just want to say this. I think that the right man to have made the statement was the Secretary for Justice. I could not do so, and then I was accused by the hon. member for Durban North and Mr. Justice Eksteen. I just want to say, in all fairness, that I stated at the outset that a metamorphosis is to be observed in the main speaker of the Opposition. I am looking for something now, and. I want to see if I can find it because it is important. The year before last we dealt with the matter of protest control in this House. That was still before this new metamorphosis began to take place. Now I just wanted to show you what the main speaker on the Opposition side had to say at the time. I must find it, for it is priceless. No, I cannot find it now, but I just want to say in passing that when I proposed that magistrates as well as the municipalities should grant consent for processions through their streets, that speaker expressed an opinion on that matter as well. I cannot give you his precise words, because I cannot find them, but what they amounted to was that he said that officials, such as magistrates and in particular chief magistrates, were the only officials who were absolutely independent. He said they could not be influenced; he said they would not listen to a Minister, and he said that the Minister of Justice—apparently as he knew me to be at the time—was the last person who would try to influence them, and he said they supported it wholeheartedly, for if those people were there they would hear evidence from both sides and would then pronounce judgment on the basis of their own opinion. But now he states in the Daily News that we will manipulate things. But in fairness to him I want to say that when I returned and saw what a row was being kicked up about this matter, I wondered why this should be the case, for I had said nothing unusual, and I telephoned the broadcasting service on Monday and asked for the precise words which they had broadcast. They then gave me what they had said about Mr. Justice Badenhorst, and they added that as far as I am concerned there had been only a brief report. They referred first to Judge President Badenhorst, and then said the following about me [translation]—

Sir, let me say this—and you must accept my word for it, for it is correct—that these are not the precise words which I originally used. [Interjections.]

Why did you not correct it?

There is a good reason why I did not do so. On that Saturday already I read that he had placed me in the dock, and I could not speak then. Apart from that, let me say this.

So we must never attack a Minister because he cannot defend himself? What nonsense!

What kind of impression would it have made if I had, a week after he had kicked up such a fuss, informed the broadcasting service that they should broadcast a statement to the effect that that was not precisely what I had said. I did not express that hope. He would immediately have said that I had changed my mind, and therefore I did not do it. It was too late, and I had already been placed in the dock by the hon. member. But now I want to say something else. I must mention that a considerable number of people have been elevated to the Bench who never practised as advocates. I want to present a list of them. The most well known one, and the youngest in our history, is the man to whom reference was made earlier in the debate on Wednesday evening, Appeal Judge Botha. I want to say of Appeal Judge Botha that I think he is rendering excellent service. There is no doubt about that. It makes no difference whether he finds for or against us—he is rendering excellent service, and I am proud of him. I must say I was equally proud of a man such as Dr. L. C. Steyn, the former Chief Justice. I think that he is one of the most brilliant jurists and judges we have ever had on the Bench. The Secretary for Justice has already referred to the late judge of appeal, Mr. Justice Toon van den Heever. That man had a wonderful brain. In addition there was Mr. Justice Brebner, there was Mr. Justice Bok and Mr. Justice Rosenow. But to come closer to home as far as he is concerned, I want to say that this is not an unusual occurrence in Natal either. There it has also been done already. It is Ellison Kahn who says this. He wrote quite a decent article and he also adopted the standpoint that the mere fact that a man is an official ought not to count against him. But what happened in Natal? Mr. Justice William Broome was a public servant for years.

When was that? About 100 years ago?

It is Mr. Ellison Kahn who mentioned him as an example, not I. I am merely reading what he said. He also mentioned the name of Mr. Justice Beaumont. He said of him that “He had not an iota of formal legal training, but this was not unusual in the Natal judiciary”. I just want to state this man’s history, according to Ellison Kahn. He said “From the army he went to the magistracy and then to the Supreme Court of Natal”.

When was that?

He says it was in 1902. But he mentioned other people, such as Gardiner and Mr. Justice Matthews. But take another case. Do you remember the famous jurist, the outstanding man we had in this country, the man who shaped our law? Do you remember Lord De Villiers? Do you know that Lord De Villiers was a public servant? He was an Attorney-General of the Cape, and his appointment was so unpopular that he could not find another judge before whom he could affirm his oath. Do you know that he was obliged, so I am told, to stand before the Bench, then ascend to the Bench, administer the oath and then come down and affirm the oath himself? He subsequently became Chief Justice of the Cape Province, and after that of South Africa as well, and was probably one of the brightest stars we ever had.

They made him a peer.

And in London he was, to crown it all, made a member of the Peerage.

I am merely mentioning this to point out that this idea is not all that absurd. I want to quote something else. I hope I can in my haste lay my hand on it quickly. I want to recount what happened in Rhodesia, and now hon. members must not laugh at Rhodesia. In Rhodesia they appointed, as they call it, a judge’s commission to investigate the entire matter of the appointment of judges. I should like to inform you of what that commission’s findings were, and what report they subsequently submitted. Unfortunately I cannot lay my hands quickly enough on the document in question, and I apologise for taking up so much time with this matter, but it is important; it affects us and it embarrasses all our magistrates. Not only does it embarrass the magistrates, but it harms our administration of justice. I must therefore take up the time of the Committee in this connection. Nevertheless I am sorry about this, and I apologise for doing so. The commission consisted of Sir Hugh Beadle and, I think, Mr. Justice Broome, as well as two practising advocates, both of them Q.C.s, and one official who acted as secretary. The commission reported that when it came to the appointment of judges, regional magistrate with the necessary experience and qualifications should be taken into consideration. This is what happened in Rhodesia. I do not want to express an opinion on it as to whether it is right or wrong, but I do want to say that Rhodesia is in this fortunate position that they can make this kind of appointment for the simple reason that they do not have a Mike Mitchell there as we do here. [Interjections.]

Order!

Now I come to the Legodi case, about which the hon. the main speaker on that side had a great deal to say. The hon. member for Musgrave also referred to it and said “he talked facts”. I think that is what he said. I say that I have my suspicions that the hon. member who is sitting here, has intentionally manipulated her questions in such a manner that she has just said enough to make the headlines.

But why do you not make a statement?

No, the hon. member should not start chattering now. She should sit quite still. I really felt unhappy when the hon. the main speaker on the Opposition side brought up the Legodi case here. I thought this really was not the right thing to do, as this was, after all, Helen’s province, the hon. member for Houghton’s province. The hon. member for Prinshof furnished the facts to a large extent. This question of this person having been an “innocent witness”, as the hon. member for Houghton and the main speaker on the Opposition side suggested—this is what I should like to take further. The two hon. members who asked questions in that regard and have now referred to it again, are apparently slightly confused. Through their irresponsible action, as was pointed out by an hon. member on this side, they did us tremendous harm. It will not be possible to wipe out the headlines she made, and which he too made in The Cape Times yesterday and, I think, in other newspapers abroad as well. I could submit the true facts to the Committee, but she has achieved her object.

Like what?

I should like to do the hon. member an injustice, and perhaps I am also saying too much. However, I want to say that I do not think she would be very worried if it happened to do us any harm. In saying this, I am putting it very mildly.

It is up to you to put it right.

It is up to me to put it right?

Yes.

You never gave me an opportunity.

An opportunity?

Wait a bit. You framed your questions in such a way …

Could you not make a statement?

Order!

It is very certain that nothing that is said here today, will be published by the London Times and the other newspapers.

In any case, it is still a question of keeping a witness in solitary confinement.

I say the hon. member for Houghton has a very bad habit. I have always remained absolutely quiet whenever she speaks. Occasionally I may have had something to say, but other than that I have remained absolutely quiet. If she wants to be honest, she will admit that this had been the attitude adopted by me. However, she has the habit of chattering away all the time when someone else is speaking. [Interjections.] Therefore, if she wants a reply now, she should keep quiet, please. Give me the opportunity to speak now. Surely this is fair enough. [Interjections.]

Do not be like a fishwife.

Mr. Chairman, on a point of order, is the hon. member for Prinshof allowed to say that I must not be like a fishwife? [Interjections.]

I beg your pardon?

Is the hon. member for Prinshof allowed to say I must not be a fishwife?

Be like a fishwife.

Be like a fishwife.

If the hon. member said so, I want to ask the hon. member to withdraw the word “fishwife” or “viswyf”.

Sir, in that case I do not understand, for I said she should not be like a fishwife. Am I merely to say now that I withdraw the word “fishwife”?

I must point out that I do not want the word “fishwife” to be used in this House again. It is unparliamentary. [Interjections.]

I withdraw it. [Interjections.]

You have not withdrawn it.

He has.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member has not withdrawn.

He has. Of course he has.

I did not hear it. [Interjections.]

I am satisfied he has. The hon. the Minister may proceed.

Mr. Chairman, let me furnish the facts now.

Mr. Chairman, may I ask whether the hon. member has withdrawn those words?

I am satisfied that the hon. member withdrew the words. I was under the impression he did. The Minister may proceed.

Mr. Chairman, may I ask whether he did withdraw the words?

Order! The hon. member did withdraw the words. I then said I did not want to hear that word being used in this House.

Mr. Chairman, let me now present the picture to those people who are interested in the truth about the Legodi case. I should like to do so without being interrupted by the hon. member for Houghton. On 21st May, 1971 …

Speak up!

I am speaking up; you should just listen.

We cannot hear.

Oh, please, you are deaf. Mr. Chairman, let me now furnish hon. members with the facts. I can see now what is going on. They are ashamed of what has happened up to now. I think the hon. member for Pinelands, in particular, is ashamed. [Interjections.] I do not know, but my suspicions are that the hon. member ought to be ashamed. I think he has the decency to be ashamed. The facts of the Legodi case are as follows: On 21st May, 1970, the corpse of a certain John Cowell was found with stab wounds in his chest and his neck. Robbery was obviously the motive. The hon. member for Prinshof said that nobody had been there, and it would also appear from this that nobody had been there. During August, 1971, a certain Solomon Kumalo and Zachariah Makihita and Legodi were arrested. Some time later, on 21st October, another person, namely Kenneth Wilson, was arrested. On 30th March, 1972 Kumalo was convicted of murder and robbery and sentenced to 12 years’ imprisonment. Makihita was convicted of robbery and sentenced to eight years’ imprisonment. Wilson was acquitted and discharged. On 17th August, 1971, Legodi was arrested at Hammanskraal on a charge of murder. His mother was present and she was informed as to where he would be detained. On the same day an uncle of his was informed of the events in Johannesburg by the Police. Legodi was subsequently charged with murder along with the other accused. On 4th November, 1971, during the preliminary enquiry, it was decided to call Legodi as a State witness. In his evidence he claimed that another Bantu man had had a hand in the murder. He undertook to point out that person. This was subsequently arranged with the Police, and he was released. They were to meet one another at a certain place. Legodi had no fixed address. Furthermore, he was unemployed, and it was clear to the Police that he had been influenced to deny his evidence, i.e. after he had been arrested again. On 8th November an application was made to the Attorney-General for his detention in terms of section 215. The Attorney-General notified me immediately. On 9th November, 1971, a Bantu woman, by whom he had two children, was informed of his. detention. On the same day a cousin of his was also informed and requested to take clean clothes to Legodi. Legodi was visited by a magistrate on 18 occasions and the latter had interviews with him. On three additional occasions he had gone out with the Police and the magistrates could not have interviews with him. Not on one of these 18 occasions on which he was spoken to, did Legodi request that persons should visit him, although he had sent messages to this effect to people. It is correct that the magistrates are not required to make a report to the Attorney-General after visits paid to a detainee. However, there is an existing departmental rule—I assume this was introduced by my predecessor—that if, in the course of such a visit, the slightest irregularity is noticed, this is to be reported to the departmental chief, for the information of the Minister. This was not done. They never found anything wrong. I was asked what amount of money had been paid to him; I replied that R140 had been paid to him. A subsequent question was whether he had been remunerated for work. I replied in the negative. The fact of the matter is that this person was unemployed. It is also a fact that if he could produce today a certificate from an employer stating that he was in regular employment there and what his regular wages were, he could still apply today and then his wages would be paid out to him. But this will, of course, have to be proved. It cannot simply be accepted just like that. There was, therefore, no injustice in this regard.

As I have said, this thing has done us a great deal of harm. This is the case as a result of the fact that the hon. member for Houghton has been asking a question of this nature every now and then, and when she rises the next day, she simply goes on talking about Legodi. This is more or less the theme of what has happened. Then it is published in leading articles in the newspapers. To suggest now that Legodi was simply thrown into a cell and locked up there, is the biggest nonsense in the world. With people of this kind …

[Inaudible.]

I do not want any more chattering now. People of this kind are usually detained at the police stations. Tobacco and various other things were given to him. What he wanted, was given to him. Reading matter was given to him. This is the solitary confinement this poor man had to endure. This is their wont. After all, he had proved to the police on a previous occasion that they were tampering with him. When he was released the first time in order to point out the other person, he denied it again after his recapture. At that stage it was clear to the police that this person was allowing himself to be influenced and that they had to keep him in solitary confinement. They kept him in solitary confinement under the best circumtances possible. I say that he was kept in solitary confinement under good circumstances. If the hon. member for Wynberg does not want to accept it this way, it is her business. I am charged with matters of this nature, and I think I know more about them than that hon. member does. She can take part in the debate later on; she is free to do so.

Now let us come to the questions put by the hon. member for Houghton. What did she ask me the first day? In the first place, she asked me the following on 18th April—

You see, Sir, how limited the question is. My reply was—

The next day there was a report which made the headlines—

So he was.

This report went on to say—

There was also an article in the Rand Daily Mail. In the Argus there was a subleader in which this was said—

Surely she did say so.

You said it.

She took the entire English Press in tow, including the editors.

You said he was a witness.

But, surely, I have just replied to the hon. member’s question. The lady should really try to control herself. My reply was—

Well?

Well, what!

Well, does that not give the impression that he was a witness

No, it does not mean anything at all. It only means that you achieved your aim.

Nonsense!

Mr. Chairman, of course, the Rand Daily Mail also had a leading article. She took it in tow, too. She took the Argus here in tow. Here I have … oh, I would only bore the House with all these things. All one finds is references to “this innocent witness”. The main speaker on the Opposition side used the same words. I have them here. Unfortunately my papers are in a bit of a disorder, but I think I shall be able to find it. He used the same words. These are the words he used in this House on Wednesday evening—

Here I have the Daily News, but I have something else for her too. Here I have the Eastern Province Herald, which only had an ordinary report. The Daily News carried a leading article. I also have here a cartoon which will interest hon. members. It depicts a person sitting behind bars and saying: “I am here for a suspected crime.” Legodi, on the other side, says: “And I am here for being suspected of being a witness.” This is what the English Press publishes. Then we also have the sordid article published in the Sunday Times.

Serves you right.

This is a sordid article which has already been dealt with by the hon. member for Prinshof, and I am not going to make any further references to it. A full week later the hon. member asked me—and hon. members should listen attentively now—

My reply was—

When I had finished, I stood waiting for her to put a question, but she remained absolutely quiet.

You must still answer.

This was followed once again by a number of extracts from newspapers and statements by them. At a later stage she put a further question—

My reply read as follows—

If the hon. member thinks that I am going to make a “statement”, as she has asked me to do, then she is quite mistaken. The Eastern Province Herald published one of the most reasonable articles of them all. The Cape Times also had a leading article on this matter. I had thought that it would not refrain from commenting on it. I quote—

It carried on in that vein, and then it said—

The hon. member for Durban North used the same words—

After all, these are the same words which were used by the main speaker on that side—

Then there was another question, namely—

My reply was, with reference to the compensation for wages: “No, this was not paid.” He had not yet applied, and had not yet produced the necessary evidence. There were no further questions. Now the hon. member for Houghton, who asked this lot of questions, should tell me at what stage I was supposed to make a statement.

Yes, of course.

The first time she asked me whether the Attorney-General had issued a certificate. I suppose I should have said “yes”, etc., at that stage. Why did she not at any stage ask me to make a statement? Often, when questions are put, this question is also asked: “Will the Minister make a statement?”

[Inaudible.]

You never did it; you purposely did not do it. [Interjections.] Sir, I shall tell you what happened. Questions were put here, and just a short while after that …

May I ask whether the hon. the Minister has to be asked whether he will make a statement before he makes a statement? I did not ask him because I accepted what he said, that the man was …

Sir, it is, of course, not necessary for any Minister to wait. With the consent of Mr. Speaker a Minister may simply make a statement out of the blue, and he may also do so in reply to a question. But there must at least be some kind of reason for doing so. Something must be indicated; for instance, one may be told: “This is a strange case.” But she never indicated that it was a strange case. [Interjections.] She and the leader of those members opposite did not make one inquiry; they were only too pleased that she had asked such an innocent question, and then went straight to the Press. Then we had headlines here and overseas, and the world was told: “South Africa is bad.” That was the second major attack made by that side, and that was done in regard to a sordid matter like this one. That, then, disposes of the Legodi case; what more is there for me to say?

Now I come to section 215B.

215bis.

Yes, 215bis. The hon. member said I had to say here at once whether we were going to withdraw it and whether we were going to introduce a General Law Amendment Bill in this regard this year. Then he carried on here in a terrible manner; he wanted me to react to it at once. Sir, that is the hon. member’s idea of how things are in a Government. He thinks this is the way a Government acts. But I do not take it amiss of him, for just think how stupid are they? When last did they hold a Cabinet meeting? Let us be realistic now. As a result of this, I must make certain concessions. We have now been governing for 24 years.

And you are so arrogant about it.

No, wait; I shall tell you what the point at issue is. I know how things were before that time, up to 1948. I am referring in particular to the war years and a little after that. Do you know how Cabinet meetings were held at the time, Sir—when they were in fact necessary? There were only two persons, the late Gen. Smuts and the late Jan Hendrik Hofmeyr

And Harry Lawrence.

I do not know what part was played by Mr. Lawrence, but these were the two men who took the decisions in the United Party. If they should possibly experience the misfortune of having to form the Government—be it with the Black people or without them—then I shall tell you, Sir, what would happen. Incredible as it may seem, they would have to go and ask Mr. Waters on how to hold a Cabinet meeting.

Or Harry Lawrence.

