v:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
o:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
w:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
.shape {behavior:url(#default#VML);}

Normal
0

false
false
false

MicrosoftInternetExplorer4

/* Style Definitions */
table.MsoNormalTable
{mso-style-name:”Table Normal”;
mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0;
mso-tstyle-colband-size:0;
mso-style-noshow:yes;
mso-style-parent:””;
mso-padding-alt:0cm 5.4pt 0cm 5.4pt;
mso-para-margin:0cm;
mso-para-margin-bottom:.0001pt;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:”Times New Roman”;
mso-ansi-language:#0400;
mso-fareast-language:#0400;
mso-bidi-language:#0400;}

Dear Sir,

My
colleagues have requested me to write and ask you to release us from prison
and, pending your decision on the matter, to accord us the treatment due to
political prisoners. At the outset we wish to point out that in making this
application we are not pleading for mercy but are exercising the inherent right
of all people incarcerated for their political beliefs.

The
persons whose names appear in schedule A attached to this letter live in the
single cell section of Robben Island Prison and are completely isolated from
the rest of the prisoners on the island. For this reason we are unable to
furnish you with a full list of all the persons on this island and in other
prisons on behalf of whom this application is made.

Prior to
our conviction and imprisonment we were members of well-known political
organisations which fought against political and racial persecution, and which
demanded full political rights for the African, Coloured and Indian people of
this country. We completely rejected, as we still do, all forms of white
domination, and more particularly the policy of separate development, and
demanded a democratic South Africa free from the evils of colour oppression,
and where all South Africans, regardless of race or belief, would live together
in peace and harmony on a basis of equality.

All of us,
without exception, were convicted and sentenced for political activities which
we embarked upon as part and parcel of our struggle to win for our people the
right of self-determination, acknowledged throughout the civilised world as the
inalienable birthright of all human beings. These activities were inspired by
the desire to resist racial policies and unjust laws which violate the
principle of human rights and fundamental freedoms that forms the foundation of
democratic government.

In the
past the governments of South Africa have treated persons found guilty of
offences of this nature as political offenders who were released from prison,
in some cases, long before their sentences expired. In this connection we refer
you to the cases of Generals Christiaan de Wet, J C C Kemp and others who were
charged with high treason arising out of the 1914 Rebellion. Their case was in
every respect more serious than ours. Twelve thousand rebels took to arms and
there were no less than 322 casualties. Towns were occupied and considerable
damage caused to government installations, while claims for damage to private
property amounted to R500,000. These acts of violence were committed by white
men who enjoyed full political rights, who belonged to political parties that
were legal, who had newspapers that could publicise their views. They were able
to move freely up and down the country espousing their cause and rallying
support for their ideas. They had no justification whatsoever for resorting to
violence. The leader of the Orange Free State rebels, de Wet, was sentenced to
six years’ imprisonment plus a fine of R4,000. Kemp received a sentence of
seven years and a fine of R2,000. The rest were given comparatively lighter
sentences.

In spite
of the gravity of their offences, de Wet was released within six months of his
conviction and sentence, and the rest within a year. This event occurred a
little more than half a century ago, yet the government of the day showed much
less intransigence in its treatment of this category of prisoner than the
present government seems prepared to do 54 years later with black politicians
who have even more justification to resort to violence than the 1914 rebels.
This government has persistently spurned our aspirations, suppressed our
political organisations and imposed severe restrictions on known activists and
field workers.

It has
caused hardship and disruption of family life by throwing into prison hundreds of
otherwise innocent people. Finally it has instituted a reign of terror
unprecedented in the history of the country and closed all channels of
constitutional struggle. In such a situation resort to violence was the
inevitable alternative of freedom fighters who had the courage of their
convictions. No men of principle and integrity could have done otherwise. To
have folded arms would have been an act of surrender to a government of
minority rule and a betrayal of our cause. World history in general, and that
of South Africa in particular, teaches that resort to violence may in certain
cases be perfectly legitimate.

