report to the minister of justice, advocate tshililo michael masutha, in the matter of dr. verwoerd's

2193 Pages·2017·12.15 MB·English

REPORT TO THE MINISTER OF JUSTICE,
ADVOCATE TSHILILO MICHAEL MASUTHA,
IN THE MATTER OF
DR. VERWOERD’S ASSASSINATION

By
Harris Dousemetzis1

1 Harris Dousemetzis is a tutor at the School of Government and International Affairs at Durham University,
England and a Fellow of the Higher Education Academy. He holds a PhD in politics (The Presidency of Jimmy
Carter and the Emerging Politics of Gay Rights and Evangelical Religion) from the same university.
The Report was edited by Gerard Loughran, a retired foreign correspondent for the US news agency, United
Press International, who also spent eleven years in senior editorial capacities with the Nation group of
newspapers in Nairobi, Kenya.
INTRODUCTION

At 2.15 p.m. on September 6, 1966, Dimitri Tsafendas stabbed to death, at his desk in the
South African House of Assembly, Prime Minister Dr. Hendrik Verwoerd, the so-called
“architect of apartheid.” Some forty days later, in a summary trial before the Cape Town
Supreme Court, Tsafendas was declared to be schizophrenic and unfit to stand trial for the
assassination. It was stated that he believed a tapeworm lived inside him which controlled his
actions, and that he did not have any political motive for assassinating the Prime Minister. A
subsequent Commission of Enquiry confirmed the court’s verdict and reaffirmed the largely
negative evidence given at the trial as to Tsafendas’s character and behaviour.
This report reveals that both the police and the Commission suppressed and
manipulated evidence to provide a distorted picture of Tsafendas. It reveals that Tsafendas
was nothing like the hopeless, shambolic person portrayed in Court and by the Commission
of Enquiry. It demonstrates conclusively that Tsafendas was not schizophrenic and did not
believe he had a tapeworm. That the tapeworm was a myth is shown by the fact that it is
never mentioned in the transcripts of his interrogation; what these do show is Tsafendas
giving clear political reasons for the assassination. Tsafendas considered Dr. Verwoerd to be
not only a “tyrant” and a “dictator” but “the brains behind apartheid.” He reasoned, therefore,
that if he was “removed,” the racist political system he had developed would collapse sooner
or later and a “change of policy would take place” in South Africa. How the tapeworm came
into the case, as well as how Tsafendas was declared to be schizophrenic, will be discussed in
detail later. The study also shows the inaccuracy of the diagnosis of schizophrenia given by
the doctors who examined Tsafendas before his trial.
The evidence shows that Tsafendas was a modest, thoughtful, if emotional, man; a
Communist with a lively social conscience and profound political convictions. We will see
that Tsafendas was deeply political from a very young age and remained politically active
until the assassination. He was arrested several times in Mozambique and Portugal for
promoting Communism and denouncing colonialism. Due to his political activities, the
Portuguese security police, PIDE, created a file on him (Secret Criminal Record no 10.415 of
Demitrios Tsafantakis) as early as 1938, when he was just twenty-years old, when he was
“suspected of distributing communist propaganda.”
1
PIDE’s very detailed file on Tsafendas totalled some 130 pages at the time of the
assassination. Two days after Dr. Verwoerd’s assassination, the Chief Inspector of PIDE in
Lisbon sent a top-secret telegram to the Sub-Director of PIDE in Mozambique, instructing
him that any “information indicating Tsafendas as a partisan for the independence of your
country should not be transmitted to the South African authorities, despite the relations that
exist between your delegation and the South African Police.” PIDE played an important role
in the case; this too will be examined here. The background and issues surrounding the
assassination also appear in a markedly different light in the study. The study will reveal
important and hitherto unknown information about Tsafendas’s life and political activities,
for example his participation in the Greek Civil War on the side of the Communists.
Work on this research started in 2009. It has examined at least 12,000 pages of
documents found in the National Archives of South Africa, Portugal and Britain, the vast
majority of which had never previously been consulted.2 All the documents found in these
archives are in the author’s possession in digitalized form. Further research covered all the
South African newspapers of the time which were still available, along with the leading
contemporaneous newspapers from Australia, Britain, Canada, France, West and East
Germany, Greece, Italy, Mozambique, Portugal, the Soviet Union, the United States and
Zimbabwe. All the articles found in these newspapers are also in the author’s possession in
digitalized form.
The author has conducted interviews with 137 people, 69 of whom knew Tsafendas
personally. They included persons who met him in the countries where he lived or which he
visited, such as Germany, Greece, Mozambique, South Africa, Turkey and Zimbabwe. Some
witnesses knew him exceptionally well and here speak formally about him for the first time;
five of them had known him since he was a small child. Other interviewees included
members of his family, workmates, housemates, fellow prisoners, visitors who talked to him
in hospital and prison, clinicians who examined him before his trial, and two of his defence
lawyers. All interviews with witnesses were recorded personally by the author. All
interviewees are willing to provide a sworn affidavit or testify under oath at any court as to
what they said and discussed with the author.