Yes, they could ask him too. I fully believe that Mr. Harry Lawrence, or Mr. Waterson, would have to be present at their first Cabinet meeting, because they do not know how a Cabinet meeting is held; they do not know how Government decisions are taken. That is the trouble with them, and one must therefore make certain concessions. It has just occurred to me that they would possibly be able to ask Major Piet van der Bijl as well. [Interjections.] That is why I say, therefore, that in part I cannot blame the hon. member, but he may not speak to me like that and say: “Look here, you must do this or that now.” That is something he should stop doing. Now I want to tell him what the answer is. The Botha Commission was appointed by me; I appointed him on my own initiative. He was given special facilities in order that his work might be expedited. He is a person who works at a tremendous pace. The work was completed in almost record time. I have admiration for the way in which this person did his work. His report was subsequently sent out in order to obtain the comments of the public, of the legal profession, of members of the judiciary, of the Law Society and of all interested parties. We wanted to give the people enough time for this purpose, especially since we were in the fortunate position that the commission had completed its work so soon. We gave them time until 31st March, and right up to the end we were still receiving representations from various quarters. Sir, When one receives representations, one may not simply leave them in one’s desk or throw them into the wastepaper basket; one has to study them. I have really not had the time to glance through all those things. Why should I do it? I have a competent department for giving consideration to things of this nature, and that is why these matters are left to them. The practice is for them to come to me with a submission after they have considered the representations. Whenever they receive representations in which certain valid points are made, or which have to be investigated further, this is brought to my notice in their submission. In cases where the representations are of no significance or where certain points are raised which have already been covered, those representations are put aside. Of course, when I receive the submission, I have to submit it to the Cabinet, and then we see whether we should accept the report. At the moment the department is engaged in examining these representations. They will submit a report to me in due course. I do not know when that is going to be. I hope that it will be soon, for I should like to introduce the measure next year, if the Cabinet approves the report of the commission. What has to happen first, is that the report of the commission has to be approved by the Cabinet. I have not received the submission as yet, and consequently I cannot say at this stage which recommendations will be approved and which will not be adopted. It is therefore impossible to furnish the main speaker on the other side with a decisive reply at this stage. This is the reply as far as that matter is concerned. I cannot say “yes”, nor can I say “no”. The Cabinet has to consider the matter first, and I hope that we shall be able to introduce the Bill next year.

What about the banned people?

I shall deal with that in a moment. I have decided, after the performance we had here the other evening, that I shall take enough time to reply. Sir, I think that in saying this, I have at the same time replied also to the question of the hon. member for Musgrave, who told me that I had to reply to his question. He lost his temper to a certain extent. The hon. member looks funny when he loses his temper. Sir, I shall reply straight away to the hon. member for Houghton’s question concerning restricted people. The hon. member referred to “banned people”. The correct word is “restricted”. The hon. member wants to know whether the question of restricted people was being reviewed from time to time. The answer is “yes”, it is reviewed from time to time. I have just received a note from the department this moment; I may perhaps furnish the Committee with the figures; I shall see in a moment. Last year, especially, we released a large number of people. I do not know whether this appears in the Gazette. This is in fact possible; I would not be able to say. This question is reviewed from time to time. As regards the request that it should be done by an independent commission, my reply is that this is nonsense. Why should an independent commission pry into our security documents? I am not going to do this. I want to tell the hon. member that the communists have wormed their way into places which would surprise most people. For all I know, a communist may have access to those documents.

What about a judicial commission?

The answer is that on 30th April, 1972, there were 237 restricted persons, and of these 237 persons 18 were abroad; in other words, this gives one a total figure of 219 in the Republic of South Africa. And then it is stated here that 34 were withdrawn during the past 12 months. [Interjections.] Then there are 83 that were not renewed upon expiry. [Interjections.] Twenty-one were relaxed during the past year. Sometimes they make representations to me, and then I consider all the circumstances. I hope the hon. member for Houghton is grateful. These are the particulars in regard to this matter.

I think there was still one other question on Mr. Justice Steyn. The hon. member for Musgrave said I had to reply on Mr. Justice Steyn. He was angry. He thought I would say nothing. He wanted to make it clear to me that I was up against the wrong person. I shall see whether I can find something in that regard. I have read the newspaper report on Mr. Justice Steyn. I want to say, first of all, that what I said about Mr. Justice Eksteen, also holds good for Mr. Justice Steyn. When this gentleman passes judgment on the Bench, we accept it without saying a word, but when this gentleman speaks outside and clashes with people or bodies, he should not take it amiss if the matter were taken up with him. I have read it. The hon. Mr. Justice Steyn makes many speeches, and these are mainly concerned with—and in this respect he is his mother’s child, who was a person who took a great interest in this work—crime prevention and things of that nature. He makes many speeches on these matters and is interested in social conditions. I have read through his speeches and have found that there is absolutely nothing in them, absolutely nothing.

How can you say that?

I can say it. I say there is absolutely nothing in them. He makes the same kind of speech every time. They are published here and they are published there, but it is always the same story. Now, that is his business; it is not my business; but he is not on the Bench and I am entitled to state my views on the matter. There is nothing in them, and I say this for this reason. In the first place, there is not one single punishment mentioned by Mr. Justice Steyn, nor any line of thought referred to by him, for which provision has not already been made in our Code— not a single one. He may do this and he may do that, and he may do anything. There was the case of Magistrate King, who recently sentenced a person to working for the Red Cross. Such a sentence is quite in order; there is nothing wrong with it. As far as the legislation is concerned, i.e. what statutory reforms we are to effect in order to achieve his objectives, I would not be able to say. I say that in our Code provision has been made for any punishment which a judge may feel inclined to impose.

Change the law.

Change the law?

Yes, the pass laws.

But you are talking nonsense. That does not mean that we must change the procedure.

But, speaking of pass laws, I want to say that my colleague made provision not for changing the pass laws, but for implementing influx control in a different manner and for turning people away to a certain extent so as to be of assistance to them in the bureaux which are being established. I believe that they will make very rapid progress in that regard this year. That effort is being made.

The hon. judge mentioned figures and said that for every 100 000 people we had 417 people in prison. He said we were to compare this with the position in a country such as the Netherlands, where 20 or 25 out of every 100 000 people were in prison. When he said this, the members of his audience opened their eyes wide. They could not believe it. [Interjections.] I shall read out to the hon. member what was said here; what I am saying, is not simply unfounded. I quote—

That does not mean I do not believe it.

Oh, do not talk nonsense. What does it mean? It has exactly the same effect, for it means that the people stared wide-eyed. They were amazed at hearing this. He went on to say—

It sounds fine, and this is indeed a low figure. What was he comparing? Surely he was not comparing the same thing. He was comparing the homogeneous populations of Britain, France, the Netherlands, etc., with the entire population of South Africa. Unfortunately he was making the same mistake which the United Party is making by wanting to take the various population groups together.

But there are 50 million people in Britain. [Interjections.]

That is quite correct. There are 50 million people in Britain, and I have visited the very best prisons of those people and I know what is going on. But whether there are 50 million or whether there are 14 million or whether there are 2 million, the fact remains that we are working here with a ratio of so many out of 100 000 people. The size of the population does not make the least difference to that ratio. What is more, those are populations with a tremendous tradition and history. These go back over centuries. However, let us leave the matter at that. I do not want to make a point of it; I am just pointing it out in passing. Surely he cannot compare it in our case, with our Whites, Coloureds, Indians and Bantu all taken together. After all, this is an unfair comparison. Incidentally, I want to point out that he said that for every 100 000 people in the Netherlands 25 were in prison. However, do you know what the position is there? They have approximately 6 500 prisoners inside the prisons, but do you know how many prisoners they have outside the prisons? They have 20 000 outside the prisons. In other words, their prison population is 26 000. If one multiplies that figure of 25 proportionately, one arrives at a figure quite different from 25 out of every 100 000. They have a different system in terms of which people are put on probation. Here we have a system of probation. Why do we not do the same? Am I to prescribe to the judges that they are to put people on probation? Am I to tell the inferior courts that they are to see to it that they put these people on probation? If we do put them on probation, by whom are they to be taken on probation? My standpoint is that this must be the same organization which Mr. Justice Steyn has, the Institute of Crime Prevention and Rehabilitation of Offenders. One could put such a person on probation. That would be a very good thing. If this organization would, on its own initiative, recruit people of high standing and integrity for taking such persons on probation, I am telling you, Sir, that under our existing system there is nothing to prevent any court from doing so. It is true that the judge knows about this. Hon. members are fond of referring to “pick-up people”. Are they aware that the head of the department sent a circular to the magistrates, not an instruction, in which he asked the magistrates to be so kind as to give consideration to this matter? He pointed out all the possible penalties and wanted to know whether they, as the persons administering justice and as presiding officers, would not in cases of this nature apply the short-term sentences in such or such a manner.

Mr. Chairman, may I ask the hon. the Minister a question? Does the hon. the Minister not agree that South Africa’s prison population is high? Whether you compare the figures with those of other countries or not, is beside the point. South Africa’s prison population is high. If he does agree, does he, as Minister of Justice, intend to take any steps to remedy the position?

No, the hon. member has now interrupted me to a certain extent, but I shall reply to it. I should perhaps have mentioned that if one took our White population, the figure would not be 417 per 100 000.

That is not the population.

That is not the population—there you are! Look, surely one should compare similar cases and not dissimilar ones. I say that if one takes the Whites, it is not disproportionate at all, for there are so many countries which have a figure of 81 or 82,5 per 100 000. I have had ours worked out, and I think it is 86.

But what about the non-Whites?

Wait a minute. I think it is 86 and I do not regard it as being disproportionate at all. I regard it as being very reasonable as compared to other White countries with the same standard of civilization. If that is done, there is nothing strange about it, for we are on the same level as others are. I had it worked out carefully in order to get the figures. While I was taking that tour, I had the figure and worked it out at every place I visited. I took our figure of 86 per 100 000 in respect of the Whites, and we compared very favourably. I had these figures checked this morning. The other two figures that are nearest are 82,5 and 81. Our figure of 86 is therefore not disproportionate. Unfortunately the figure in respect of our nonWhite prison population is a high one. I think it is high, but in that respect one should also make allowances for the various groups who are living under different circumstances. In some places liquor plays a major role. I think that here in the Western Cape liquor plays a tremendous role as far as the crime rate is concerned. In respect of others one has to have regard to the fact that their standard of civilization is not a high one. In having regard to all of these things, one finds oneself faced with a difficulty: how is one to handle the matter if there are so many people? I do not know how I am to handle it. That is the trouble. If the hon. members know, I would be very pleased to hear it. But I just want to say that a suggestion to this effect has not yet been put forward by Mr. Justice Steyn and his organization. If anybody would make a suggestion, I would be only too grateful, for we have a large prison population, especially Black and Coloured people. But now one should also remember that one may not simply make so many allowances for a person’s standard of civilization that one lets him go unpunished. In that regard influx control once again plays a role. I told the hon. member before that influx control had a major effect. In that respect, as we view the matter, we have one of the possibilities which we are trying out to see whether we cannot correct these people in some way or other. Other than that I do not know what one can do. One cannot simply say, “This is a pity; this chap is after all not a White man; unfortunately his standard of civilization is not yet as high as that.” Of course, some of them have reached that standard and others, again, have not. I am referring to the latter. If he has done rash things and committed crimes, one cannot allow him to remain unpunished for that reason. That is how it all fits together. This is the reply I gave the hon. member. This is also my reply to the question he put to me in regard to Mr. Justice Steyn.

I think this disposes of all the matters we touched upon. I am sorry I spoke for such a long time, but these were questions that were put by the main speaker on the Opposition side.

Mr. Chairman, I want, in the time available to me, to deal with the question of deaths in detention and to come back to the case which has been dealt with by me in this House before, namely that of the late Imam Haron. I also want to contest the statement made by the hon. the Prime Minister in the noconfidence debate that an inquest is in fact the same as a judicial inquiry. Every lawyer, and every layman even, such as myself, knows that an inquest is a legal proceeding of a very limited nature indeed. As my hon. friend, the member for Zululand, said in this House on 2nd February, this year—

Evidence which is placed …

That is before an inquest—

Now, Sir, because of the limited nature of an inquest, as my hon. friend here says, no cross-examination is allowed as of right to anybody, be it a representative of the deceased or anybody else. Then the hon. member went on to say—

You should only quote experts.

I am quoting experts. I do not pretend to be one myself. I am intelligent enough to do that. In any case, then the hon. the Prime Minister replied to the hon. member for Zululand. The hon. member for Zululand had said that the hon. the Prime Minister had made himself guilty of trying to lead the country to believe that an inquest could be equated with a judicial inquiry and that the public mind should be put at rest accordingly. The Prime Minister’s reply was—

To which the hon. member for Zululand replied that if the hon. gentleman still said that, then his understanding of the legal position in South Africa was far less than he imagined it to be.

How can the hon. the Prime Minister or this hon. Minister here square that statement with what the Prime Minister told an international Press Conference organized by the Minister of Information in Pretoria on 22nd November last year? He was asked the following question by Mr. A. B. Wessels—I quote from the Department of Information’s statement of that date, on page 11—

The hon. the Prime Minister replied as follows—

He further said—

That is an inquest.

But that is a complete contradiction of what the hon. the Prime Minister said during the noconfidence debate. If there is a degree of uncertainty, I would like to know why there was no judicial inquiry into the death of the late Imam Haron. In the course of the no-confidence debate this hon. Minister analysed the causes of death of nine people during their detention as witnesses under section 6 of the Terrorism Act since 1967. Three, he said, died of natural causes. Of the remaining six cases, he said, one had not been finalized—that is the Timol case—and of the remaining five, he said, that three were clearly cases of suicide. But about two cases there was not certainty. One of these concerns the death of the Moslem leader, the late Imam Haron.

The hon. the Minister himself admitted this degree of uncertainty. If the hon. the Prime Minister says that if there is uncertainty, there must be a judicial inquiry and there was not one, then how do you reconcile the manner in which this was done? This hon. Minister stated in the no-confidence debate that there had been a pathological examination after this man’s death and that the papers were forwarded to the Attorney-General. He said that at his request the Attorney-General had examined the papers a second time—I quote him here—and said “he could find nothing which would justify a prosecution”. The Minister then went on and accused me of having acted irresponsibly because I revealed the name of a certain Security Police officer, Sergeant Andries van Wyk, who, after very careful checking as to the source of my information, I stated in this House in 1971, appeared to have been involved in the assault—I quote my own words—“upon the prisoner and that the assault was directly responsible for the subsequent decline in the Imam’s physical condition during the last week of his life which finally led to his death”. Those were my words in this House.

The hon. the Minister was correct in stating that when the Attorney-General wrote to me asking for the source of my information, I claimed parliamentary privilege. It is quite correct. I refused to give the information. But before the hon. the Minister accuses me, I want to say that there are further points which have never been cleared up in regard to this case. The Police themselves pleaded privilege at the inquest, when asked to explain what happened to the Imam when he disappeared from the Maitland Police cells for two days shortly before his death. Why was that? Two fellow-political detainees involved in this case were released immediately after his death became known. Why was that? No one except the Police and counsel for the family know who they were. Then the senior Police officer in charge of the case was transferred to another province immediately after the prisoner’s death. Why was that? There must have been some grounds which had nothing to do with security, for releasing two fellow-prisoners at the drop of a hat and for transferring the officer in charge of the case immediately after the death of the detainee.

The hon. the Minister of Police told me in reply to a question this year, that this matter was closed. I want to tell him that it is by no means closed and that public anxiety continues in regard to it. In view of the hon. the Prime Minister’s clear statement on 21st November, 1971, which I have quoted here, namely that where any element of doubt existed over the manner in which any one died whilst in detention, the law prescribes—these are his own words—that a judicial inquiry should be held, I want to make a few observations in connection with this case.

Business suspended at 12.45 p.m. and resumed at 2.20 p.m.

Afternoon Sitting

Mr. Chairman, before the House adjourned, I had referred to the hon. the Prime Minister’s statement last year that if any element of doubt existed over the manner in which anyone died whilst in detention, to use his words, “the law prescribes that a judicial inquiry should be held”. What we asked for all along, of course, was a judicial commission. Hon. members will appreciate that there is a difference there. I think the hon. the Prime Minister himself was confusing the two matters when he replied to the hon. member for Zululand earlier this Session. The magistrate’s final finding at the inquest on the Imam Haron read as follows—

When I questioned the hon. the Minister of Police in 1971 as to why only certain policemen involved in the case were called upon to give evidence at the inquest and not others, he replied that it was not the function of the Police to choose witnesses, but that of the Department of Justice. In other words, he passed the buck as I have said before. The Department of Justice, I was told, had decided that certain evidence would be a duplication and therefore was not necessary. On those grounds, flimsy and unconvincing as they are, Sergeant Andries van Wyk was never called upon to give evidence at all. It would be interesting to know on whose instructions this officer was omitted from the list of those who gave evidence. If, in the view of the Attorney-General, to quote his words, “there were no grounds for prosecution”, why was the Imam’s widow subsequently awarded an ex gratia payment of R5 000 arising out of her claim for legal damages against the Ministers of Justice and Police? The matter, as the hon. Minister knows, was settled out of court.

The hon. member for Prinshof—I am sorry he is not here—gave the game away last year, I think, when the matter was raised in this House, by saying: “I think it is virtually impossible for the widow to prove her claims.” By implication that means that, since the Police were the only possible witnesses of what really happened, the facts would never be revealed unless, of course, there were a judicial commission, which we asked for in the first place. In the same debate the hon. the Minister of Police said that the ex gratia payment of R5 000 had been made, and I quote his words, “because of the legal risks facing the Police Department”. Just what did he mean by that? What were the legal risks involved? Of course, no one will ever know.

At the beginning of this Session I asked the hon. the Minister of Police, on 15th February, whether any of these Security Branch officers who were involved in that case were still serving in the Security Branch, where they were stationed, what they were doing, what the nature of their duties was, whether any of them had been promoted and, if so, what type of promotion, etc. The hon. the Minister gave a very interesting reply. He said—

He went on to say that the members concerned were all still serving in the Force and that he was not prepared to make any mention of whether they had had promotion or not. This was a very strange reply indeed. What made the hon. the Minister say that “in fairness to their families” he was not going to give the information? It was not in the public interest, nor had it to do with security. I will tell the House why the hon. the Minister said that, even if he was not prepared to do so. My information is that last October Sergeant Andries van Wyk became ill and went to hospital. When he resumed his ordinary police duties, he began to behave very strangely indeed and it is my information that, at times, he gave the impression that he was an epileptic. He suffered from fits of acute depression and threatened on more than one occasion to commit suicide. He talked about making his will and things of that kind. Eventually, although he remained at his post for a time, the firearm which he usually carried as an officer of the Force was removed from him by his superior officer. When Sergeant Van Wyk began to show serious signs of a loss of memory and mental instability, he was eventually committed to Stikland Mental Hospital at Bellville for observation.

To my knowledge he is still there. He is certainly under observation for medical reasons. I want to know whether the hon. the Minister is prepared to contradict my facts. Why should this man now find himself in a state of mental collapse? One can only guess what agonies of conscience may have caused this to happen. If this is the case, then this is retribution indeed. One thing is quite clear, namely that if it was not in this man’s family’s interests to reveal these facts, it was not in the hon. the Minister’s interests either. That much is quite obvious by the way in which this case has been handled. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I just want to make the following comment on the speech of the hon. member for Wynberg which she read out here word for word. A thorough investigation was made of the Imam case and the Attorney-General refused to prosecute. Subsequently further evidence was submitted to him, and once again he refused to prosecute. The hon. member for Wynberg was not satisfied, upon which she was asked to make her information available to the Minister of Justice, after which she wrote a letter and pleaded for Parliamentary privilege on 28th September, 1970. After all this, there are still attempts on her part in this House, where she enjoys Parliamentary privilege, to drag people’s names through the mud.

The Police have access to it.