In
releasing the rebels soon after their convictions the Botha-Smuts government
acknowledged this vital fact. We firmly believe that our case is no less
different, and we accordingly ask you to make this privilege available to us.
As indicated above, there were 322 casualties in the Rebellion. By way of
contrast, we draw attention to the fact that in committing acts of sabotage we
took special precautions to avoid loss of life, a fact which was expressly
acknowledged by both the trial judge and the prosecution in the Rivonia case.

An
examination of the attached schedule shows that if we use de Wet’s case as the
standard, then every one of us ought to have been released by now. Of the 23
persons whose names are listed therein, eight are doing life imprisonment, ten
are serving sentences ranging from ten to twenty years, and five between two
and ten years.

Of those
doing imprisonment for life, seven have completed four years ten months, and
one has done four years and four months. The man with the longest sentence
amongst those serving terms between ten and twenty years is Billy Nair, who has
already completed a quarter of his sentence. Joe Gqabi, Samson Fadana and
Andrew Masondo, the first to be convicted in this group, have each completed
six years of their respective sentences of twelve, eight and thirteen years.
The last men to be sentenced in the same group were Jackson Fuzile and Johannes
Dangala, who received twelve and seven years respectively. Fuzile has completed
a quarter of his sentence whereas Dangala will have done exactly half of his on
19 May 1969. Every one of those serving terms between two and ten years has at
least completed a quarter of his sentence.

Our claim
for release becomes even stronger when examined in relation to the cases of
Robey Leibbrandt, Holm, Pienaar Strauss and others. Leibbrandt, a national of
the Union of South Africa, arrived in the Union from Germany at a time when
that country was at war with the Union. He then proceeded to set up a
paramilitary underground organisation with the purpose of overthrowing the
government and establishing in its place one modeled on that of Nazi Germany.
He was found guilty of high treason and sentenced to death, later commuted to
imprisonment for life. Holm, Pienaar and Strauss were also imprisoned for high
treason, it being alleged that they collaborated with the enemy in prosecuting
the war against the Union and its allies. On coming to power, however, the
present government released these and other prisoners sentenced for treason and
sabotage, notwithstanding the fact that they had been arrested in circumstances
which made them appear to many South Africans as traitors to their own country.
Again by way of contrast, we draw attention to the fact that our activities
were at all times actuated by the noblest ideals that men can cherish, namely,
the desire to serve our people in their just struggle to free themselves from a
government founded on injustice and inequality.

We further
wish to remind you that in 1966 your predecessors released Spike de Keller,
Stephanie Kemp, Alan Brooks and Tony Trew, all of whom originally appeared
jointly with Edward Joseph Daniels (whose names appear in the schedule) on a
charge of sabotage. Kemp, Brooks and Trew pleaded guilty to an alternative
charge, and a separation of trial was ordered. The case against Daniels and de
Keller proceeded on the main charge and on 17 November 1964 they were found
guilty and sentenced to fifteen and ten years respectively. Kemp, Brooks and
Trew were found guilty on the alternative and sentenced five, four and four
years respectively, each of which was partly suspended. We are informed that de
Keller was released after he had served approximately two years, or less, of
his sentence of ten years, whilst Kemp, Brooks and Trew were also released
before they had completed their sentences.

We do not
in any way begrudge those who were fortunate enough to be released and who
escape the hardship of prison life and are happy to know that they now lead a
normal life. But we refer to their case for the limited purpose of showing that
our request is reasonable, and also to stress that a government is expected to
be consistent in its policy and to accord the same treatment to its citizens.

There is
one important difference between our case and that of de Wet and Leibbrandt.
They were released only after the rebellion had been crushed and after Germany
had been conquered and they were thus no threat to the safety of the State when
they were freed.

In our
case, however, it may be argued that our revolution is planned for the future
and that security considerations require that we be treated differently. Add to
this the fact that our convictions have not changed and our dreams are still
the same as they were before we were jailed; all of which would seem to confirm
the opinion that our case is distinguishable from all the previous ones. We
feel sure, however, that you will not be tempted to think along these lines, as
such an argument would carry sinister implications. It would mean that if
security considerations today require that we should be kept in prison, we
would not be released when we complete our respective sentences, if the present
situation remains unaltered, or if the position worsens. The plain truth is
that the racial strife and conflict that seriously threatens the country today
is due solely to the shortsighted policies and crimes committed by the
government.