2 All the documents found in the archives have been copied in the study exactly as they were found. The many
spelling or grammar mistakes are of the original documents, not of the author.
2
In addition, several experts in fields relevant to this research were consulted on an
ongoing basis; for example lawyers, judges, psychologists, psychiatrists, academics, high-
ranking police officers and former secret agents. In order to properly examine the diagnosis
of schizophrenia in regard to Tsafendas, the process followed, and all the medical aspects of
the case, the author of the study collaborated with Professor Tuviah Zabow: forensic
psychiatrist, former head of the forensic psychiatry unit at Valkinberg Hospital and former
Professor of Psychiatry at the University of Cape Town. Furthermore, the author consulted
several renowned psychiatrists and psychologists, including Professor Alban Burke, Head of
the Department of Psychology at the University of Johannesburg; Professor Kirk Heilbrun,
forensic psychologist and Professor of Psychology at Drexler University in Philadelphia,
Pennsylvania; Professor Phillip Resnick, forensic psychiatrist and Professor of Psychiatry and
Director of the Division of Forensic Psychiatry at Case Western Reserve University School
of Medicine in Cleveland, Ohio; and Professor Robert L. Sadoff, clinical Professor of
Psychiatry and Director of the Center for Studies in Social-Legal Psychiatry at the University
of Pennsylvania, and former president of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law,
as well as of the American Board of Forensic Psychiatry.
In addition, the author collaborated closely and on on-going basis with several
relevant legal experts, including advocate George Bizos; Professor John Dugard, former
judge at the International Court of Justice; Krish Govender, former Durban State Attorney
and co-chairman of the Law Society of South Africa; and Justice Zak Yacoob, former
Constitutional Judge. All of these eminent jurists have read the report, seen the evidence and
discussed all aspects of the case with the author. All have agreed with the report’s findings.
Advocate George Bizos believes that this report is “of major historical importance for
South Africa and as to our understanding of Verwoerd’s assassination.”3 He described the
evidence gathered and presented by this report, proving that Tsafendas was not insane but
politically motivated in killing Dr. Verwoerd, as “overwhelming and unquestionable.”4 He
also characterised this report as “monumental,” describing it as “a mammoth enquiry into the
steps taken by the government to declare him mad and to cover up his treatment. It’s
absolutely amazing what the government did.”5

3 Advocate George Bizos in a personal interview, 18 November 2017.
4 Advocate George Bizos in a personal interview, 3 September 2016.
5 Advocate George Bizos in a personal interview, 6 April 2016.
3
Professor John Dugard said about the Tsafendas case and this report:
“Many South Africans suspected that there was a political cover-up in the Tsafendas
case. The apartheid regime had two reasons for portraying Tsafendas to be insane. First, the
regime wished to suggest that no-one in his right mind could kill such a wonderful leader as
Hendrik Verwoerd. Secondly, there was the security aspect. The security apparatus, led by
the Minister of Justice and Police, John Vorster, wished to avoid accountability for allowing a
political revolutionary to be employed in a position close to the Prime Minister. So it was that
the media and the legal proceedings were manipulated to present Tsafendas as a mentally
deranged person dictated to by a tapeworm.
This research confirms that there was a cover-up. It shows convincingly that
Tsafendas was a political revolutionary, whose assassination of Dr. Verwoerd was motivated
by a hatred of Dr. Verwoerd and all he stood for. He was not an insane killer but a political
assassin determined to rid South Africa of the architect of apartheid. Political assassinations
seldom achieve their goal and this was no exception. But at least South African history
should know the truth about Tsafendas. Dousemetzis has done South Africa a service by
correcting the historical record.”6
Justice Zak Yacoob said he agreed “100 per cent” with all of the report’s findings and
added:
“The historical record shows that comrade Tsafendas killed Verwoerd, that he pleaded
insanity at the trial, his plea was upheld and he was, consequent to his plea, confined at the
pleasure of the relevant authority. If he had spoken the truth, he would have been sentenced
to death, so the tactic was a very good one in the circumstances. History does not record that
he pretended to be insane to save his life. This is well brought out in the research. The
research shows conclusively that he did a deliberate courageous anti-apartheid act but
pretended insanity at the trial; understandably so. I think the research speaks for itself.”7