Mr. Chairman, I want to come back immediately to the hon. member for Durban North. I want to say to him, as the main speaker on Justice on that side, that after his performance in this House on Wednesday evening, his arrogance is much too big for his small political shoes. Furthermore, I want to say to the hon. member that this Legodi bomb has exploded in his face for one reason, namely that he is a marionette of Joel Mervis. We know that last year, or in 1970 already, Joel Mervis said that he was responsible for the additional seats the United Party had won, and that they were his marionettes. The hon. member for Durban North only strengthened this proof. He attacked the hon. the Minister of Justice and the Government. It is the usual attack we get year after year on section 6 of the Terrorism Act and on section 215bis of the Criminal Procedure Act. And, by the way, he may have been qualified to do so, but Mr. Judge Botha found that section 215 bis of the Criminal Procedure Act is in fact necessary. But, since he has made this attack, one asks oneself whether this type of security legislation is applicable only in this country; such a line and cry is raised about it by the Opposition and other liberals.

In the time at my disposal I want to mention only one civilized Western country, namely Canada, where there are in fact two language groups but where, as far as being White and as far as civilization are concerned, the population is completely homogeneous. In October, 1970, only two people were kidnapped, viz. James Cross, the senior British Trade Commissioner, and Pierre La Porte, Quebec’s Minister of Labour and Immigration. Only two people were kidnapped and only one of them, viz. La Porte, was murdered. What was the reaction of that Government? Prime Minister Trudeau who, as we know, is a liberal socialist, implemented the War Measures Act of 1914 again. What does this War Measures Act provide for? I quote from the Readers’ Digest of April, 1972:

In other words, this is something similar to our legislation, but it only goes much further. When Trudeau was attacked in respect of these powers he was assuming, his reply was:

This was the reaction of an enlightened Western country. I ask myself now why is there this criticism in this country of measures which are far less drastic? It is very easy to understand; it is because this Opposition and the hon. member for Houghton continually set the ball rolling in order to induce liberals in this country and the liberals abroad to slander this type of legislation. Why do they do this? They do so simply because they are filled with unbridled hate against the National Party Government in power. I want to quote an example of this from the speech of the hon. member for Durban North. In respect of the Supreme Court, he said:

He alleges …

Hear, hear!

There you have it. The hon. member says: “Hear, hear!” In other words, the Supreme Court is the only thing which stands between us and barbarism. In other words, this Government and its officialdom are a lot of Nazi’s. Therefore our Police are Gestapo and our warders Dachau warders. This is what the hon. member for Durban North and the other stupid member who made an interjection a moment ago, want to indicate to the outside world. I want to go even further. The hon. member for Durban North said here that according to the information at his disposal, the Rev. ffrench-Beytagh should never have been detained in terms of section 6. It is true that he was found not guilty in the Appeal Court, and we respect the Appeal Court’s decision as, indeed, we respect any court decision. But does the hon. member for Durban North think we are childish enough to believe what he says? If a person is found guilty in the court of first instance and is sentenced to several years’ imprisonment, does he think the Police should be in the same position as any judge to decide there and then that there is not enough evidence to detain that person in terms of section 6? Who is the hon. member protecting? He is protecting the Rev. ffrench-Beytagh. What did this gentleman say when he was safely back in England? According to the Rand Daily Mail of 3rd May, he said:

This is what he said in respect of South Africa. Furthermore, he said that all trade unions in Europe should realize that they were committing high treason if they sent their qualified artisans to this country. This is the type of person for whom the hon. member for Durban North is pleading. I want to say to the country that if one ever wants a pink Progressive policy in this country, one should place the hon. member for Durban North in charge of Justice in this country.

Mr. Chairman, to return to the case I was dealing with just now, let me tell the hon. Minister … [Interjections.]

You are reading a written speech again.

I am very accurate in my notes; that is why. I want to tell the hon. Minister here and now that not one but two sources of confidential information were available to me. I may say …

It is useless because you plead parliamentary privilege.

May I say that they were equally available and still are to members of the Police Force and to the Attorney-General at all times.

Will you make it available?

It is all available to the Police Force and to the Attorney-General. I may just say that both the individuals to whom I refer have since left the Republic. There is no longer any doubt in my mind at all that the Minister and his department together with the hon. Minister of Police were determined to keep the facts of this case concealed from the general public. In dealing with this case in this House earlier this year, with particular reference to charges made by me, the hon. Minister pointed an accusing finger at me, quoting a directive issued by the South African Communist Party. He then accused me of assisting them. The hon. Minister quoted from a directive which read:

Having quoted that document in question the Minister looked across the floor at me and said: “This is what they, the Communists, are doing and you are assisting them.” Had the hon. the Minister made that statement anywhere but in this House I would have sued him for defamation to the tune of R100 000 or more. In conclusion I want to say that it is not I who stand accused of obstructing the cause of justice in this unhappy case, but that it is he and his henchmen who are doing so. That is all I have to say on the matter, but it does seem to me that fate has brought its own retribution to the man concerned. I want to assure the Minister that public apprehension and concern over this matter has by no means abated nor died away.

Mr. Chairman, it was a very good thing that the National Party came into power in 1948. If one listens to the speeches which have come from the opposite side, this country would have been in the hands of the communists long ago if that had not been the case. I remember that the patron of the Springbok Legion in 1948 was none other than the then Minister of Justice, Dr. Colin Steyn.

Their main speaker was Frankie Waring.

Subsequently, after we had come into power in South Africa, we came across communists everywhere in South Africa. When we introduced legislation in 1950 to combat communism in South Africa, that side of this House opposed the Act. When we again introduced legislation in regard to communism in 1951, they acted in the same way again. In 1952 they pleaded that Sam Kahn should remain a member of this Parliament. In 1954 there was another amendment to the legislation in regard to communism, and the United Party opposed this once more. Sitting on that side of this House today, is one of the persons who also voted in favour of this Act on communism when we introduced it. This person is Mr. Japie Basson. He voted in favour of the Act on communism in 1950. He voted in favour of it in 1951. He voted in favour of it in 1952.

And Frank Waring? He is still with you.

They realized the dangers of communism in South Africa. The United Party would not have had the courage to introduce legislation in this regard. Because, in the first place, their newspapers would have criticized them. The Rand Daily Mail, the Cape Times, the Sunday Times—all those newspapers—would have revolted against the United Party. In addition to this, those long haired lot at the Universities of the Witwatersrand and Cape Town would have said “No, you may not pass these laws”. The cry would again have been taken up that South Africa was a police state. The term “police state” is not used by hon. members opposite any longer today. We would again have heard the cry that the individual was being deprived of his freedom. It is even being said today. The United Party would have failed to introduce any legislation to combat communism in this House of Assembly, and then not only the Whites would have suffered as a result of it; not only the Bantu, the Coloureds and the Indians would have suffered as a result of it, but all the peoples of South Africa would have been in slavery. Sir, would they have acted against a Bram Fischer? Would they have acted against a Harris? What has become of Wolpe? What has become of Miss Kemp? What has become of the Sackses?

Their allies.

Those are the people we had to deal with firmly because they wanted to undermine this State and our system of government. That state of affairs would have continued if this Government had not accepted legislation on communism. In 1950, when the Suppression of Communism Act was passed in this House, the then Leader of the Opposition, Mr. Strauss, said it was fascist despotism. He said the Minister was being given despotic powers, and that the measure was an unbearable infringement on the freedom of the citizens. Those same words are still being used today. Sir, I also have here what Gen. Smuts said once. Gen. Smuts said many things. The one day he advocated apartheid and the next day he did not support it. Gen. Smuts said—

This is what Gen. Smuts said, but since the time of his death they have been opposing all these Acts aimed against communism. Gen. Smuts went on to say—

This is what the communists say: “Finally, call it democracy and the trick is done.” Sir, this type of legislation was needed in order to keep those hon. members opposite safely in their seats as well. I agree with the hon. member for Kroonstad where he said that when legislation is introduced here, it is always said that it is unbearable; that the freedom of the individual is being affected. Sir, I just want to conclude by saying that we can describe the United Party in the words of Mr. Walter May—

Sir, the historical recollection of the hon. member for Krugersdorp seem to be somewhat blurred. He seems to forget the grand alliance between the Nationalist Party and the Communist Party in South Africa. He seems to forget about the days when they stood together on platforms to try to win seats in this Parliament.

Who established “The Friends of the Soviet Union?”

Sir, what I believe we should be concerned about today is to ensure that in combating Communism we do not use the methods of Communism. The hon. member knows perfectly well that it is acceptable to us on this side of the House that a communist should be treated in the same way as a person found guilty of high treason in this country. That was the attitude of this side of the House. Sir, I want to come immediately again to one matter which I believe is causing concern in this country and which I believe does a lot of harm to the good name of South Africa, and that is the application of section 6 of the Terrorism Act. I believe that the hon. the Minister of Police, in dealing with the case of Mbombo. a witness in the Pietermaritzburg trial, has corrected what he stated in this House in regard to this Particular witness. This witness was detained in Cape Town in terms of section 6 (1) of the Terrorism Act on the 10th February, 1971, where he was held in solitary confinement as provided for in subsection (6). In other words, the Minister of Police accepts that it is obligatory in terms of subsection (6) to hold a person in solitary confinement. This man was later transferred to Pietermaritzburg, where he was held in the same cell with another detainee and was further interrogated after the 11th May. In other words, for three months he was in solitary confinement. He subsequently gave evidence on the 24th September for the State in the Pietermaritzburg trial and was thereafter released. The problem which arose in this particular case was this: This man was detained when he had been working continuously for a firm for a period of 18 years. Actually, the employers were anxious to know why this man had been detained. It is true that they were told, but they were merely told that he was being detained in terms of the Terrorism Act. Whether he was to be a witness or whether he was to be an accused, was never divulged, and in fact when a request was made, the information was refused. Now I would say this to the Minister of Justice, that I believe that in terms of section 6 (1) it is obligatory upon him to approve such conditions as are laid down by the commissioner. I know the hon. the Minister reads the word “may” as being applicable to him. I believe that that is a wrong interpretation and that the responsibility is on the Minister of Justice for any person held under section 6, in regard to the conditions under which he is held. In this particular case, what happened? The employer, the personnel manager of the firm, says that this man has a wife and three children and if he makes an allowance to that family he is likely to be in the same kettle as the various Christian church organizations are who get raided because they help the dependants of detainees. Sir, I believe the Minister is doing an injustice if employers are not informed as to why a person is held under this particular section. At least the employers should be informed. This man was eventually released in September and I might say that the only way in which the employers eventually found where he was, was when they read a newspaper report of the trial in Pietermaritzburg and saw his name as a witness. Sir, that is not the way to administer justice in this country, and I hope the Minister will look into this because it is doing incredible harm to the reputation of South Africa when these unnecessary acts are committed for the purpose of fighting terrorism.

I want to go on to one or two other matters in the short time left to me. I want to ask the hon. the Minister of Justice whether he will not motivate some action in regard to the consolidation of the laws relating to the expropriation of property in this country. At present the expropriation powers are contained in some twenty four Acts of Parliament and more than half a dozen provincial ordinances. Those powers stretch from one ministry to another. They are not restricted to Community Development or Education but they stretch over the whole spectrum and I believe the Minister would be doing a great service if he were to instigate an investigation by possibly the Law Revision Committee into this question of consolidation of expropriation laws of South Africa. I believe there are two things. The one is the codification of a set of rules for determining compensation when a person is deprived of his property and the second aspect is the uniformity of procedure. The hon. the Minister will know that the Expropriation Act of 1965 gives the power to the lower courts for amounts up to R3 000 and to the Supreme Court for amounts above that figure. But I believe attention should be given to the possibility of establishing, as is done in other countries, a land tribunal as a division of the Supreme Court to deal with these questions of expropriation and the settlement of compensation.

That brings me to a another aspect of the administration of justice in this country, an aspect which I believe needs the attention of the hon. the Minister and that is the handling of commercial litigation in this country. The Minister will be aware that the president of the Association of Law Societies has recently suggested what he terms a “commercial division” of the Supreme Court. The mere fact that most commercial disputes these days are not taken to the courts but are taken to privately arranged arbitration, indicates that there is something wrong in regard to that aspect of justice. I believe that one of the matters is that there is unnecessary publicity attached to what is essentially private litigation between the parties. That matter can easily be dealt with in the same way as it is dealt with by the special income tax court, whereby the facts can be reported and the law can be known and the decisions can be made known without in-dentifying necessarily the persons involved in the litigation. I hope that matter will also receive the attention of the hon. the Minister.

Finally, I want to come to the question of the State’s responsibility for legal costs when officials of the State are involved in litigation. The Minister of Justice advised me in reply to questions that in dealing with the case in which the hon. the Minister of Community Development was involved, payment was ordinarily made in accordance with the fixed policy where Ministers or officers are involved in litigation in the execution of their duties, and that that was the case here. One can understand that litigation arises where a police officer in the discharge of his duties uses more force than the court finds was justified, but I cannot for a moment see how the Minister can justify meeting the costs of an action which is brought about by the loose tongue of a Minister in carrying out his functions as a Minister. The Minister of Community Development used unnecessarily harsh language towards municipal officials, as was found by the judge in this case. The whole matter could have been settled amicably had the Minister of Community Development not adopted an attitude of not being prepared to make such apology or amende honorable right at the commencement of these proceedings. The result is that the State has had to pay the costs. The disbursements were R34 000 and in addition to that there are the costs of the State Attorney, another R6 000 which brings it up to R40 000. The Minister shakes his head. The attorneys’ fees for the plaintiff, for party and party costs, were taxed at R6 000 and I would assume that the attorney and client costs, as between the Minister and the State Attorney, would not be less then the party and party costs, so that brings it to the tune of R40 000. I believe the Minister and the Government were wrong in accepting responsibility in this particular matter because of the very nature of the action. Secondly, when it comes to ministerial involvement in litigation, one must remember that there is a difference between a Minister and an official. The official is subject to disciplinary action in so far as exceeding his authority is concerned. [Time expired.]

I think I must respond at once to what the hon. member for Green Point said in respect of the case of the 13 who were convicted in Pietermaritzburg. The position in regard to the person detained there—the hon. member knows to whom I am referring—is that he was an accused. He was kept in that section as long as possible.

But his employer was not informed of it.

As far as I know the employer was told that he was being detained, but the reason was not divulged. After all, one does not divulge reasons to the employer; you simply say the person is being detained in connection with a charge. Surely it is reasonable. What more do you expect? What is more, this person was detained among the accused, because he was an accused.

From the beginning?

He was detained among the accused from the beginning. He was detained among them for the simple reason that if they had taken him away, they would have known immediately that he was going to give evidence against them. He was detained with them for a considerable period of time until it penetrated through to them later that suspicion was being cast on him, and at that stage they removed him at once because they feared for his life. [Interjections.] This is what happened, and this is all I know about the matter, and whether you like it or not, these are the facts.

That is your story.

Stop talking about stories, man; rather make a speech. As far as I know, these are the facts, and if the Minister of Police wants to say something else, let him do so. As far as I know, the facts are that they only removed him at a later stage when they became afraid and from that stage he was detained for his own protection, again under the same circumstances and on the best of relations with the Police. There was nothing strange about it. The person co-operates with them; he is going to be their witness. This is what happened to him. He was eventually paid his witness money. The hon. member should look at the amount which the hon. the Minister of Police mentioned was eventually paid out. The hon. member will notice that it is a large sum. I do not remember the exact amount.

R220.

The hon. member may settle the matter with him. I would not be surprised if compensation was claimed in his case.

He did not claim.

Well, I do not know. However, according to law, he is entitled to it and could do so. I do not know whether he did so, but it appears to me that he did.

I come now to the question of expropriation. I do not want to say much, except to mention that a departmental committee is investigating in this regard at the moment. The Department of Agricultural Credit and Land Tenure and others are involved in it. At present the report is being awaited; it will be handled by the hon. the Minister of Agriculture and submitted to the Cabinet later. Therefore the whole question is being considered at present.

Then there is the question of commercial courts. I think Mr. Malherbe expressed an excellent idea here. The suggestion in fact comes from Mr. Malherbe, who is the present president of the Association of Law Societies. It is something one may consider. I shall ask my department to investigate the matter and after the arguments have been heard and if it still appears necessary, it may be referred to the Law Revision Committee. If such a proposal is submitted to me, I shall consider it. Basically, it seems to me as if it is something worth considering.

Then we come to the question of legal fees. This is a matter which we have discussed at length and I do not believe one can say much more about the various aspects. The fact is that it is the policy of this Government to pay and to accept responsibility. When the opposite side of this House comes into power, they are free to modify this system. In the meantime, however, it remains in force. If the hon. member thinks it is wrong, he should use the political platforms in order to convince the people that they should kick out the Government and place them in its place. [Interjections.] Of course, that is the way to do it.

Hon. members can like or dislike it, but that is what is taking place at the moment. It is going to remain like that as long as this Government remains in power. That is the position. We need not argue over it. The correct way is to persuade the electorate that we are incapable of ruling the country and that the hon. members over there should be placed in power. Hon. members are at liberty to do that, by all means.

*But what foolishness we have here! In the past mention was also made of disciplinary action. I remained silent on purpose, perhaps for good reason. But this time I am going to say this. Who tells hon. members that a Minister is not subject to disciplinary measures? Where do hon. members get hold of that story? [Interjections.] The Prime Minister may dismiss any Minister who makes a mistake in this regard, early tomorrow. What greater disciplinary powers can there be? Therefore hon. members should rid themselves of this nonsense about the question of disciplinary steps. Discuss these matters with the electorate, convince them, accept the Government and change the position.

Mr. Chairman, I want to ask the Minister whether it has come to his notice that the Hotel Association, Fedhasa, has started a fund known as the Trade Defence Fund. It seems to me to be a strange step for an association such as the Hotel Association to take, and consequently I should like to know from the hon. the Minister whether he has any information in this regard.

Mr. Chairman, I now wish to revert to a matter which poses a threat to the safety of the State and which aims at the destruction of our legal system. This Committee will recollect that during discussions on the Vote of the hon. the Prime Minister, attention was drawn to a speech delivered by Mr. Derek Watterson in November, 1971 in the Natal Provincial Council. As a member of the Executive Council, Mr. Watterson must be considered as one of the most important spokesmen of the United Party. After all, Natal is the only province that is being governed by the United Party. May I remind the Committee that the gist of his speech was (a) that Cabinet Ministers know that their policies are driving us to a situation which we may not be able to contain. Evidently he was referring to the position on our borders. In respect of his second point, I quote from his speech as follows—

It is also significant that Mr. Watterson lives in Durban and apparently shares a portion of his constituency with the hon. member for Durban North.

Now you are wrong again.

It is also significant, Mr. Chairman, that in the self same speech and in the same context, Mr. Watterson, referring to the motion he was discussing, according to his Hansard, said—

That is the motion—

We on this side agree most wholeheartedly with Mr. Watterson that the country should know what the United Party is thinking. In the course of his speech, Mr. Watterson, in order to strengthen his argument, referred to the courts which dealt with criminals against humanity after the last war. It is obvious, Mr. Chairman, that Mr. Watterson has the Nuremberg model for South Africa in mind. It will also be recalled that during the Vote of the hon. Prime Minister, the United Party and the hon. member for Durban North, as spokesman for Justice, were challenged to say whether they supported Mr. Watterson or not. They, however, preferred to remain silent on this topic, and so they have to this very day. We on this side of the House maintain that we are entitled to construe their silence and reticence as support for Mr. Watterson, just as we are entitled to conclude that Mr. Watterson has voiced the thoughts of his United Party colleagues in the Natal Provincial Council in what he in fact said. Mr. Chairman, the implications of what I call the Watterson-Nuremberg plan are clear, and I wish to spell them out today to the United Party.

