[ad_1]
George Bizos’ mission was to protect clients accused of political crimes to the extent possible, but always advising them not to compromise their beliefs, organizations, and principles in an effort to limit likely jail sentences.
As an ethical and principled advocate, George Bizos would not collaborate in manufacturing. I remember him pointing out to me that if those with morals facilitated lies, what chance could there be for a more ethical legal system in the fullness of time?
NEAR
George always reminded clients that if found guilty and sent to prison, they would be serving their sentences with the highest levels of political leadership. Opportunistic commitment to beliefs and principles, or lying about fundamental values and actions in an effort to reduce jail time, can make relationships with other political prisoners difficult.
That was the tactical balance George helped his clients negotiate. Weaken the prosecution’s case when possible. Limit harm to the defendant without unnecessary concessions. In the rare cases where absolution is possible, do so with energy and rigor.
And in the many investigations into the deaths of political detainees, George always knew that the chances of finding torture a common part of security police interrogation techniques were limited, in part due to the type of magistrates who routinely listened to the investigations into political deaths. But George was a master strategist in extracting the maximum damage that could be inflicted on the security police and those assisting in the detention system for long-term interrogations without trial.
He would do this through persistent, dogged, and sometimes brutal cross-examination by police and other state witnesses. In fact, it is his fierce cross-examination skills that will make George particularly well remembered.
During Nusas’s one-year trial in 1976, where I was privileged to be represented by a legal team that included George, Denis Kuny, Raymond Tucker, and Geoff Budlender, and led by Arthur Chaskalson, I often witnessed the excellent combination integrity of George. and tactical ability.
As described in my book The new radicalsGeorge had traveled to Robben Island to consult with Nelson Mandela, Walter Sisulu, and Govan Mbeki on some of the issues in ANC history and tactics that had come up in the Nusas trial. Although not central to the trial, this provided George the opportunity to visit three of his clients from the Rivonia trial.
As George describes in his autobiography, Odyssey to freedom“All three were willing to be called as witnesses for the defense and greatly admired the dedication of the young people on trial. I had to thank them for risking their freedom to demand the release of political prisoners.
Mandela explained to George that several Robben Island prisoners suffered from low morale. Many had been in jail for 10 years and feared they would be forgotten. Suddenly, a group of young white students was waging a national campaign calling for their release and integration into a political process. This provided a major boost to the weakened spirits.
A fierce debate ensued between the defense team and the defendants over whether to accept Mandela’s offer to testify. Defense attorneys duly warned us that taking Mandela to court in Johannesburg could hurt our chances of acquittal or even lead to harsher sentences if convicted. The entire defense team, including George, went to great lengths to point out that calling Mandela as a witness might hurt us, but that it was our tactical decision, not a legal determination. And George, always the strategist, reminded us that we would be subjecting Mandela to cross-examination by the state, which could be problematic for him and the ANC.
It fell to George to prepare me to testify in my defense. Over a six-week period, we met for many nights at his home, often after long and tedious days at court. I don’t think I was an easy customer, tending to participate by default in debates on political theory and strategy, rather than preparing the evidence I would deliver. On one occasion, we strongly disagreed on whether I would describe myself as a democratic socialist or a social democrat, or even a radical liberal. George warned that it might be a bridge too far for the president to accept the careful distinctions he wanted to draw between communism, socialism, democratic socialism, social democracy, and liberal radicalism, but he left the choice to me. In the case, I don’t think the prosecution asked me that question, to everyone’s relief.
Twenty years after our acquittal in the Nusas trial, George reminded the Nusas 5 that Mandela, now the president of South Africa, had often reiterated how important Nusas’s campaign to free all political prisoners had been, and that one day I wanted to thank the leaders. her. And so it happened that, on a hot day in December 1996, Mandela was the guest of honor at a luncheon at my home, along with other people who had been incarcerated at the time, or whose close family members had been incarcerated.
It was George who secured Mandela’s presence at this meeting. He did not easily forget his clients or his friends, as we will always remember. DM
Glenn Moss was a student leader at Wits University in the 1970s. He was arrested under the Terrorism Act and charged under security law as the first defendant in the 1976 Nusas one-year trial. He has worked as an editor, paralegal, and long-term consultant for Statistics South Africa.