6 Professor John Dugard in a personal interview, 8 September 2016.
7 Justice Zak Yacoob in a personal interview, 18 September 2017.
4
CONTENTS
Vol. I
Introduction……………………………………………………...…………………………...1
Chapter One: Dr. Verwoerd’s Life and his Apartheid……….....………………………….…9
Chapter Two: Dimitris Tsafendas’s Biography……………................................................229
Chapter Three: The Assassination ……………………………………………….………..371
Chapter Four: The Police Investigation ………………………………………….………..408

Vol. II
Chapter Five: Tsafendas’s Summary Trial ……………..……………………...………….785

Vol. III
Chapter Six: The Report of the Commission of Enquiry into the Circumstances of the Death
of the Late Dr. the Honourable Hendrik Frensch Verwoerd ………………………….…...…1495
Chapter Seven: David Pratt ……………………………………………………………...1943
Aftermath and Conclusion…...………………..……………..……..…………………….2101
Bibliography ……………………………………………………………………………..2130
Appendix…………………………………………………………………………………2189

5
OVERVIEW OF THE CHAPTERS

Chapter One: Dr. Verwoerd’s Life and his Apartheid
As we will see, Tsafendas characterised Dr. Verwoerd as “dictator,” “tyrant,” “fascist,”
“racist,” “Nazi” and “Hitler’s best student.” He considered him to be “the brains behind
apartheid” and believed that without him, a change of policy would eventually take place in
South Africa. In order to judge whether Tsafendas was justified in these assumptions, we
must examine Dr. Verwoerd’s character, background and political development. Thus, this
chapter consists of a biography of Dr. Verwoerd, dealing with his personal life, his ideology
and his political career, but mostly with the development of apartheid during his time as
Minister of Native Affairs (from 1950 to 1958) and then as Prime Minister (from 1958 to
1966). It also examines his main “achievements” during this time, especially legislation
which he orchestrated and several incidents and decisions that led him to become known as
“the architect of apartheid.”

Chapter Two: Dimitris Tsafendas’s Biography
This chapter tells the story of Tsafendas from his birth to the assassination. It examines his
personal life, his ideology and his political activities. Many of the facts mentioned in this
chapter have remained unknown until now.

Chapter Three: The Assassination
Here the study deals with Dr. Verwoerd’s assassination, including the national situation
before the event, the act itself, the reaction in South Africa and around the world and the
assassination’s immediate aftermath.

Chapter Four: The Police Investigation
This chapter provides a very detailed account of the police investigation that followed the
assassination. It sets out all of the important evidence collected by the South African police,
6
including all statements in full from people who were questioned by the police.8 An
important issue discussed in this chapter is the role of PIDE in the investigation, something
that has not been examined hitherto. All the top-secret documents of the South African police
and PIDE found in the National Archives of Portugal and South Africa are included. This
chapter also covers events such as the appointment of Tsafendas’s defence team, Vorster
becoming Prime Minister, certain announcements by Vorster about Tsafendas, and some
press reports.

Chapter Five: Tsafendas’s Summary Trial
This chapter considers all aspects of Tsafendas’s summary trial. We see the preparations of
both the defence team and the State ahead of the trial. Each witness’s testimony is included,
in most cases exactly as it was given, or after the removal of small talk or anything
unimportant or not germane. Testimony is analysed in detail by comparing evidence gathered
by the police which contradicted the testimony of witnesses, thus exposing inaccuracies. The
analysis was much assisted by new evidence collected by the author. Forty-four of the
witnesses who knew Tsafendas well were interviewed by the author and had parts of the
testimonies heard in the court read to them and then offered their comments.9

Chapter Six: The Report of the Commission of Enquiry into the Circumstances of the
Death of the late Dr. the Honourable Hendrik Frensch Verwoerd
This chapter examines the report of the Commission of Enquiry which followed the summary
trial of Tsafendas. It starts by explaining what a Commission of Enquiry is and then offers
examples of how Commissions operated during apartheid. Some examples have been used,
such as the Sharpeville Commission, in order to make clear how both the Commission and