1. (a) Retribution against the National Party will be put into operation when the United Party comes into power and capital punishment is included in the programme; that is obvious;
2. (b) despite the fact that our hon. Cabinet Ministers are carrying out the policies of the National Party by virtue of their election to the office in terms of the South Africa Act, our Constitution, which we regard as a holy pillar of democracy, and at least of Afrikaner nationalism, our Cabinet Ministers will be put to trial for so-called offences against the State;
3. (c) to achieve this Watterson-Nuremberg plan, it is clear that the United Party, and then in person the hon. member for Durban North, would have to overthrow our Constitution, and would have to act against its very spirit, hence against democracy itself.

Therefore we maintian that the Watterson-Nuremberg plan poses a serious threat to the safety and security of the State. Furthermore, to execute the Watterson-Nuremberg plan, either our existing courts would have to be degraded to political weapons or a new legal system would have to be introduced. In both instances the sanctity of our courts is at stake. You will recall, Mr. Chairman, that on Wednesday night the hon. member for Durban North, with a halo around his head, was paying lip service to the sanctity of the courts. Now he is silent.

I have only mentioned a few of many serious implications of the Watterson-Nuremberg plan. In view thereof, the lip service to which I have just referred, becomes the laughing stock of this House. In fact— now I shall express myself in jargon wellknown to the United Party—people are suspicious that Mr. Watterson has active accomplices even outside the provincial council, and people are suspicious that the chief perpetrators of the Watterson-Nuremberg plan are sitting in this hon. House. Indeed, this whole plan, coming from a man who cannot even speak Afrikaans, has the smell of conspiracy and of the death of the Republic.

Ha, ha!

I am afraid that the hon. member for Durban North and the hon. member for Zululand, who are so quick to condemn our security laws, who so anxiously express their sympathy with the enemies of our Republic, have failed dismally to use the opportunity to repudiate their kinsman.

On a point of order, Sir, is the hon. member allowed to say that I am on the side of the enemies of the Republic?

Order! The hon. member must withdraw that.

I withdraw it, Mr. Chairman. I say that he failed to defend the country against her enemies. I say they failed to repudiate their kinsman, their intimate friends and their associate in many respects, when he was contemplating to destroy our legal system and Constitution. That opportunity is now gone for ever. No repudiation can satisfy us, not even the political head of either the hon. member for Durban North or Mr. Watterson. Our suspicions have been aroused and we beg the hon. Ministers of Justice and Police to consider the United Party’s Nuremberg plan in a very serious light.

We also consider it our duty to ask the voters of Brakpan to take note of this threat against democracy and our legal system. Finally, we want to issue a friendly warning to members opposite: We on this side will no longer tolerate their infamous and baseless threats against our Cabinet Ministers and, by implications, against the Republic and its institutions.

Mr. Chairman, it is not often in this House that I find myself not knowing what to say next. But having listened to the speech of the hon. member for Bloemfontein West, I do not know whether to be amused or to be angry. Indeed, when one listened to the silence with which his speech was greeted by his own colleagues on the other side, one imagined that they had the same difficulty.

It is true, after all.

There is one thing I am not prepared to sit here and listen to, either from that hon. gentleman or anybody else, and that is for someone to accuse me, or anybody else on this side of the House, of siding with the enemies of this country.

Order! The hon. member has withdrawn that.

You are feeling guilty.

Mr. Chairman, may I address you on a point of order? Is the hon. member allowed to say “You are feeling guilty” when the hon. member for Zululand is talking about siding with the enemies of the country?

What did the hon. Whip say?

I asked whether the hon. member was feeling guilty.

You said he was feeling guilty.

Order!

After the hon. member had withdrawn the offending remark, he went on to say—and I made a note of it immediately—that I failed to defend this country against its enemies. Having spent four years of my youth in the armed services of this country doing that very thing, namely defending this country against one of the worst tyrannies the world has ever known, I am not prepared to sit here and listen to him or anybody else saying that I failed to take the opportunity which the occasion demanded in defending this country against its enemies. [Interjections.]

Order! Will hon. members please listen when I call them to order?

The hon. gentleman… [Interjections.]

Order! The hon. member for Stilfontein must contain himself.

The hon. member who represents Bloemfontein West was probably too young to exercise an option at that time, but judging from what he has said today there is no doubt in my mind which way his option would have been exercised.

Let me come back to the hon. the Minister. The hon. the Minister, when dealing with the question of appointments to the Bench and the position of the Bench and the Bar, mentioned the position in Natal in the latter part of the colonial regime. This really surprised me and I cannot think why he should have mentioned it. It is common knowledge amongst the lawyers of this country that during the period the hon. the Minister mentioned, from about 1900 to 1910, Natal had one of the weakest Benches in the country. This is common knowledge. Indeed, there are jokes told at the Bar that … [Interjections.]

Mr. Chairman, is the hon. member entitled to say that during that period the country had one of the weakest Benches ever?

The hon. member for Zululand is quite in order.

The interesting point is why the Natal Bench was weak at that time. It was weak at that time because there was no Bar in existence in Natal from which the judges could be chosen. It was weak for the very reason given by the hon. member for Durban North, namely because judges were appointed from a variety of positions in the State, other than the Bar. They were civil servants, they were ex-magistrates, they were law officers of the Crown, or law officers in the armed services. All these people were appointed to the Bench, and because they did not have the training and the discipline which a Bar engenders, you had one of the weakest Benches in the country in Natal at that time.

That is an absurd argument.

At that time they had a system which went on until the mid-1930’s in Natal, which was known as the dual practice, that is to say, persons practised as attorneys and there was no Bar. From the time of the establishment of the Bar in Natal, you had a change, and today Natal has, acknowledged amongst all the lawyers of this country, one of the finest Benches in the country because it has a strong Bar. It is not a strong Bench which makes a strong Bar. It is the other way round; it is a strong Bar which makes a strong Bench, provided your appointments come from that source. One of the reasons, indeed, the principal reason, why the Bench in South Africa together with the Benches of one or two other countries in the world, like Great Britain and one or two others, stand so high wherever you go in the world, including the United Nations of all places, is that South Africa is one of the few countries that has a separate Bar from the Side-bar, a separate institution. It is this institution which breeds a strong Bench provided, and to make the point that the hon. member for Durban North made, you make your appointments to the Bench from that source and from no other source. That is the principal objection we have against the point of view apparently expressed by the hon. the Minister. I say the point “apparently” expressed by the hon. the Minister, because after the hon. the Minister has spoken for over two hours we still do not know what his point of view is on the appointment of judges from the magisterial bench.

I should like to raise with the hon. the Minister another point which I hope he will clear up. There was a joint statement by this hon. Minister and the hon. the Minister of Bantu Adiministration and Development on 29th March in regard to responsibility for the magisterial districts in Natal. There was a statement that certain changes were to take place in the administration between the Department of Bantu Affairs and the Department of Justice in regard to these magisterial districts. The statement which was made is ambiguous; it is not clear, firstly, as to why these changes are being made. Apparently it is brought about because the Bantu Reserves are to be administered by the Government of Kwazulu so far as the administration of justice is concerned, while White areas are to be administered by the departments of the South African Government. I do not understand why a magisterial district, for example, which was formerly administered by the Department of Bantu Administration, is now to be administered by the Departments of Bantu Administration and Justice while one which was formerly administered by the Department of Bantu Administration will now be administered only by the Department of Justice. I do not understand how this will facilitate the administration of the Reserves by the relevant department of the Government of Kwazulu unless there is to be a complete realignment of the magisterial districts so that the Department of Justice of this Government administers only the White areas and the Department of Kwazulu administers only the Native Reserves. That is not what is said in the statement. The statement is ambiguous and lacking in clarity. I hope the hon. the Minister will find the opportunity to tell us what the position is in that regard.

The other thing is that he says in the statement that interested parties will have to be consulted and for that reason this will be a very slow process. Who has to be consulted? It strikes me that this is a matter only between the various Government departments, or do others come into the picture, If so, who is it that has to be consulted and what form will this changeover and this slow process take? I could understand it if the hon. the Minister were to say that all the Native Reserves will be under the Justice Department of Kwazulu and that all the White areas will be under the Department of Justice of this Government. But that is not what the statement says. So far as I can judge, there is confusion in this regard. I understand further that in this change-over the hon. the Minister will have, is certain districts, joint control with the Department of Bantu Administration and the Department of Justice because you have, for example. Bantu townships in the White areas. But that is the case with virtually every magisterial district you deal with. There are substantial numbers of Bantu people resident either on the farms or in the Bantu townships in whichever White area you go to in Natal. That being so, one would assume that every magisterial district would be under the joint control of the hon. the Minister’s department and the Department of Bantu Administration. That is not so. This has caused a certain amount of confusion and a certain amount of anxiety, because despite what is said in the statement, people regard changes in this direction as indicative of changes of land ownership as between the White Republic and Kwazulu. That is why it is necessary that this matter be cleared up. If the hon. the Minister could find the opportunity of doing so in this debate, I would be grateful. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, in regard to the last matter the position is that the Kwazulu Administration has already been established. As regards the consultation, this must be settled between the two departments, because it concerns making it White in the White areas and Black in the Black areas. That is the position. Furthermore I assume that the Bantu locations, the residential areas of the Bantu in the White area, will form part of the White area. This is my contention and I think it is in fact the case. I think that is a full reply to the hon. member’s question. In other words, the hon. member’s interpretation is quite correct in regard to why it is being done. He is quite right as regards the consultation; it is between the two departments. It is also correct that the areas which are going to become White will be administered by the Department of Justice, and those that are going to become Black will become Bantu magisterial districts or Bantu Commissioner districts under the Zulu Government. The locations will be regarded as part of the White area.

I can just tell the hon. member in passing that as regards the judges of Natal, I do not know the history of the matter. I quoted them last time because Ellison Kahn happened to mention them. In addition I just want to tell him that I have further particulars of other judges who were appointed. There was Sir William Henry Solomon—I do not know what he was, but the Solomons are a well-known legal family. Another one who was appointed was Sir Michael Henry Calway. That was very long ago. Apparently he was attorney-general in Natal between 1857 and 1890. I mention this for what it is worth. Someone who was really an outstanding man was Johan Hendrik de Villiers. He eventually became judge president and he was a figure on the Bench.

Then there is Lansdown as well.

I mentioned Lansdown this morning. I did not really make as issue of it. Now the hon. member says I did not take a stand in regard to the question of whether they are to be appointed or not. I quite agree that a good Bench develops, inter alia, from a good Bar. That is so. That is the right line of reasoning and I do respect it. It is my opinion as well, but my contention is that the people and the judge of the Eastern Cape division said that the magistrates cannot be fearlessly independent. The member over there on the other side, the main speaker on Justice, also said so. I did not express an opinion on whether they are in fact to be appointed or not. I do not have to express an opinion at this stage either. It is not a matter which was raised by me or by the magistrates. In fact, I must emphasize that the magistrates themselves expressed an opinion on this matter. The judge and the member for Durban North accused of wanting to manipulate, of wanting to do something as untoward as that, and of not having said anything. The Association of Magistrates told the Secretary: “You tell the judge, on our behalf, that no pressure is exerted on us at any time, that we are absolutely independent.” Surely this is the right way to do it. There are other people who say whether they are being influenced. In regard to the real question, whether they are to be appointed or not, I just pointed out that this point of view, that they cannot be fearless and independent, it is the greatest nonsense in the world. Furthermore I said that the hon. member could convince me in other ways and on other points, but that he could forget about the fearlessness and the independence.

I must say I find it very strange that the hon. member did not reply to what was said by the hon. member for Bloemfontein West. Why does the hon. member not reply to it? Why does he not repudiate Watterson? Why does the hon. member not repudiate that person? I think I should be one of those persons who would have to appear before the Nuremberg Court if these people were to come into power.

Don’t worry; we won’t hang you; we shall chuck you out.

I think the right thing for any reasponsible member on that side to do would be to get up and say that he does not agree with this.

Mr. Chairman, as far as the hon. member for Zululand is concerned, I just want to tell him that we certainly do not want to disagree with him as regards his praiseworthy conduct in the past. I certainly also agree with the positive things he said in respect of a strong bar contributing to a strong bench. I should like to put one thing to the hon. member. Today the hon. the Prime Minister gave notice of legislation relating to state security. In that debate, and in the debate on the General Law Amendment Bill which will be introduced towards the end of the session, we shall have speeches from this side of the House and it will be placed on record, beyond any doubt, what the United Party’s record has been in respect of State security legislation in this House since the Communism Act was piloted through this House in 1950. We need have no doubt in that regard, and that record certainly is not anything for the hon. member or any hon. member on the other side to be proud of. It certainly is not something they should like to hear on a public platform.

We are not ashamed of it.

We shall come to that; it certainly is not anything of which the hon. members will be proud or of which they are proud. We shall start with the 1950 legislation.

I should like to associate myself with the remarks made by the hon. the Minister of Justice this morning with regard to the hon. member for Durban North. We have become used to setting ourselves certain ethical codes in this House. One of those ethical codes is that the front benchers on our side—our Ministry—and those on the other side, the senior members of the Opposition who are known as the shadow ministers, or the chairmen of their groups —act with the required dignity of speech in this House. I personally, as a fellow legal practitioner, looked to the hon. member for Durban North, who does not even have the decency to listen to what I am saying to him now …

He has no decency.

I think he may at least show one a little respect.

That is the Boer-hater.

You are the South African hater.

That Boerehater should just keep quiet, so that I can talk to him. Over the years I was one of the people who looked up to the hon. member as the chairman of the Justice Group of the opposite side. I want to tell hon. members that as I sat listening to the hon. member on Wednesday evening, I asked myself: “Mike Mitchell, could you be more petty than this?” That, in actual fact, is the impression he left on this House, and I want to make a serious request to the hon. member to show the courage and the decency this afternoon to get up—he may differ from the hon. the Minister of Justice as much as he likes—and at least tell the hon. the Minister of Justice, one of the greatest gentlemen in this House, that he had no reason whatsoever for speaking as disparagingly about the person of the hon. the Minister as he did on Wednesday evening. If the hon. member for Durban North wants to do this, I do not think he would sink in anyone’s estimation in this House. On the contrary, he would be making a contribution to giving one new respect for him. For the rest, he may differ as strongly as he likes with the hon. the Minister of Justice on the particular aspects of his argument, but I think he could at least do this, and when he has done so we should once again like to debate matters with him across the floor of this House.

I shall reply later.

I expect the hon. member to reply, because I know him as someone who will reply; that is why I am talking to him across the floor of this House. The hon. member for Durban North became particularly acrimonious here about the possible appointment of senior regional court magistrates to the bench. As was quoted by the hon. the Minister of Justice, the hon. member had suggested in interviews with the Press that one of his gravest concerns was that the State, the Government, would be able to influence such magistrates, or would be able to direct their thinking along avenues which would suit the Minister and other political leaders. What did the hon. member for Durban North do in one of his statements with reference to the ffrench-Beytagh trial? In the Sunday Express of 16th April of this year, the hon. member said that that was exactly what he expected from the hon. the Minister of Justice and from the Minister of Police, because he said the following—

“What control is being exercised?” In other words, here the hon. member for Durban North was implying that the two hon. Ministers should have interfered with the rights Attorneys-General have to exercise in cases of this nature. Later in the same report one finds confirmation of this standpoint adopted by the hon. member. Sir, I do not want to express an opinon here on the question of whether senior regional court magistrates should be appointed to the bench, but I just want to say that the hon. member should not act as sanctimoniously as he did the other evening on the possibility of these people being influenced, while he himself, in the case of the Anglican Deacon, when it suited him, asked why the Ministers had not interfered with the Attorney-General in the exercising of his rights, and why they had not interfered with the Police. Sir, I do not think it is worthwhile to argue any further with the hon. member. I feel as loathe to have further arguments with him as the hon. the Minister of Justice did this morning.

I should like to raise another matter which arises from this to a certain extent. I want to ask the hon. the Minister of Justice whether he would not be so kind as to inform the Committee later in the debate on this Vote, if it suits him to do so, of the possibility of granting civil jurisdiction to regional courts, and of what the scope of such jurisdiction would be. Personally I think it would be a very interesting and fine development in our courts if civil jurisdiction could be granted to our regional courts. I do not think any one of us doubt the ability of members of the side bar to hold their own in those courts, even if enhanced jurisdiction were to be granted to them. This offers a great many advantages. We certainly cannot continue with the position as it is at present in some divisions of the Supreme Court owing to the pressure of work. The granting of civil jurisdiction to regional courts will also have a good effect on the reduction of costs for litigants; it will be far more convenient because it will be possible to deal with more cases locally. This offers many advantages, and I would appreciate it if the hon. the Minister could give us an indication in this regard.

Another matter I should like to bring to the attention of the hon. the Minister is one concerning the Liquor Act. I am very glad to see that the Secretary for Justice envisages in his report that a new line of thought will probably be introduced next year as far as the Liquor Act is concerned. Sir, there are members of Fedhasa who are apparently very concerned about the whole question of off-sales and also about the whole question of non-White bars. The matter I actually want to bring to the attention of the hon. the Minister, is the question of off-sales. I should like to refer him to a statement dated 17th June, 1970. purported to have been made by Mr. Le Roux, the Chairman of the National Liquor Board. The statement reads as follows (translation)

He went on to say—

It is in fact on account of this that concern has been expressed to me. and if the hon. the Minister would be so kind as to give a little more clarity about this, perhaps by way of repetition, I would particularly appreciate it.

Then, with reference to this, in regard to the activities of the National Liquor Board, I want to say that it has been published fairly extensively that members of the Liquor Board will shortly accompany the Chairman and one or two other officials of the Liquor Board on an overseas visit. This will be an extended visit to various countries of Europe and the two Americas, something which certainly is quite necessary and will give good results. But now it appears that only a few members of the National Liquor Board will be going on this visit, and not the others. I wonder whether the hon. the Minister would not be so kind as to give this House an explanation of the whole object and scope of the visit. [Time expired.]

It is rather difficult to discuss a matter with the hon. the Minister of Justice, when the information or the facts upon which he debates are different from the facts with which we on this side of the House have been supplied by the hon. the Minister of Police. Let me come back to this question of detention under section 6. In terms of section 6 (1) of the Terrorism Act, a person who is to be kept for interrogation may be kept at such place in the Republic and subject to such conditions as the commissioner may, subject to the direction of the Minister, from time to time determine. As I read that, the Minister has a continuing responsibility when once a person is detained in terms of section 6. It is not that he “may” intervene, but that he has a continuing responsibility in regard to that person’s detention. Now in the case of Mbombo, this man was detained, according to the Minister of Police, by the Police on 10th February, 1971. The information was only given to his employer and to his next-of-kin that he had been detained under the Terrorism Act. No information was available as to whether he was an accused or whether he was merely being held for interrogation. As I understand the Minister of Justice, he understands that this man was kept as an ordinary arrested man until such time as he agreed to give evidence, or it was decided that he would give evidence, and he was then kept apart for his protection.