The only
way to avert disaster is not to keep innocent men in jail but to abandon your
provocative actions and to pursue sane and enlightened policies. Whether or not
evil strife and bloodshed are to occur in this country rests entirely on the
government. The continued suppression of our aspirations and reliance on rule
through coercion drives our people more and more to violence. Neither you nor I
can predict the price the country will have to pay at the end of that strife.
The obvious solution is to release us and to hold a round table conference to
consider an amicable solution.

Our main
request is that you release us and, pending your decision, you treat us as
political prisoners. This means that we should be provided with good diet,
proper clothing outfit, bed and mattress, newspapers, radios, bioscope, better
contact with our families here and abroad.

Treatment
as political prisoners implies the freedom to obtain all reading material that
is not banned and to write books for publication. We would expect to be given
the option to work as one desires and to decide the trades one would like to
learn. In this connection we wish to point out that some of these privileges
were enjoyed both by the 1914 rebels as well as by Leibbrandt and colleagues,
all of whom were treated as political prisoners.

The prison
authorities attempt to answer our demand for treatment as political prisoners
by pointing out that we were convicted by the courts for contravening the laws
of the country, that we are like any other criminals and, therefore, cannot be
treated as political offenders.

This is a
spurious argument which flies in the face of the facts. On this view de Wet,
Kemp, Maritz, Leibbrandt and others were ordinary criminals. Treason, sabotage,
membership of an illegal organisation were all criminal offences then as now.
Why then were they treated differently? It seems to us that the only difference
between the two cases is one of colour.

Serious
differences of opinion on a specific issue had emerged amongst the Whites, and
those who lost in the contest that flowed from these differences eventually
found themselves behind bars. On all other issues, especially on the major
question of colour both victor and vanquished were in agreement. The conflict
having been solved, it was possible for the government to adopt a conciliatory
attitude and to extend to the prisoners all sorts of indulgences. But today the
position is altogether different. This time the challenge comes, not from the
white man, but mainly from black politicians who disagree with the government
on almost everything under the sun. The victory of our cause means the end of
white rule.

In this
situation the government regards the prison not as an institution of
rehabilitation but as an instrument of retribution, not to prepare us to lead a
respectable and industrious life when released, and to play our role as worthy
members of society, but to punish and cripple us, so that we should never again
have the strength and courage to pursue our ideals. This is our punishment for
raising our voices against the tyranny of colour. This is the true explanation
for the bad treatment we receive in prison – pick and shovel work continuously
for the last five years, a wretched diet, denial of essential cultural material
and isolation from the world outside the jail. This is the reason why
privileges normally available to other prisoners, including those convicted of
murder, rape and crimes involving dishonesty, are withheld from political
offenders.

We get no
remission of sentence. Whilst the ordinary prisoner is classified in C group on
admission, political offenders are put in D, which carries the least
privileges. Those of us who managed to reach A group are denied privileges
normally enjoyed by criminals in the same group. We are compelled to do pick
and shovel work, are not allowed newspapers, radios, bioscope; contact visits
and even groceries are given grudgingly.

As already
indicated in the second paragraph above, I make this application on behalf of
all my colleagues on the island and in other jails and I trust that any
concessions that may be granted will be made available to all without
exception.

The
Prisons Act of 1959 gives you the necessary powers to grant the relief we seek.
Under its provisions you are entitled to release us on parole or probation. de
Wet and others were released under the former method. In conclusion, we place
on record that the years we have spent on this island have been difficult
years. Almost every one of us has had a full share in one way or another of the
hardships that face non-white prisoners. These hardships have at times been the
result of official indifference to our problems, other times they were due to
plain persecution. But things have somewhat eased and we hope even better days
will come. All that we wish to add is that we trust that when you consider this
application you will bear in mind that the ideas that inspire us, and the
convictions that give form and direction to our activities constitute the only
solution to the problems of our country and are in accordance with the
enlightened conceptions of the human family.

Yours
faithfully,

(Signed) N
Mandela

Tuesday 14 June 2011 13:53