8 Evidence found in the archives which was not directly related to the assassination or to Tsafendas or was of no
importance has been reduced to summaries or omitted.
9 In total sixty-nine witnesses who knew Tsafendas were interviewed by the author. The author refers to forty-
four witnesses who were asked specifically about issues which were raised during Tsafendas’s summary trial
and by the Commission of Enquiry. On several occasions, these witnesses were given extracts to read from the
trial transcript and asked to comment on them. Most were people who knew Tsafendas as a free man before the
assassination and were best placed to give an opinion on his behaviour and mental state. However, there were
also important witnesses, like Liza Key, Bishop Ioannis Tsaftaridis, and Fathers Michalis Visvinis and Minas
Constandinou, who came to know Tsafendas well during his time in prison or in hospital, when he confided
extensively in them. The remaining twenty-five of the sixty-nine witnesses either did not know Tsafendas well
enough to comment on the specific issues raised, or were members of his defence team, or had died before the
author had the trial manuscripts in its possession.
7
the police operated during apartheid. This is an important part of the chapter because of the
many similarities between these previous Commissions and the one on Dr. Verwoerd’s
assassination. All the statements and important evidence collected by the Commission is
presented. Several parts of the Commission’s Report are examined in detail. The Commission
is judged by the evidence it had in its possession at the time and not by evidence collected by
the author. There is only one occasion where new evidence is presented.

Chapter Seven: David Pratt
This chapter deals with David Pratt’s armed assault on Dr. Verwoerd in 1960, six years
before he was assassinated by Tsafendas. It includes a biography and sets out what happened
to him after his arrest. Some very important new information about Pratt is presented here for
the first time. The study uses a large number of primary sources for this case, such as all the
documents found in the National Archives of South Africa and Britain about Pratt and the
case, the archives of the National Liberal Club in London, of which Pratt was a member for
thirty-three years, his correspondence with some of his friends, his personal notes while in
prison and in hospital and interviews with people who knew him. Many secondary sources
have been consulted such as published material and reports in South African and foreign
newspapers at the time.

Conclusion
This chapter offers a comprehensive but concise conclusion concerning everything discussed
in this report.

8
Dr. Verwoerd’s Life and his Apartheid Early Years and Studies
CHAPTER ONE
DR. VERWOERD’S LIFE AND HIS APARTHEID

EARLY YEARS AND STUDIES
Hendrick Frensch Verwoerd was born near Amsterdam, Netherlands, at 4 p.m. on September
8, 1901. He was the second child of the deeply religious Wilhelmus Johannes Verwoerd, a
partner in a grocery business, and Anje Strik. The young couple were strongly attracted to the
Boer cause and Wilhelmus was member of a committee which helped South Africans who
were coming to Europe for help during the Boer War (1899-1901). The family moved to
South Africa in 1903 when Hendrik was eighteen months old.10 His father opened a grocery
store in Wynberg, Cape Town, and spent much of his free time preaching the gospel to
Coloureds11 in the city.12
As a child he had initially attended an English school and lived in an English
neighbourhood, being fully immersed in Afrikaner culture only from the age of sixteen.13 He
was a strong-willed, intellectual youth, uninterested in sport, whose upbringing was quite
different to his Boer peers.14 Verwoerd’s foreign origins imbued him with a fanatical need to
be “more Afrikaner” than the Afrikaners.1516 He seems always to have felt insecure about his
status as an Afrikaner, having been born in Holland to Dutch parents. Many Nationalists
referred to him as “die Hollander” and he apparently felt the need to constantly prove his
loyalty,17 while he also felt that he was on a historical mission.18
In 1912, after nine years in South Africa, the Verwoerd family relocated to
Rhodesia.19 His secondary education took place at Milton Boys’ High School in Bulawayo,
Rhodesia, and he later described being physically punished for stating his preference for

10 Daily Dispatch, 7 September 1966: 8, ‘Hendrik Frensj Verwoerd: A man under a cruel magnifying glass’;
Grobbelaar, 1967: 9.
11 Coloured was considered to be someone “who is not a White person or a Bantu” (Dugard, 1978: 61).
12 Uys, 1959: 4.
13 Sparks, 1990: 193.
14 Troup, 1975: 317.
15 O’Meara, 1996: 92.
16 Lelyveld (The New York Times), 7 September 1966, ‘A prophet of racism.’; O’Meara, 1996: 92.
17 O’Meara, 1996: 92; Osada, 2002: 8.
18 Marx, 2011a: 282.
19 Now Zimbabwe.
9