He agreed beforehand.

The hon. the Minister is in direct conflict with what the Minister of Police has told us. The Minister of Police tells us that this man was in solitary confinement until 11th May, probably from 10th February to 11th May. After 11th May, he was then kept with other prisoners or detainees, and he was investigated and interrogated, and it was only on 24th September, the day he gave evidence, that it was decided to use him as a State witness.

Under what powers was he detained for the second time?

Well, he was detained continuously from 10th February to 24th September, the first three months being in solitary confinement. Now the Minister of Police, correcting the reply he gave in the House, says that he was later transferred to Pietermaritzburg, where he was held in the same cell with another detainee and he was further interrogated from 11th May until his release on 24th September. He said—

Now, Sir, what are the facts? This is the confusion which arises because the hon. the Minister of Justice himself has not been applying his mind to his responsibilities under section 6 (1) of this Act.

There is another matter concerning the application of this Act. If one reads the letter of the hon. the Minister of Police, it would appear that the Police are interpreting section 6 (6) as being obligatory that a person detained for interrogation shall be detained in solitary confinement. In other words, if a person is detained under section 6, it is obligatory that he should be detained in solitary confinement. We have never heard that advanced by the hon. the Minister of Justice. I have never had that reason.

[Inaudible.]

Then, Sir, is the hon. the Minister saying to us …

You don’t want them to mix. It is very easy. Don’t you understand?

I understand quite well. I am asking the hon. the Minister why this man, not being a witness, was kept in this state for a period of three months in solitary confinement, without any indication to his employers or anybody else as to where he was.

Are you referring to the first instance?

The first instance. Then he was kept…

He had to be treated as an accused …

After he had given a statement to the Police, one would expect that he should have been detained for his protection, and not placed amongst the accused. This is the sort of administration of this Act that causes disquiet. There can be no reason why a man who has been in one job with one employer for a period of 18 years and who is to give evidence in a Terrorism trial case—which he gave and in respect of which the judge commented very favourably—should be kept from 10th February to the 24th September in detention and for three months thereof in solitary confinement. He was detained with no concern whatsoever, except for the charitable act of the employer as to what was to happen to his dependants. No allowance was paid while at the end a lump sum of R220 was paid out to him. When certain persons and churches feel it their Christian duty to look after these dependants, they are immediately accused of aiding saboteurs. I believe this to be a wrong which should be put right by this hon. Minister. It should be assured that when people are detained in this way and are necessarily detained under the conditions that the Minister sets down under section (1), that there should be provision for the welfare of the next of kin of the person concerned, particularly in the case of a witness. Witness’s fees are paid afterwards. The hon. the Minister said a few moments ago that if this man now claims compensation, he will get it. But what was to happen to his family in the meantime? I believe that this is a matter which we should look into so that we are not going to use the methods of Communism to combat Communism and terrorism.

I will explain the position to you later.

I want to return to the question of legal costs. The hon. the Minister says that we can argue as much as we like and that it was a Government decision. It is most extraordinary that the Minister involved in this litigation wrote an article in which he said that the plaintiffs could hide behind their city council if they wanted to, but he, the hon. the Minister, was not going to hide behind the Government. He went on to say: This is a personal matter between him and me, and I will not hide behind the Government. If that is so, why must this charitable act of paying R40 000 of the taxpayers’ money be offered to the Minister? Why must this be done? The hon. the Minister of Community Development himself acknowledged that this was a personal matter in which he had chosen to use language which was subsequently regarded by the judges, shall I say, as improper to be used. I want to ask the hon. the Minister whether that is going to be the criterion in future, no matter whether personal actions are involved, personal actions falling outside the scope of a Minister’s normal duties. I cannot see that it is within the scope of the function of the Minister to defame officials of municipalities. If that is going to be the case, there is no limit to the Government’s use of the taxpayers’ money to pay for litigation brought upon themselves by members of the Cabinet. I believe this to be a wrong decision and one which should not have been adopted by the Government. I believe this to be a decision which will not bring credit to the actions of this Government in so far as dealing with members of the Cabinet is concerned.

Mr. Chairman, I should like to proceed with quite a noncontentious matter raised by the hon. member for Potchefstroom. This concerns the proposed extension of the civil jurisdiction of magistrates’ courts.

But before proceeding with that, I should like to refer to a remark the hon. member for Durban North made in his speech on Wednesday evening, when he said the following—

Sir, I find nothing wrong with that. But what I can in fact find fault with, is that it is really, actually and in truth the actions of the hon. member for Durban North and his colleagues which places the entire jurisdiction this country under total suspicion.

That is true.

These are the people who refer from time to time to the “police state” in which we are supposed to live. The hon. member for Durban North and others, as well as the hon. member for Houghton, come to this House from time to time with questions which, on the surface, appear completely innocent, while a barb is contained in each of them. It is these hon. members who come with speeches which always contain in simuations and which art aimed at undermining our jurisdiction in this country, which is in fact our greatest asset and of the most distinguished in the world. They are accessories in undermining it, sabotaging it and in subverting it. It is the hon. member for Durban North and his colleagues who, by means of these sweeping statements which one sees in the Sunday Times and other newspapers every week, are not only harming our jurisdiction, but in truth placing it under suspicion and completely breaking it down in the outside world. As a result of that, one finds students on the campus of the Witwatersrand University who are already imitating what these hon. members say. They say it is a police state and that there is no freedom of thought in this country. Where do you think those students get these ideas from, Sir? It is as they are prompted by people such as the hon. member for Durban North. He, who is a senior member of the legal profession, should know better. He should know that it is the aim of this Government and of everyone in this country to keep our jurisdiction absolutely above suspicion and above all criticism. He knows we would rather—this was proved very clearly recently again—let 99 guilty people go than convict one innocent person. This is the norm of our jurisdiction in this country, and we cannot understand why the hon. member, who is a member of the profession, and his colleagues, are not proud of this achievement as well. Surely it is part of their profession. The reason must probably be that when they speak here, they speak as members of the United Party. Then they have that warped sense of justice which is characteristic of the United Party, not only this afternoon, but through all these years. The same United Party which governed the country during the war years, is still sitting on the opposite side of this House. It is that United Party which, on the flimsiest of evidence, on the statement of a complainant, regardless of who or what he was, was prepared to grasp a man by the scruff of his neck and throw him into an internment camp— then they are the people to talk of “detention without trial”. They are the people who imprisoned innocent people on the flimsiest of evidence and who kept them there for six months without a trial.

After the war.

I just want to say now: The people whom they dealt with in that way, were not communists. They were not terrorists. Those people were Repulicans of this country. Some of them are sitting in this House today. That United Party on the opposite side went even further. The United Party are the people who sometimes put innocent children into internment camps. Let them deny it! I maintain that if it were ever to happen that the United Party came into power again, as shamelessly as it is sitting in a glass house, it would not hesitate to imprison Afrikaners, nationalists, again on any pretext. In the same way as they did so during those years on the pretext of “there is a war on”, they will do so again, although it may merely be the war in Vietnam or wherever it may be. They would push us as Afrikaners into internment camps again.

Let this be a lesson particularly to the Afrikaners of Brakpan. Let them take note of this. I want to predict—that if the United Party came into power, this is what would happen; because it has only been a United Party Government which has put Afrikaners into gaol. It has only been under a United Party Government that there has been bloodshed between White and White in this country. That is why I say that …

There was a very irresponsible Opposition.

…under the leadership of that member who is boasting so much now and the hon. member for South Coast who is sitting here smiling, knowing that he said he would “march”, this is what would happen in this country if they came into power.

Sir, before I become excited, I want to discuss another matter. The legal profession is indeed, as has been said, notoriously conservative in its view of matters. But we are also prepared to adjust gradually as it may become necessary in our modern society, and especially in a multi-national country such as South Africa. That is why we disposed of the jury system in the course of time. That is why we introduced regional courts which in fact to a large extent perform the task which was performed in the past by the circuit courts. We have the position that where circuit courts sometimes sat for as long as three weeks and a month in the rural areas, this system has been replaced by the regional courts and consequently this bothersome, clumsy procedure has been eliminated to a large extent. But, Sir, to link up with what the hon. member for Potchefstroom said, I want to ask the Minister to consider extending the jurisdiction of our magistrates’ courts and, in addition to that, introducing regional magistrates as presiding officers with increased jurisdiction. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, listening to the speaker who has just sat down, one would never have thought that we were discussing the Vote of the Minister of Justice this afternoon. He and his colleagues obviously took very little notice of what the hon. the Minister appealed for, namely a calm discussion of a Vote such as the Justice Vote. I would also like to remind that hon. member as well that this side of the House during the course of this Vote, has not been critical of the standard of justice as dispensed from the Bench. We have not been critical of our system of justice as conducted by our judges and our magistrates, as conducted by our judiciary. The objective of this side of the House has been to be critical of the Minister, because he has a department for which a large amount of money is required to be voted for the administration of that department. Irrespective of what the thinking is with regard to how this criticism has been expressed, that is nevertheless what has been done by members on this side of the House. We have been critical of the actual administration of the department.

In what respects?

I do not want to go into detail now. I am merely reminding the hon. member who has just sat down, that his premises were entirely wrong, because far from a discussion on Justice, one would have imagined that this was some other debate, such as possibly a no-confidence debate or any other debate which could deal with any aspect of the country’s affairs. I think we should confine ourselves, as the hon. the Minister has said, to the Justice Vote with which we are dealing.

I want to deal with a specific aspect of the hon. the Minister’s department and ask him whether he could perhaps give some attention to this particular matter. I refer to the question of the erosion of our system of deeds registration, or to be a little more to the point about the matter, of the registration of ownership of property and all that goes with it in our country. This question of deeds registration is an age-old system. If the hon. the Minister has an opportunity of studying it. I will give him references to an article later—he will find that it was already prevalent in the fourth and fifth centuries. In the time of the Romans already a system for the transference of land ownership was in vogue. It was then done in the form of some symbolical means of transfer. This system was developed so that during the eighth century, it became the practice for a local judicial officer to conduct these formalities. Thereafter, in Holland, from which country a great deal of our laws stem, in the year 1217 the principle of coram lege loci was established, namely to appear before some judicial tribunal in order to effect transfer. We in South Africa will find that almost within five or six years of the landing of Van Riebeeck, the corum lege loci was already established in regard to the transfer of property. About 100 years ago the first deeds registry was actually established in the Northern Cape. The history of deeds registration, the system of ensuring a form of security to those who acquire property, has therefore been something which has been the concern of all forms of regulated societies over almost the last 2 000 years. We in South Africa have always been very proud indeed of the system which we believed we had perfected to a very great extent. It is now regarded as being part and parcel of a well established system of registration in this country. There has been a tendency of late for Government departments, through legislation dealing with the acquisition of land, to erode this system and the essential formalities by providing a system of endorsement of title so that the transference of title takes place purely by the provision of some certificate or letter from a department to the effect that an endorsement should be made on the title deed. I think this is not very sound. We have criticized it from time to time in discussions over the various pieces of legislation that have appeared before the House, but I want to suggest to the hon. the Minister that he should give a little more thought to this matter and perhaps give a policy statement himself, not necessarily today, but perhaps at some time when his own department has been able to investigate this matter more thoroughly. I would refer the Minister to the very interesting address which was delivered recently by the hon. Mr. Justice De Vos Hugo, the judge-president of the Northern Cape Division of the Supreme Court. I found it an extremely fascinating story. One does not have the time to go into all the details. I merely want to give the hon. the Minister a bird’s eye-view of the extent of the principle that was here evolved. Almost since the birth of our knowledge of judicial systems, we have had this question of land registration as an important factor. I do think that this is something to which a lot of thought should be given.

In the few more minutes that remain to me, I would like to deal with this question of solitary confinement. I want to deal with it in relation to section 215bis of the Criminal Procedure Act. I want to talk purely as a citizen without necessarily having a technical legal view-point about it. It must be perturbing to a citizen that solitary confinement, which is one of the most harsh sentences that one can pass, and, as we have known in earlier times, has been passed when people were declard habitual criminals or when they had committed some serious breach of prison regulations, could become something that could be used perhaps with more regularity than one would like to see in circumstances which I do not think fully warrant it. I know what section 6 of the Terrorism Act says, and I know that the question of detaining a person is not made entirely clear. If someone is detained alone in a cell, one must obviously look upon it as a form of solitary confinement. I am really concerned with this other section which deals with it from a point of view of the detention of a witness. Mr. Justice Botha, whose remarks are contained in the report of the commission of enquiry into criminal procedure and evidence, took the attitude that has been adopted on this side of the House. In paragraph 11.20.7. of the report he says the following—

He also says that witnesses should be available at trials and that they should not be intimidated or tampered with. In the following paragraph he says the following—

This is a very serious statement. I want to tell the Minister of a case which I had not so long ago where a person was charged with culpable homicide, the victim having been killed in a motor accident. He left a family consisting of a wife and two children. When the case was brought before the courts, the principal witness could not be found. I discovered later what the reason was. He did not appear. The case was remanded, and at the second hearing the witness again did not appear. The court then heard formal evidence and the accused was found not guilty and discharged. But because of an effort through my own office—in fact, personal investigation on my own part—we were eventually able to trace the whereabouts of this important witness. We found him in the Northern Transvaal. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, as regards the enquiries of the hon. member who has just sat down, I believe the hon. the Minister will duly react to them. I think the hon. member is correct in saying that one may be critical. One ought to be critical, but never insulting. I am also pleased the hon. member for Jeppes had accepted the guidance of the hon. the Minister and continued this debate in a cool and calm manner. This brings me to the idea that the hon. the Minister is a leader; he is not a driver. I think his department knows him to be a leader. In the Department of Justice the merit system is in operation. It is applied in a fair, scientific, just and very human way. The result is that efficiency and dedication reign supreme in that department. Accordingly, the hon. the Minister showed this morning that he was one of a great organization, i.e. the Departments of Prisons and of Justice, which he guided in a proper way. I am pleased the hon. the Minister gave guidance here this morning, because I believe that if we were to have sat much longer Wednesday evening, we probably would have had some fireworks, as the saying goes, in this House.

The chips would have been down.

Or the chips would have been down, as the hon. member here to my left says. The hon. member for Durban Point set himself up as judge here and judged the hon. the Minister of Justice in blatant and angry terms. I am now going to judge his statements, attacks and conclusions on merit—I think I am competent to do so, because I have vast experience in that regard. I should like to show up his incompetence.

When it comes to his ability to judge, I want to say that the hon. member acts on hearsay evidence, i.e. newspaper reports. He does not consult the proper sources, i.e. the Minister or the department. He issues precipitate statements and he condemns without a hearing or consideration have been given to the other side. This is a very basic principle in the administration of justice. In this regard he is completely incompetent to judge.

When it comes to responsibility and reliability, we find that he accepts unverified newspaper reports as the gospel truth and that he poses as an angel of truth in that murky light. To my mind he falls short of the mark in this regard too. As far as his knowledge is concerned, he confines himself to newspaper reports only and to information he gleans from them; for the rest he fishes on dry land.

As far as initiative is concerned, I want to tell him that he allows himself to be dictated to by newspapers. He is inspired by them and he does not show the slightest signs of enquiry and veracity.

Then I come to human relations. In fact, by his references to “scandal” and “disgrace” he launched a cynical and bitter attack on the hon. the Minister and his department without his giving any indication whatsoever of dignity and confidence radiating from himself. Now, if I had to allot a symbol in respect of these few characteristics I have mentioned, it would be an F. An F stand for “failure” in the Department of Justice. If he scores low marks, I think it is well for the Department of Justice and the people to know who the person is and what the ability of the person is who aspires to become the Minister of Justice.

What do we find on the other hand? Here we have a department which has at its disposal extremely capable officials who watch over the inviolate honour of the Republic’s legal system. It is also quite clear what steps are being taken to improve the qualifications of the people in its employ. The introduction of the various courses of which mention is made in this very informative annual report, is proverbial of what is being done. It gives a clear and comprehensive picture of the excellent results which are obtained. A sustained activation and motivation is required in order to ensure that the people who retire, or those who resign, or those who leave the service for whatever reason, are succeeded by well-trained officials. Indeed, I do not think there can be any doubt as to the integrity and the ability of the officials of the Departments of Justice and of Prisons.

There is one question I should like to ask the hon. the Minister. I regret I had to read in publications that the former president of the Law Society of South Africa had voiced sharp criticism with regard to the administration of justice, with the accent on so-called bureaucracy in the department. This criticism, i.e. that there were people who would supposedly come up against the so-called bureaucracy in the department, came as a surprise to me. In my many years of service in the Department of Justice, from my junior days until I eventually occupied a very senior post, and also subsequent to that in my dealings with the Department of Justice and its officials, I have never encountered any tendency of the kind. I would be pleased if the hon. the Minister could give me a little more information on this matter, because especially those of us who were in the service of the department, and the average member of the community, have great respect and praise for the Department of Justice, and we should not like to hear that anything of the kind was the truth. As far as I am concerned, the hon. the Minister and all his officials render a service of oustanding quality. As far as I know, this has always been so. I am, therefore, amazed at this publicity.

Mr. Chairman, there are a few other matters I should like to mention. The hon. the Minister and his department are loyal in the service of the Republic in respect of 10 divisions of the Supreme Court, 63 regional courts and 322 magistrates’ courts. All these divisions are staffed by properly qualified and efficient officials. It is indeed a proud record for the department that it was able to do as much work, as stated in the report of the Department of Justice, with as low a percentage of complaints as 0,001. Law and order is maintained with the assistance of this department, and the department sees to it that we have the necessary machinery for fighting and combating terrorism, Communism and other evils and for ensuring the security of the State. When it comes to these matters, the hon. the Opposition must please stop acting in a destructive and disparaging way and complicating the task of the Police and the indicature.

The Department of Justice deals with 200 pre-Union and post-Union laws which relate to its secretariat and for which it is responsible. As far as the courts are concerned, it administers not only these laws, but also numerous other laws and ordinances in the country. Our courts apply these laws, of whatever nature, with the greatest efficiency and, let us say, without being intimidated by criticism. We on this side of the House support the Vote of this honourable, dignified and efficient Minister of Justice. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, it is a pity that the hon. member who has just spoken, did not direct his remarks to the hon. member for Ermelo about keeping his speech calm and dealing with the facts of the department and the Vote. The hon. member for Ermelo, who, as one would expect from the calibre of his speech, hit and ran away, said some things which cannot be allowed to pass unanswered. I want to say—and I say it with a full sense of responsibility—that, when this side of the House is the Government, we will deal with saboteurs, terrorists and fifth-columnists with every weapon at our command and with total ruthlessness. We will deal with them as we dealt with Fascists. Whether they be Fascists, communists or any sort of “ists” or “isms”, if they undermine the security, the safety or law and order in South Africa, we as a party when we become the Government will deal with them ruthlessly and without mercy. It is proven in history and it is proven in the very complaint of the hon. member for Ermelo that, when we were the Government, we acted harshly against people. If it must be, it will be. The people we were acting against were people who were sabotaging law and order and the authority of the State. We did not ask whom they were or what they were, but what they were doing. It was for what they were doing that we acted, and it is what we will do in the future.

They give a saboteur a language test before they detain him.

Yes, it would be interesting …

May I ask the hon. member a question?

I am not prepared to answer questions from that hon. member. Do they give all the saboteurs and terrorists a language test when they capture them to find out what they are going to do with them? We deal with facts and with events and with the security of South Africa. About that let there be no mistake.

As far as the hon. member for Bloemfontein West is concerned, who also attacked us and then promptly left the Chamber, I want to say that he need not worry …

He had to catch an aeroplane.

Oh, I believe he had to leave to catch an aeroplane. Our chairman of the Justice-group too had to catch a plane but he has missed his aeroplane to remain here and do his duty to South Africa instead of flying to Brakpan or to address a political meeting. [Interjections.] In reply to the hon. member for Bloemfontein West, I want to say that the Cabinet need not worry about any Nuremberg trials; they will be arraigned for their crimes before the highest court, the people of South Africa who will give their judgment in the ballot box. That is how we will deal with them. To take a figure of speech out of a speech made a year ago and to build up an array of ninepins and then knock them down is a complete and utter farce. It shows that the hon. member had nothing else to talk about so he manufactured something. Of course it is nonsense to talk of a real Nuremberg trial. The people will deal with the Government. They will deal with the offences the Government has committed against South Africa.

So you differ from your colleagues?

I now want to turn to another matter, namely the question of the Liquor Act. As is known, that is a matter on which we have a free vote. We do not have free liquor, unfortunately, but we do have a free vote on this side of the House. Therefore I place on record that I speak in my private capacity. I want to start by congratulating the chairman of the National Liquor Board for having achieved their ambition. According to the annual report I see that they are now top of the pops. They are the first “aspect worthy of special mention” in the report of the Department of Justice. They take up 25 per cent of the two-page report and seven or eight pages of the statistics. Again they made the top of the pops by being first in the statistics. It is interesting in passing to note that apart from deeds and liquor the whole of the rest of the Department of Justice—the over-loaded rolls of the court, the staff problems and all the difficulties of their department take up only 16 lines of the report.

At least we have here a glimmer of light namely the welcome announcement of the consolidation of the Liquor Act, and in that respect I agree with the hon. member of Potchefstroom. The report states that the time is undeniably ripe for this. I would like to say that the time is not ripe, but that it is over-ripe. The hon. the Minister knows what happens to things when they are over-ripe. Therefore it is no use just consolidating. I want to appeal to the hon. the Minister to send this measure when it is introduced, to a Select Committee. As the report correctly states, there have been 30 amending Bills, 16 of which were passed over the last ten years. One of these Bills contained over 116 clauses. It is like chipping away with an ice-pick at an iceage mentality to get the Liquor Act brought up to date with the age in which we live. The main objective used to be, and I quote from the report of the Secretary:

Over the years this approach has been liberalized, freer supply of liquor has been introduced, and now after some great and daring experiments ladies’ bars, for instance, have been introduced. The ladies’ bars are an innovation and so is the employment of bar maids. This appears to be quite popular. So we now have a different basic objective. But instead of achieving these different basic objectives, i.e. those set out by the Malan Commission, we seem to be tying up the whole question of liquor more and more in red tape. We tie it up with red tape, regulations and complications. We find that there are 18 classes of applications which must be made for a liquor licence. Seven of these alone apply to hotels after the hotel has received its basic licence. The Liquor Act classification provisions have achieved their objective. They have raised the standard of hotels, in fact, I believe they have over-achieved this and have gone past the point of raising the standard to acceptable level. They have pushed them up to such a high level that today many ordinary family people cannot afford to use an hotel. I only have a few minutes and I do not have time to argue it with the Minister. It is not the Minister’s fault. We supported the principle, but I say it has been over-administered and has forced hotels out of reach of the ordinary South African citizen who wants to take his family on holiday. My appeal to the hon. the Minister is the old one of the ice pick that keeps chipping away. Let us cut off seven of these eight octopus grips that the National Liquor Board has on hotels, and confine its control to the granting of the original licence. This should be the protection; the location and the original standards which the National Liquor Board can decide upon. However, the other seven octopuses, the ladies’ bars, the late hours, this, that and the other—I do not have the time to deal with them all—whether women may go into a bar and the employment of bar maids, these things have nothing to do with the National Liquor Board and the control of the Liquor Act. They are part of running the hotel. Let the liquor side of the hotel be controlled, but thereafter let us hack off seven of these eight tentacles of this octopus.

Sir, in the minute I have left I want to refer to the investigation into on-consumption premises, as well as off-consumption. I want to say to the hon. the Minister that irrespective of what that report may contain, he must remember that if he should close those legal channels, he will force liquor into illegal channels. Here I have a newspaper which says: “Mr. Pelser, the toast of the shebeen queens”. They are dreaming and hoping that legal channels for obtaining liquor under decent conditions will be removed so that the shebeen queens can come into their own. [Time expired.]

Following up on what the hon. member for Durban Point said, and as a result of what was said by the hon. member for Ermelo, I can tell the hon. member for Durban Point that the National Party, and those of us sitting here, are not at all concerned about meeting the South African electorate should they form a kind of tribunal to judge the actions of the National Party. I can tell him that we long for the day when we can again hold a general election, when we can compare the achievements of the two parties. When that day comes, the debate we have had here since the discussion of the hon. the Minister’s Vote, can certainly be used to judge what the achievements of the various parties are. In the first place the actions of the chief speaker on the Opposition side will have to be judged, and his actions will be judged in the words of the hon. member for Musgrave when he said very indignantly, as a result of a statement by the hon. member for Potgietersrus—

And then he gives the answer—

Shame, Sir, If there are facts then these facts, which the main speaker of the Justice group on that side used, are going to be employed by us when we come before the tribunal of the electorate to tell the voters of South Africa that that hon. member has no interest in seeing whether the facts he so readily wants to quote are correct. But, Sir, we shall also have to look at the hon. member for Wynberg. The hon. member could just as well have stood up and asked the Chairman whether she could not simply have handed in her speech and whether it could not be regarded as having been read, because it is the third successive time she has made the same speech. The public as a tribunal has never taken any notice of what she has had to say on the subject she spoke about again today. Then there was also an interjection, which was made here by the hon. member for Jeppes, which we cannot allow to pass. When the hon. member for Ermelo referred to Afrikaners who were caught and placed in concentration camps, and asked whether they were terrorists or communists, do you know, Sir, what the hon. member for Jeppes then asked? He asked: “What were they?” Those are the kind of facts, in the words of the hon. member for Musgrave, which we shall place before the tribunal. I should also like to refer to another case to which the hon. member for Musgrave referred on Wednesday evening in respect of a newspaper report about what the chairman of NICRO allegedly said with respect to penal reform. The hon. member said that what the chairman of NICRO was asking, was precisely what they on that side are advocating.

That is not what I said.

The hon. member may go and look at what he said. He said that those are the things they are asking for.

Read it.

He said—

The hon. the Minister then asked him what their proposals are. With reference to the idea that penal reform should take place, I took another look at the Criminal Procedure Act. I find that in the Criminal Procedure Act there are two sections— actually three—i.e. sections 334 and 335, as well as section 352, which have been amended on several occasions since the commencement of the Act in 1959. Important amendments were introduced, inter alia, in 1965 and 1968. If we look at those three sections we see, as far as the presiding officers at any trial are concerned, that a tremendous amount of discretion is allocated to them which they can exercise in imposing punishment. In the case of crimes which we previously regarded as capital crimes, amendments were introduced in terms of which a punishment other than the death penalty can be imposed. It is therefore merely a question of the use of the existing machinery in terms of the three sections I have mentioned here.

Sir, what is also interesting is that when these amendments were proposed in 1965 and 1968 with respect to that Act, we did not obtain any appreciable support from the Opposition for these amendments which provided for more flexibility in the imposition of punishments. We acknowledge —the hon. the Minister of Justice said so himself—that as many as 42 per cent of the prisoners being held in our prisons today are people serving sentences of four months or less. Sir, it is no use hon. members on that side simply making allegations. The hon. member for Musgrave “must quote facts”, as the main speaker on judicial matters on that side does, but he must just do it a bit better, because the facts the hon. member for Durban North quoted here we unfortunately cannot use in a debate. We can perhaps use them outside in a different way, but we cannot use them in a debate in this House.

Sir, I should like to refer to another matter. To date we have had to listen to a great deal of criticism here about our prisons. Today I just want to make a few remarks about our prisons, and in particular our prison staff. I want to mention to you, Sir, how many members of the prisons staff have academic qualifications. There are 93 with B.A. degrees; there are 13 with Honours degrees; there are five with Masters degrees, and there are some studying for Doctors degrees. There are also 139 engaged in under-graduate studies, and there are 15 engaged in post-graduate studies. Over and above these already qualified people, and those who have completed their studies, we also find that the department goes out of its way to offer courses to members of the prisons staff. It is interesting to see to what extent those people attended these courses.

In 1968-’69 376 people attended the various courses. In 1969-70 the number was 558, and in 1970-’71 it was 740. And in addition, in the past report year, there were 745 people in the Department of Prisons who were engaged in extramural studies and who obtained financial assistance from the department to qualify themselves further. Sir, I think this is truly a splendid picture. A large percentage of these 42 per cent of the prisoners who must serve terms of four months or less, are there because they clashed with the law as a result of drunkenness. I am aware of the fact that there are several institutions and that in terms of the sections I mentioned here the right is granted to the presiding officer to send people to those institutions. But I advocate that the hon. the Minister should consider establishing, at our prisons themselves, a specialized division where we can treat these people, who usually do actually land up in gaol after the second or third offence, and where we can look after their rehabilitation.

I should like to reply to a few of the speakers. I think that I must first say something about liquor. There is more than one hon. member who mentioned this subject, like the hon. members for Durban Point and Potchefstroom. In connection with liquor the hon. member for Durban Point particularly mentioned the question of what is known as “dual control”. His view is this. He says that if an hotel is classified we must only look after the liquor and leave the other aspects. They must be left for someone else to look after. That is also the Hotel Board’s standpoint; they also wanted it. They say that they can still look after the annual renewal of licences, but they think they ought to be renewed automatically if the Hotel Board issues a certificate.

I cannot accept that proposal. I definitely cannot accept it for the simple reason that the Liquor Act, as it now reads—and I should not like to have it any other way—provides for licences. It is stated that no licence may be furnished without accommodation. The accommodation forms the basis for the licence. One cannot obtain an hotel licence without supplying the accommodation. That is so. Very well, let us then simply go on until we have eventually classified the hotel. The hon. member, who criticized me so much about the classifications, is now completely silent about the matter. The whole lot have now been classified, except for perhaps a few.

This was done with very little inconvenience.

But many sold out.

No. There are some which were classified and then sold out; there are some who felt that their land was worth so much that they could not sell out, and there are a small number who changed over to beer and wine, but generally speaking the classification was a complete success and we have obtained thanks for it throughout the country. But what complicated the matter is that they did not stop at classification. They went for stars and began to build these expensive hotels, but that has nothing to do with my administration. We only ensured that the minimum requirements were met and we gave long extensions of time where necessary. We worked nicely with the people throughout South Africa. For all practical purposes the scheme is a success.

It is true that hotel prices have increased, but that is not attributable to classification. It is because they incurred heavy costs in order to obtain extra stars. But that is just in passing. They have now been classified, and once an hotel has been classified, the hon. member states, I must leave it alone and the Hotel Board must keep an eye on it. The Hotel Board would then send me a certificate. They would perhaps only go round once a year to see what is going on. But I cannot accept that proposal. I gave it very serious attention. I discussed it with the management of Fedhasa. How can I now do this? There is the Board, and there is not the slightest control over its officials. Now I am not speaking of administrative control, and I do not want to do the Hotel Board any harm. I am speaking of the legal controls by a Minister. There is simply nothing of that kind, and I am acting on their recommendations. They appoint an inspector. I take it they appoint good inspectors, but Heaven only knows they could also be bad inspectors. Such an inspector could come along to an hotel and the licensee might say he would supply him with liquor for the rest of the year. If he is found out the worst thing that can be done is to discharge him. But this is not so with our classification officials who are Police officers. The Police officers are responsible people.

Once or twice a year the Police officer just gives the hotel a once-over to see whether it is in the same condition it was in when it was classified. If everything is in order as far as they are concerned, the annual request is granted, if there are no other objections that have come from the Police. The main reason why I cannot deviate from this system is that I cannot depend on a Board whose officials are not legally responsible to me. That is my basic difficulty which I cannot circumvent. Eventually I also told Fedhasa as much, and I think Fedhasa accepts the fact. Well, they may be grumbling, and they may have told that hon. member something, but they have not spoken to me again. I stated my view to them frankly, and it is my impression they accepted it.

Would you not give the industry representation on the Liquor Board?

No, that is the last thing I would do. Once I have given representation to the industry, I must give it to the bottle stores and at an even later stage to the wholesalers. One cannot do it so sectionally.

It is to be your own private empire.

No, I ask the Board. Let us understand each other well. You must keep it clearly in mind that liquor constitutes 73 per cent of the clear income of an hotel—I am now speaking from memory. Liquor is a controlled article and as long as it remains a controlled article we must keep an eye on it. I cannot accept that. It is not a question of an “empire” or any ting of that kind. I say again that hotel costs are not higher as a result of the classification, but because they are trying to compete for stars.

Then there is the National Liquor Board. And what is wrong with that? The fact of the matter is that we should also take off our hats to the National Liquor Board. The amount of work those people are doing—for example the investigations I direct them to carry out—is tremendous. They deserve the utmost praise and credit for that. Perhaps the secretary knew they are doing first-rate work, and that is why he apparently mentioned them first.

It is the most important in the department.

I cannot say what his reason was. Someone else spoke about the question of the overseas trip of members of the Liquor Board. That is the case. Four of the six members are going on the trip. It is not a question of a distinction being drawn as far as the members are concerned. Fortunately this is not so. It was chiefly a question of expense. I was actually afraid, in these difficult times, to go to the Cabinet to ask for the necessary money so that the visit could take place. It was therefore a question of expense. Three of the members are in the Public Service and we are footing the bill as far as they are concerned. The fourth member is not in the Public Service and must cover for his own costs. That is the condition on which he is going. There is no reflection whatsoever on the gentlemen who remain behind. The fact that they are not going is because we actually cannot afford it. I must say that we made a slight mistake in this connection. We neglected to ask the gentlemen whether they did not want to go along at their own expense; unfortunately we did not think of that. However, there was no ulterior motive. All of them are first-rate members and they are all doing very good work.

There is still the question of an inquiry into on-consumption and off-consumption.

Yes, I am coming to that in a moment. There was a question in connection with on-consumption and off-consumption by the hon. members for Potchefstroom and Durban Point. In 1968, after careful consideration, the Cabinet decided to close down on-consumption. There are certain problems in that connection, and I shall refer to them. It was decided to close this down since the position had become untenable. This is particularly the case here in the Cape. To what extent this applies in Natal I cannot say. My information is that the situation is much better there. It was the Cabinet’s standpoint that the Whites should not go and drink in the residential areas of other colour groups; we do not go to their areas and make ourselves repulsive there by drinking too much. Since this was the case, why must the people be allowed to do it here in our areas. That was our view. As the responsible Minister I consequently made a statement in this House, on behalf of the Cabinet, to the effect that we would close down on-consumption. I said that at the same time there should be as little inconvenience and disruption as possible. Although I did not express any opinions about the matter, I nevertheless mentioned the question of consortiums as a possibility. I said that we would investigate the matter. I then instructed the National Liquor Board to investigate the matter. They were instructed to find ways and means of removing these people with the least possible disruption in accordance with the stated policy of the present Government. They have already made extensive progress, and according to the Chairman of the National Liquor Board there is still one organization that must give evidence before them. After that they hope to be able to draft a report. Something strange happened there. When Fedhasa was asked in evidence how this could be brought about with the least possible disruption, Fedhasa stated that it was not interested in the matter and did not actually want this. Fedhasa is opposed to the principle of the matter. I am only speaking of Cape Town’s non-White bars in the White area. As I understood it they went along and established a “fighting fund”. The hon. member for Potchefstroom also spoke of the “fighting fund”. They obtained a senior advocate, Mr. Snitcher, as well as two economists, i.e. Prof. S. P. Cilliers of Stellenbosch and another person from the Transvaal. I cannot remember at the moment what his name is. They established the “fighting fund”, but hon. members will know that one cannot establish a “fighting fund” without money. Somebody must pay for it. They then decided to ask their members for contributions. I take the members here in the Cape are willing to give contributions, because many of them have bars here in the Cape. But in the Free State and in the Transvaal there was apparently some resistance. Those people said they were not interested, because they do not have bars. As I understand it the people in Natal contributed, just like the people in the Cape, because they were also interested parties. It now appears that the position is such that Fedhasa is saying to all its members: Look here, it is not only on-consumption that is implicated; you must know that your off-consumption will also be affected; you run the danger of your off-consumption being closed down at a later stage. What their reaction is does not specifically make any difference. I think they will again give evidence with a view to this. There is, of course, not the slightest danger, and it is not the intention of the present Government to touch off-consumption privileges which Coloureds and other coloured races have, i.e. those relating to the purchase of their liquor in White areas. They need not fear that that facility will be taken away from them. Unpleasant incidents also sometimes occur in the White areas because of off-consumption. If hon. members knew of the lot of complaints I receive, what pressures are exerted on me and the problems I am saddled with, they would be surprised. When a decision was taken about the matter at the time I said we would see if we could take certain steps in that connection to establish the necessary powers.

On an individual basis.

Yes, on an individual basis. I shall tell the hon. member how this works in practice. Let us suppose a complaint crops up in Bellville, Wellington or Belfast. It makes no difference where. The complaint is that there is a crowd of people who are behaving badly in the vicinity of a specific bottle store selling liquor for consumption off the premises. There is a request that the bottle store’s licence be suspended. I cannot simply suspend licences. The relative person is then firstly notified that there are complaints and that we intend to institute an inquiry. At the same time, or perhaps even before the time, we let the complainants know that we are instituting an inquiry and that they must ensure that they obtain witnesses to prove their case. Then I instruct the National Liquor Board in terms of section 118, and they consequently go to investigate the position in loco. Even before we go that far, the local police have already kept an eye on the position and drawn up a report. As a result of what they report, we may or may not take action, or we take steps to ensure that action is taken, or we do not take action. There have already been so many cases of complaints where conclusive proof was furnished that it was not liquor the people were looking for there. That is a contributing factor, it is true, but there are also 10 or 12 other factors. In such a case I cannot take any action. It would be unjust and unreasonable. In other cases the report of the National Liquor Board convinces me that action should be taken. Then we close the non-White section for a period of 12 months in terms of section 100quin. It has already happened that after the space of a few months things are much better. Then we again ask the police to make an investigation. If they then say “yes, it is all right,” then we say: “Very well, we lift the restrictions we placed on you; but we want to warn you—you must watch out. If it happens again we are simply going to act. If it does not happen again, well, then you suffer no damage”.

Can on-consumption not be handled on the same basis?

No. A definite decision has now been taken, and we have committed ourselves to that since 1968, I think. I myself do not intend to do it. Let me just conclude with this. There need not be the slightest fear that off-consumption will be prejudiced. There is always the condition, of course, that the bottle store or off-sales agent behaves himself properly, sees to it that things run smoothly and that no disturbance is caused. Subject to that condition there is not the slightest danger. But as far as on-consumption is concerned, we are just waiting. We shall consequently have to decide about that. I cannot do that before I have seen the National Liquor Board’s report. I think that more or less concludes what I wanted to say about that.

While I am standing I also want to tell the hon. member for Green Point that we shall have another shot at the Mbambo case he referred to. His position is that he was arrested in terms of section 6 for questioning. He was detained here in the Cape for a considerable length of time. Here he was in complete solitary confinement for interrogation. At a certain stage during the period of his detention here, it appeared as if this man wanted to talk. However, so much for that. He was subsequently transferred in a group to Pietermaritzburg as a detainee for interrogation. However, there he was not in solitary confinement. There he was locked up with someone else. I do not know who the person was or what his circumstances were. However, he was still detained for questioning in terms of section 6. He was thus detained until 24th September of the specific year.

Is that the date on which he appeared in court?

No, but he was detained up to that date. I do not think he appeared in court on that date. On that date he was set free. He was also paid an allowance. This man was set free for the brief period from 24th September to 2nd October.

He therefore gave evidence during that period?

He was freed for those nine days to give evidence, as I also said in the statement I made. In the meantime an application was made to the Attorney-General for the detention of this man in terms of section 215bis. If there had been the slightest indication that he should be detained in terms of that section it would have been used. This was also done with a view to being able to pay this person witness fees. And from 2nd October he consequently received, witness fees until the case was concluded. I said that the amount the Minister mentioned was a fairly large one. However, I do not know whether it was compensation. My present information is that it does not include compensation.

Only witness fees?

Yes. I would say that the position is that from the time he made a statement—I do not know whether this was on the 24th or on what date it was— until the termination of the case, the man ought to have obtained not only witness fees, but also compensation in respect of his work.

What happened to his dependants …?

The hon. member must not interrupt me now. Further information that I have indicates that they are not authorized to pay him witness fees for the period of 24th September to 2nd October, although he was present for this purpose. The Act does not provide for this. However, I shall go into the matter and see whether we should not approach the Treasury in order to compensate this man partly or fully for the period he was there. I do not know what the position in respect of his employer was. This is an awkward case. One can surely not say that the moment a person is arrested, if he is suspected of terrorist activities, for example, the State must also accept responsibility for his dependants. I am sorry, but I really cannot make any concessions in this connection. However, I am in favour of the fact that the moment it becomes clear that a person is going to become a witness and give voluntary evidence that person must be paid witness fees, plus the amount he would have earned had he been working.

If the employer does not pay, it would be an injustice to the family.

Yes, I can only speak about the period from when this became apparent. A good case could be made out for this. It must be submitted. I do not know what the circumstances are. And I do not want to go into that now either. That is the position as far as this fellow is concerned.

The hon. member for Innesdal asked me a question which I do want to refer to. He says he has personal experience of the Department of Justice. He also says that he saw in the newspapers that the previous chairman of the Association of Law Societies, Mr. Vorster, had made certain statements. Mr. Vorster is from the Free State, and that is perhaps why the hon. member for Innesdal knows him. I also saw those reports and I did not feel happy about them either. I asked Mr. Vorster whether he would come and discuss matters with me when he came to Pretoria again. He subsequently informed me that he did not know when he would again be coming to Pretoria, but that he would be coming one day. At a later stage he let me know that he would be in Pretoria on a certain day and that he would be able to see me then. He did so. I need not say what took place behind closed doors, but I spoke candidly to Mr. Vorster. I told him that I really felt he had done us a disservice; I also told him that I had looked up to him. but that I was now disappointed. Other things were also said, but it does not matter what took place there. I thereby thought that the matter involving Mr. Vorster had been cleared up. I will not say that I thought the matter had been cleared up completely, because both the department and I are involved. Mr. Oberholzer, the Secretary for the Department, and I, then waited to see if there would be any reaction, not from Mr. Vorster personally, but from the Association as such. Unfortunately there was no reaction. I received a letter from Mr. Malherbe, the present chairman of the Association of Law Societies, when he was designated to the post. He is from the Cape. In that letter he more or less said that he would like to assure me of his co-operation and that he would endeavour, as far as possible, to clear up any misunderstanding that had cropped up in the past. He gave that indication. Earlier this year he was elected as chairman of the Association. The gentlemen of the Association of Law Societies paid a courtesy visit to me. We discussed various matters. They also said it was only a courtesy visit, and so they departed. I understand that they also paid a courtesy visit to the Secretary for Justice. I cannot say whether they discussed this matter. But nevertheless, after that visit the Secretary for Justice came to me and asked me if anything had been said about the matter. I told him that nothing had been said. He also stated that nothing had been said during the visit to him. The Secretary for Justice then sent a letter to the Association of Law Societies in which he stated in a nice way that he did not feel happy about the matter. He said he expected the matter to perhaps be raised in Parliament and that he would then like to be in a position to reply. There was a nice reponse to that letter. The reply to his letter was received recently. I have the letter here with me. It is signed by the Secretary of the Association of Law Societies. Mr. Louw. He says he is writing on behalf of the Executive Committee. He says that nothing is being held against us. He says they also have another duty and that that is also a good thing. I just want to have a look here—yes, here I have it (translation)—

In the initial portion, which I do not want to burden you with, what it amounts to is that they have nothing against the adminnistration.

That is from Mr. Louw?

Yes, but at the request of the Executive Committee. Therefore, with respect to the matter mentioned by the hon. member for Innesdal, who was formerly attached to the department, I want to tell him that he must forget about the Mr. Vorster incident. There are other people who also spoke to me, but forget about that. I am quite satisfied, and I take it the Association is also satisfied. They can be sure of our co-operation, because in the past there has been very cordial co-operation. I want to tell the hon. member that we spent many hours on matters that come from the attorneys. We shall forget about that.

I should like to broach another matter which was mentioned and which I really do not want to forget. While the main speaker on the Opposition side was speaking the other day, an hon. member on this side of the House made an interjection and asked: “What did Blackie Swart do?”

Who said it?

No, I do not know who said it, but it was said; it happened a little while ago. This relates to the powers of the Attorney-General. I can also link this up with the Beytagh case, which was also referred to. It was also indicated, I think by the hon. member for Durban North, that we should handle this case in quite a different manner. I should like to say something about that. Under this Government the position is—and I know and believe that under the Prime Minister, when he was Minister of Justice, it was also the case—that we simply do not interfere with the Attorney-General. It is simply not done. The furthest we would ever go is to say that we would appreciate it if the Secretary of the Department would please request the Attorney-General to look at a particular matter personally. It does happen at times, for example, that people from a certain district make representations for one to take action in respect of some case or other, or something of that nature. I cannot do that. I do not want to interfere with the Attorney-General. We simply do not do so. It is true that he carries out his duties subject to the control of the Minister, but this has an interesting history, which I can perhaps just refer to. Mr. Blackie Swart is not the person who said he thinks he is making a mistake. That was always the position under the Prime Minister. The hon. member for Transkei, Mr. T. G. Hughes, asked: “What did Blackie Swart do? He changed it.” No, Blackie Swart did not change it. That is not how things stand. The position is that prior to Union the prosecution was completely in the hands of the Government. It could instruct an official to institute an investigation, but it had to make the decision. With the advent of Union they apparently debated this matter, so I gather from the speech of the late Mr. Patrick Duncan. They debated the matter and then placed it exclusively in the hands of the Atorney-General. Things went on like that; I do not know what happened. I have an idea of what it is all about, but I do not want to express an idea. Eventually, in 1926, the late Tielman Roos, as the then Minister of Justice, raised the matter in this House. He referred to it and said there were two systems: The one is the extreme on this side, the Government, and the other is the extreme on the other side, the Attorney-General. He wanted to find the mean. As a result of that he made the Attorney-General subject to the control of the Minister. This system worked provisionally for a certain period, but what was very interesting in that debate was the attitude of Mr. Patrick Duncan. At the time he was not a supporter of the National Party, unless history leaves me in the lurch. He never was at any time. In 1926, in respect of Mr. Tielman Roos’s proposal, Mr. Patrick Duncan adopted the attitude that it would be no good because it did not go far enough. He was of the opinion that it should be placed with the Government and with no one else. He said (translation): “What is the use, in this respect, of using an official and then, every time a case comes before Parliament, hiding behind the official? ” Mr. Roos then said: “Well, the position is actually that I am doing this because the Attorney-General is not responsible to me or to Parliament. That is why I am doing it”. That is why it subsequently happened, but I find Mr. Patrick Duncan’s attitude, in saying Mr. Roos did not go far enough, very interesting. He wanted it to be placed back in the Government’s hands, where it had been throughout the years. So it happened, but what is interesting is that it was again amended, or rather again confirmed. It was again confirmed in 1935. That is important, because I just want to say that the National Government was not yet in power. It was confirmed again in 1935—the 1917 Act apparently—and, if my memory serves me correctly, it was done by none other than the late Gen. Smuts, who was the Minister of Justice at the time. He confirmed it just as we are also doing today. Therefore, accusations must really not be flung across the floor of this House about whether you changed the Act or whether we did. The old United Party has as much of a hand in this as we do. In fact, some of their members wanted to go further than we went. That is the position.

That was Tielman Roos in those days.

Yes, originally it was Tielman Roos. He had good reason, but Patrick Duncan said he was not going far enough.

Do you know what the trouble was years ago?

I cannot say; I do not know the relevant history. I just know there were Attorneys-General who were a little rough in their handling of things. If people had to go and see them they would have had to visit them elsewhere if they were not at their offices. But that is just in passing; I do not want to speak about that.

I just quickly want to reply to the hon. member who has already left, i.e. the hon. member for Potgietersrust, who apologized for his absence. The point he touched upon concerns the question of prison farms. He asked for more prison farms. I now want to tell the hon. member that we have quite a few prison farms. In the Transvaal we have five prison farms, i.e. those at Barberton, Baviaanspoort, Zonder-water, Leeuwkop and Nigel. Then there is also land available at Modderbee and Standerton. There is also land available at Heidelberg and Klerksdorp. Eighteen morgen of irrigation land is available at the latter. In the Orange Free State we have three farms, i.e. Groenpunt, Goedemoed, and Grootvlei, situated respectively near the Vaaldam, near Bethulie and near Bloemfontein. In Natal we have three farms, i.e. at Kandaspunt, Waterval and Sevontein. Then we also have a fairly large piece of land available for agriculture at Pietermaritzburg. In the Cape Province we have two farms and five prisons with large grounds. They are the Victor Verster prison, Brandvlei, Allandale and St. Albans, near Port Elizabeth. At East London, George and Worcester, we also have quite a bit of land. That is what we have at present. The hon. member said we should try to obtain land in the Bantu areas. I want to mention to him that in the Transkei we have farms at Bizweni, that is near Umzimkulu and at Wellington, near Umtata. The two farms must still be developed. Then there are also farms in Natal. I can tell the hon. member that it is necessary for us to obtain more prison farms. We are also in the process of purchasing two in the Transvaal, i.e. at Spring Valley and Rooigrond. This project has not yet been finalized, but we are in the process of making the purchase. Then there is another area we are in the process of purchasing, at Kouransdrift. We have not quite agreed yet about this scheme. We also envisage buying farms in the vicinity of Tulbagh and Caledon. I just quickly want to reply to what the hon. member for Wynberg said. Unfortunately she is not present at the moment. I have just received a note in connection with a matter she raised.

She referred to Sgt. Andries van Wyk who dealt with the Imam Haron case. According to her Sgt. Andries van Wyk is now in Stikland. This Sgt. Andries van Wyk never had anything to do with the Imam. The hon. member’s information is therefore wrong. I obtained this information from the Police after the hon. member had raised this matter this morning. I am just mentioning it because she is not present at the moment.

I have already referred to the hon. member for Potchefstroom. He referred to the magistrates’ courts and to the liquor boards. He referred, in particular, to a specific case in that respect. I have already dealt with the matters raised by the hon. member for Jeppes. The hon. member for Potchefstroom also raised the matter of the jurisdiction of magistrates’ courts. That is so, and I have already mentioned that we are thinking along these lines. The difficulty is that we cannot go on in this way with the amount of work and the number of judges increasing. The number of judges has increased from a figure in the forties to a figure in the eighties. I do not want a position in which one is kicking out a judge at every turn. That would cheapen the profession, even the office. We will definitely not allow that. Therefore I think that we must leave more civil jurisdiction to the magistrates’ courts. We are still thinking along those lines. It seems to me it can easily be done by increasing the jurisdiction as it stands to a maximum of say X. We have not worked out the details of the matter completely yet, and therefore I am just mentioning this provisionally. That will then be the jurisdiction with the proviso that if the claim is for an amount of more than Y, the case cannot be tried by an ordinary magistrate. Such a case will then be referred to a regional court to be heard. That is how we think to deal with it.

There was also a reference to Minister Coetzee. I think the hon. member for Green Point mentioned it.

Oh, yes.

The hon. member said that the Minister said it was a case between himself and the other party. Yes, that is true, he did say that. He also did it to a certain extent, but not quite. I think the damage was quite considerable, i.e. in the region of R7 000. He felt honour-bound to pay the damage himself. He also did so. As for the rest, as previously indicated, that is our policy and consquently that is how it remains until the Government changes it.

The hon. member for Jeppes said something in connection with solitary confinement. I do not want to speak about that now. I think I have dealt with all the points that were raised.

Mr. Chairman, I should like to say a few words in regard to the actions of the chief speaker on Justice matters on that side of the House. The hon. member has recently played a particular role in this House. When we review his actions, we shall see that he has done all the dirty work on behalf of the United Party. It was he who dealt with the Agliotti case in an exaggerated manner. It was he who raised the Excelsior immorality case some time ago, it was he who raised the case of Gen. Bester, and it was he who made certain deprecatory remarks in connection with the death of Timol. The hon. member for Durban North has left a trail of mud through this House in recent times. Let us see what Ministers’ resignations he has demanded in his impetuosity. We notice that it is quite an impressive list. He asked for the resignation of Minister Uys, the resignation of Minister Pelser, of Minister De Wet and of Minister Coetzee. I say that the hon. member has left a trail of mud through this House in recent times, and the adverse remarks that he has made about the authorities and bodies responsible for the safety of this country are of a very serious nature. The United Party’s and his vilification of the Police and the department entrusted with the safety of the State is something which this House, this Committee and the people have to view in a serious light. Of course, I do not want to comment in any way on the Timol case, but I must refer to certain vituperative remarks passed by that hon. member. According to the Rand Daily Mail of 2nd November, 1971, he had, inter alia, this to say:

This is section 6—

And then he went on to say—

That is a scandalous remark! Then he said—

[Interjections.] The hon. member for Port Elizabeth Central must be careful; I shall tell his father-in-law if he does not conduct himself properly. Apart from what the hon. member for Durban North had to say, the Leader of the Opposition himself, according to the Rand Daily Mail of 4th November, had this to say:

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition wants the Security Police to be investigated. Sir, why is he asking for this investigation? It is because he wants to make the Security Police, and the Police generally, suspect among the people—the body responsible for the safety of the State. On 6th November, the Rand Daily Mail stated: “Mitchell blames Vorster”, and then had this to say:

We find, Sir, that the Security Police are gradually being run down in this way. But all these things reached a peak in an issue of the Sunday Times, in which the hon. member for Durban North had this to say. I want to tell him that I regard his actions as reprehensible. I quote:

And then follow these words, which I want to quote to the hon. member, because he ought to be ashamed of himself—

He went on to say—

Then follow these very important remarks to which I want to draw the attention of the Committee—

Quite right.

Sir, hon. members on this side of the House have said on various occasions that the United Party cannot be trusted with the safety of the country. I want to tell the hon. member why. That side of the House cannot be trusted because they are making the instruments for the maintenance of the safety of the State suspect. They are trying to create enmity between the people and the Police and the department responsible for the safety of the State. They are trying to give the public the impression that they must fear the Police. Is that not a scandalous thing to do, Sir? I want to ask the hon. member for Durban Point whether he agrees with these scandalous actions by the hon. member for Durban North.

Are we discussing the Minister’s Vote or are we discussing the hon. member for Durban North?

Answer the question.

We on this side want to tell the people outside that the United Party is displaying a cynicism about the safety of the State, a cynicism which renders them incapable of handling the safety of the State. Sir, in the modem times in which we live, war is no longer what it was in the past when one country declared war against another country and when the forces of one country marched against another country. A “state of war” is something which has to be redefined today, because a country or a group of interests which wants to do battle with South Africa today does not do so openly. They do so through the medium of citizens in South Africa; they do so through people whom they want to use to infiltrate organizations like the Police and others in South Africa. Sir, the hon. member says that they can be trusted with the safety of the State, but we know that they do not understand the delicate assault on South Africa; we know that they do not recognize the dangers threatening South Africa, and we know that for this reason they are unable to give the requisite consideration to the means necessary to ward off the threat to South Africa. We live in difficult times; we live in a dangerous world, and at this stage South Africa is one of the world’s focal points. The people of South Africa must be encouraged to support the Police Force and the Government in this connection. Sir, that side of the House has a duty towards the people and towards the future of South Africa to inspire confidence in our Security Police on the part of our citizens. They have a duty in this connection, and I want to tell the hon. member that this is a duty which he is neglecting shamefully. But what is more, his actions, whether calculated or caused by ignorance, have the effect of helping South Africa’s enemies.

You are talking tripe.

These are actions which have the effect of helping South Africa’s enemies in their efforts to infiltrate in South Africa.

[Inaudible.]

Sir, the hon. member who has just interjected does not know what it is all about. The struggle is not one between countries which wage war in the way in which war was waged in the past. The war in which we are joined is a sophisticated and delicate one, and the attitude of this side of the House is that South Africa must know that the United Party cannot be trusted with the safety and the future of South Africa and with the future of the White man.

Sir, I am glad that the hon. member who has just sat down has made the sort of speech he has made, because I hope that it may in some way demonstrate to the hon. the Minister of Justice that we are not here in a high school girls’ debating society, as was demonstrated by that hon. gentleman. Sir, we use hard words against each other; that is politics. It is not very pleasant to have these things said about one, and I suffer in exactly the same way as the hon. the Minister does because I am a member of Parliament, and the things that are allowed to be said about me and that are said about me are the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune which one has to bear in political life. Sometimes, Sir, it is more robust than it is at other times, and today you have seen a demonstration of what happens to you when you occupy the position of chairman of the Justice group of the Opposition.

But you must stick to the facts.

Then, Sir, all sorts of things are said about you, from the first speaker to the last, with the use of the most extraordinary adjectives. But I expect that because I am in politics, and if I stick my neck out in the political field, I must expect to get the severest criticism which sometimes appears to be personal criticism.

But that man told the truth.

Sir, I am sorry that the hon. the Minister adopted the attitude that he did here this morning. Sir, hurtful things are said about us all. But the hon. the Minister must accept that there is no such thing as a ministerial person. I am not interested in the person of the hon. the Minister; I am concerned with the office of the Minister and the person, whoever he may be, who exercises the power of that office. For the hon. Minister to say that he is not going to call me “die agb. lid” any more, that he is going to call me “die hoofspreker”, is carrying things much too far, and it is absolutely unnecessary. I want to emphasize that when you become a Minister of the State, you are responsible personally for every act of that department and for the act of every official in that department. And this is the system of democracy that we have. This is how it works. We will never have, I hope, the situation where officials responsible for administration are to be attacked by us here, for the very reason that they cannot defend themselves, but the Minister can. And what is more, it is the job of the Minister to protect those people. This is the point that has been missed here in so far as Mr. Oberholzer, the Secretary, is concerned. It was left to Mr. Oberholzer to make this statement and then he was attacked and he cannot defend himself. He was not defended by the hon. the Minister. I want to say this. The hon. the Minister spoke here for two hours this morning in reply to my speech on Wednesday night. What happened in those two hours? We got no answers to the questions which were posed.

You were crushed.

Crushed? Let me tell that hon. gentleman this. In the first place, as far as the 180 days detention is concerned, and as far as Legodi was concerned, the question that was asked was “Why was he put in solitary confinement from the time he was arrested until the time he gave evidence, for 129 days?” The hon. the Minister knows because the hon. the Minister admitted that he knew all about this detention right from the very beginning. One wants to know why he was put into solitary confinement. After all he was being detained so that he could give evidence for the State, and one hardly imagines that 129 days of solitary confinement was going to encourage him to give that evidence, or to put him into a fit state of mind to give it. Then there was some suggestion by the hon. member for Prinshof that he was not an innocent witness; he was an accomplice. It does not seem, from what the hon. member for Houghton read of the judgment of Judge Margo, that he was an accomplice, but even if he was, the same would apply. Let us take it even further and say that he was not just an accomplice but that he was the main perpetrator, the accused. Then he would be held as an accused person in gaol. They would not be able to put him in solitary confinement, and if he had been actually convicted of murder and sentenced to, say, life imprisonment, again he could not be put into solitary confinement. But this person is given solitary confinement for 129 days. That is the question, and we have hadi no answer.

Then there is the other question as to the suggestion that this Government may think of appointing regional magistrates to the Supreme Court Bench. There we have had no answer at all. The hon. the Minister, aided and abetted by all the other hon. gentlemen who said that I was misquoting the Minister, admitted that what I quoted was what came over the SABC. I may say that that is where I first heard it, that he said that he was the first person to appoint a woman to the Bench. What I heard and what the hon. the Minister confirms now, was that the SABC said, as did the Press, that he hoped to be the first person to appoint a regional magistrate. From that day until this day the country was under the impression that that is what he said because he did not correct it, and he cannot blame anyone for thinking that. But the position is not made very much better by his explanation. He now says that under him and under this Government it may be—the question is still unresolved —that he will appoint regional magistrates to the Supreme Court Bench. The most significant thing of all is what was not said. Not one of those hon. members, who are members of the legal profession and who have spoken in this debate sought to defend the suggestion that regional magistrates should be appointed to the Bench. I congratulate them on this. Not one of them will defend it and I knew that from the beginning. But I do not understand what is happening here because when the hon. the Prime Minister was Minister of Justice his predecessor made certain noises, indicating that he, Mr. Erasmus, as Minister of Justice, was prepared to appoint magistrates to the Bench of the Supreme Court, and the Prime Minister, as Minister of Justice, squashed that altogether; it was finished. But now it has raised its ugly head again, and the hon. the Minister himself has raised it and has left in the air without giving us any answer at all. Let me say this to the hon. member who has just sat down. It is a great pity that he has left the Chamber. I would like to address these remarks also to the hon. the Minister. They say all this does South Africa’s image a lot of harm. What does? To talk about it, to keep the Government on its toes? Let me say that there is no Government’s policy which does more to help and encourage the growth of the communist doctrine than this Government’s own policy. Let me say that the object of every communist regime and movement is to subvert the democratic processes in that country. There is not one communist country which is not totalitarian. There is not one communist country where there is freedom for the individual, where there is a court which is the arbiter of his rights. Let me say, Sir, that if this process of subverting those democratic processes of the courts, especially, is allowed to continue, if it is allowed to take place at all, that in itself is a subversion of those processes and an achievement of the objects of Communism itself. I want to say to the Minister and to the hon. member who has just sat down also, that nothing does the image of this country more good than the knowledge that there is a healthy democratic society with a healthy political campaign and healthy political parties. That is what does us good, the very fact that it is there. If these things were not raised by the Opposition, if things could happen without demur, that would do us a great deal of harm. But I will tell you what will do a lot of good. That is that when these things are raised there should be a little more frankness on the part of hon. Ministers, that something was wrong and that they will not countenance it and that they will see that it will not happen again. [Time expired.]

With reference to the main speaker on the side of the Opposition, I want to content myself with the following. He said this House was a place where we were concerned with politics and that this was not a high school debate. I just want to remind him not to make the mistake of confusing politics with a lack of propriety. If that is his idea of politicising in this House, I am afraid he is in the wrong place. We must maintain a sense of proportion here and we must keep the person of the Minister of Justice and his Vote where they belong. Furthermore, I want to remind him, since he accused this Government of allegedly being responsible for the breeding-ground of communism, that there have been many from his profession in this country who have lost their sense of proportion and have come here with this type of suggestive argument, and who are the main henchmen of communism. That is enough about him.

I should like to address the hon. the Minister and in the first place express my personal appreciation to him for having granted, after several years of negotiations, a full-fledged magistrate’s office to Randburg which previously had a detached office. I just want to assure him that I am speaking on behalf of the legal profession of Randburg who appreciate this very much, as well as the fairness and reasonableness with which he handled the whole situation, making one concession after another after he had become satisfied over the years that it was in fact justified. In the second place, and farther to what was said by the hon. member for Christiana, I want to mention something in regard to the Leeukop prison. If there is any institution which meets the requirements of an ideal institution, both as regards adjustment in and to the community in which it has been placed, that institution most certaintly is the Leeukop prison. Here we have an institution which converts punishment into a blessing and an advantage. We have practical proof of this, because as from as far back as 1966 prisoners have been trained in the building industry and up to now as many as 470 Bantu prisoners have passed their trade tests. In this way they have attained full artisan status in the building industry. Because the prison is situated in my constituency, I had the privilege of visiting these training centres. Sand, for example, is used instead of clay so that Bantu prisoners may be taught how to build straight walls. It is done so that the smallest possible loss of money is involved. The care and precision with which this is done, commands respect. In a different field I also have in mind the training of cooks and waiters. Because meals are served in the large recreation halls, the prisoners have the opportunity of receiving practical training under excellent guidance. We can only express our greatest respect and appreciation towards the Whites who supervise this.

I want to point out that we have an institution here which sets itself the task of protecting our flora and fauna and it affords the Bantu, the Black man, the opportunity of developing respect for it as well. The protection of wild birds, fish and wild animals is enjoying active attention and the prisoners have the opportunity of working with these things so as to teach them to respect them and not to harm, damage or eradicate them. These are things which happen unseen every day. Here we have a case of a group of pioneers in this field, the White staff in charge, doing their duty day after day also in regard to the less privileged Bantu.

Before I resume my seat, I want to express my appreciation of the wonderful shooting-range the Leeukop prison has made available to the shooting commandos of North Rand and Johannesburg West. Their leadership in regard to pistol shooting for ladies and gentlemen, is commendable. The South African championships were staged there once, and will most probably again be held there next year. The sacrifices these officials make in the interests of the community in which they have been placed, also in the wider sense of the word, as well as in the interests of our guardianship over the Bantu in that they train the Bantu who have been placed under their supervision, compel me to hand this bouquet this afternoon to the Minister and his staff who assist him in this regard.

Mr. Chairman, I want to begin this evening with a non-contentious matter and that is the position of the Section Titles Act. There is a good deal of concern throughout the country regarding this Act as to whether or not it is going to be promulgated and, if so, when. Furthermore there are rumours which, I am sure, have been brought to the hon. the Minister’s attention to the effect that the Government is now having second thought concerning the whole operation of this Act and that it is going to be deferred for many years. This is the rumour.

It is going to be?

It is going to be deferred; it is going to be postponed for several years. The hon. the Minister should be aware that the longer this Act is kept off the Statute Book, the more damage is being done to the construction of flat accommodation which is much needed. I do not want to go into great detail in this Vote—I shall deal more fully with it when the Community Development Vote is dealt with—but I should like to refer the hon. the Minister to one statement. That is a statement by the Chairman of one of the big construction companies which is concerned with the building of housing accommodation. I refer to Mr. Schachat, the Chairman of Schachat Cullum. This is what he said in his latest chairman’s review, dated 28th April, 1972—

This is the sentiment of a great many on the flat-building entrepreneurs.

What I ask the hon. the Minister to do, is to use the opportunity of this Vote to clarify the position. I believe he will do so if he answers the following questions which I wish to put to him. I ask him to answer these questions. In reply to a question which I asked him at the beginning of February, the hon. the Minister indicated that he hoped the Act would be put into operation by the end of 1972. I ask him firstly to answer this question: Will the Act be put into operation this year? Secondly, if it will not be, because the regulations are still not ready, will he give an undertaking, not merely an expression of hope, that the Act will be brought into operation, let us say, during the first half of next year, or, if that is not possible, will he give an undertaking that it will be brought into operation during the second half of next year so that the people will at least have a definite undertaking to which they can work? At the moment the position is so undefined that, as I say, many people are beginning to believe that this is being postponed indefinitely.

The third question which I believe the hon. the Minister should answer is this: It has been suggested that if it is put into operation, it will be put into operation in certain areas at first and gradually extended throughout the country. I should like him to say whether the Act will, in fact, now be put into operation throughout South Africa at the same time, or in certain areas first and then gradually extended until it becomes applicable to the whole country. If it is to be put into operation in certain areas first, the suggestion has been that Cape Town will be the first area because the Deeds Registry here is well on top of its work and ought to be in a position to cope with the extra work.

Did you refer to Cape Town?

Yes. Rumour has it that Cape Town will be the first area where it will be put into operation. As I say, I ask the hon. the Minister to say whether, in fact, it will be put into operation in respect of certain areas at first and, if so, which will be these areas? If it is Cape Town, I suggest to the hon. the Minister that he should give further thought to this, because although the Deeds Registry may be well up to date here, this is one of the areas which has had least experience in regard to the buying of flats, which, as the hon. the Minister will know, is common practice today, but not on the sectional title basis. It is on a block-share basis. If he does intend to put it into operation in respect of certain areas first, I suggest that he should start in Durban, not through any parochial reason, because I happen to come from Durban, but because Durban happens to be one of the areas in the country which has had the greatest experience on this whole subject of block-share buying of flats. I believe that if he does intend putting it into operation in certain areas first, this will be the best place for him to start.

Now I come to the fourth question I should like him to answer. Again it has been rumoured that the Government is having second thoughts regarding certain provisions of the Act, that it is thinking that certain provisions are unworkable, and that it will therefore not promulgate this Act until it comes to the House to introduce further amendments. I ask him to say categorically whether the Government intends making any changes in the Act before it is put into operation. I believe that if he answers these questions, he will put people who are interested in the building of flats, in a position where they will know precisely where they stand and can then make their arrangements in advance for whenever the Act comes into operation.

In the short time left to me, I want to deal with a few more matters. I want to come back to the question of the prison population. The hon. the Minister accepted that the non-White prison population in South Africa is high. I am not now dealing with a comparison with other countries, just with the fact that it is high. I do think that as Minister of Justice, it is his duty to give further consideration to this question than he has given already and to see whether ways and means cannot be found for reducing this population. If he does not like the suggestions of Judge Steyn, I think he ought to get somebody working on it, so that suggestions can be found for ameliorating the position.

In regard to the suggestion made by the hon. member for Potchefstroom that civil jurisdiction should be given to regional courts, I suggest to the hon. the Minister that if the Government wishes to seriously consider this proposition, they must tread very carefully. Whilst there may be quite a lot to be said in favour of it, there are also problems which could be faced. I do not have time to discuss it in detail, but I do urge that this whole question should be very carefully investigated if serious consideration is to be given to it before introducing any measures along these lines.

Then I want to say something to the hon. member for Kroonstad. He said that Judge Botha found in this commission of inquiry into criminal procedure and evidence that section 215bis is necessary. I had a look at the section dealing with it, and I can find nothing in his report which is to the effect that he finds section 215bis necessary.

He said it had to be qualified.

He said detention of witnesses is necessary.

Yes, he says detention of witnesses may be necessary, but he does not say that section 215bis is necessary. What he does say is that he recommends that that section should be amended in an important respect, namely that there should be no detention beyond a period of 72 hours without reference to a judge on affidavit. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I should have liked to avail myself of the opportunity to say a few words to or intend a few words for the two hon. members over there—I am sorry that one is now leaving. Unfortunately my time has been cut by half and therefore I rather prefer to keep myself occupied with something which may be of a particularly local nature, but which I nevertheless regard as something of special importance.

Sir, I should again like to draw the hon. the Minister’s attention to the question of the condition of the magistrate’s offices at De Aar. This building is old, obsolete and inadequate, and I believe it should have been replaced years ago. When I say “inadequate” I really mean that problems arise there. It is situated on the main road, practically on the pavement. On a Monday morning, after all the weekend arrests have taken place, there is an enormous flocking together of people in the main road, because those people who have to appear before the court, witnesses or interested parties, have no place to assemble in the courtyard. It really is a danger. There is no courtyard. I am aware of—and have in my possession—the replies which the department has already given, viz. that the replacement of that building or the erection of a new building complex is not included in the five-year plan which, if I remember correctly, expires in 1975. I am also aware of the fact that at a higher level consideration is being given to carrying out temporary alterations which may serve as temporary relief. I have a polite request to make to the Minister and his department and that is to bear in mind that the population there is increasing all the time. At present the population is more than 20 000. We should not lose sight of the fact that the circuit court also sits there periodically. My request is—it will be in the interests of the department and everyone—rather not to think in terms of temporary alterations. I do not think these alterations can in fact serve the purpose, and I do not think they would be worth the money spent on them. My final request is: If it is in any way possible, would the hon. the Minister and his department mind considering the matter once more in order to try to see whether that work cannot be placed on the priority list? I realize that the work will be at the expense of some or other project, but this is a very polite request, and it is also one on behalf of my voters, and the local bodies in particular.

Mr. Chairman, I am really touched by the fine plea the hon. member has just made. I may tell him the position is …

We cannot hear!

… that there is nothing barring the way. It is simply a question of funds. He asked us to see whether we could place it on the priority list. I do not want to make any promises here, but I shall ask the departmental head to go into the matter and see what he can do. It is not that we are unsympathetic. I know there are many places experiencing difficulties with buildings which have to be replaced. Unfortunately one cannot do everything at the same time and some have to wait. But I promise the hon. member that we shall have a look at De Aar. Sir, I think I shall leave it at that. I do not think he expects me to say any more at this stage.

In regard to what the hon. member for Musgrave has said, I think I can put his mind at rest immediately. There is not the slightest intention to delay the Sectional Titles Act. All that is worrying us at the moment is the fact that we have to consult with such a large number of institutions and people who have a direct interest. We are experiencing some trouble in getting the necessary replies speedily. We received one reply a day or two ago. They come in slowly, but as they come in they are being attended to. There is not the slightest intention to delay or postpone the putting into operation of this Act, or to alter it. We may find it necessary, after having studied the suggestions and regulations, to make slight alterations; I do not want to say that we will not alter it at all. However, that is the position. We have to consult with town councils, surveyors, and a lot of other bodies, and that is what is delaying its being put into operation at the moment. But we do not have the slightest intention of postponing the coming into operation of this Act or of altering it. The hon. member also asked how this measure will be put into operation. I do not know what suggestions the department may make, but up to this stage there is not the slightest intention of putting it into operation in different areas on different dates. The idea is that once we are ready to publish the regulations, it will be put into effect immediately in all parts of the country. It is not a case of Cape Town being given preference. We do not propose to do so. The reason for it is that they are up to date with their work. As a matter of fact this is the case all over the country now, so that there is no reason why one area should be given preference over the other. I hope the hon. member will report that to his colleague.

May I ask the hon. Minister a question? What does he think the time factor will be? Will this measure be promulgated this year, early next year, or late next year?

Yes, I am sorry. I forgot to mention it. We have every reason to believe that we will be able to promulgate it this year. Hon. members know what can happen, but this is all I can say at the moment. There is no reason why this measure should be delayed and we hope to introduce it this year.

*There is something I should like to bring to the attention of this House in a few words if time allows me to do so. It is something which we on this side of the House experience often. We are often accused of having the Communists after our blood and of being the reason why Communists are active here. However, we should labour under no misapprehension in this regard. The Communists are after all of us, without any exception. There are no exceptions. They are after anyone who is not a Communist, and after any country that is not under Communist control. That is the position. I just want to mention a few of the things they say. What I want to mention is not rumours but facts. That is what they themselves say. I can give hon. members the references to where these things are to be found. However, I do not believe that it is desirable to do so here in this House now. They said, for example:

They went on to say:

They continued by summing up the situation as follows:

What I have just read is very interesting. The summary is theirs and not mine. They continued:

That is what they say. [Interjections.] Wait a moment; we must not quarrel about this. It is in the interests of both parties. They continued:

This is evidence which was given in court. Then they spoke about the N.E.U.F., some Non-European United Front, and said the following:

Now hon. members can guess who says this. This quotation was taken from a statement in a court of law.

In a court of law?

Yes, in a court of law.

Bram Fischer.

No. It was made by a self-acknowledged Communist. He stood in that court of law as a communist.

*With minor adaptations this speech might just as well have been made in this House by the hon. member sitting over there. I say it might well have been the case. But I leave it at that. This shows you, Sir, what their feelings are. Let me read another passage—

They do not refer to “the Nationalist Party” but to the “Union Government”. Here I have another document dealing with South Africa. Unfortunately I cannot quote from it, because time is marching on. They say this of all countries. Here I have a document dealing with the United States. I do not want to trouble the House with it. Here I have a document dealing with Israel. They condemn it. Next I have a document dealing with Finance; they condemn it. Here I have a document dealing with Western Germany; they condemn it. Here I have a document dealing with Madagascar; they condemn it. They say that Madagascar is only concerned about its tourist trade and then they proceed to abuse Madagascar. Here I have a document dealing with the Sudan. Here I have a document dealing with Portugal and other African States. I think there is sufficient time to quote the following short passage—which is of local interest—

These are the 22 people detained after a certain case, and for whose detention we were severely upbraided, also by that side of the House—

But now you must listen to the next bit. It is very interesting and significant to me. It reads as follows—

These people are their “comrades”. These are the people on whom I place restrictions, something for which I was blamed. What does the House think of that? Here is another document dealing with the courts. We are to see to it that these people are brought before the courts and not simply detained. I want the House to hear what is said about the courts. The document reads as follows—

This is a reference to the students and others—

That side did the same thing. It continues—

That is what they want. It reads further—

Mr. Chairman, in view of the matter which I raised earlier and in view of the fact that I was not present to hear the reply, I should just like to ask the hon. the Minister whether he will not just mention it for the sake of the record? [Interjections.]