In the early 1960s the pervasive call that reverberated throughout the continent was “Africa for the Africans.” In South Africa the call did not go unheeded and subsequently led to a split in the ANC and the formation of the PAC. This was probably the first defining moment in our struggle after 1960. The banning of the ANC and the PAC closed down the space for political activity inside the countr
y for more than a decade and forced the political struggle to be continued by other means. The first sign of internal political activity was the workers strike in Durban in 1973 and this was followed by the events of 1976. To contain the surge in political activity and probably undermine the justification for the armed struggle, the National Party created the impression of change through a pseudo representative platform, the tri-cameral parliament, which was directed at the Coloured and Indian populations and the creation of homelands for the African majority. The formation of the United Democratic Front (UDF) in 1983, which included all race groups, put paid to the tri-cameral parliament and the Nationalist strategy of containment and rule by division on ethnic lines. The struggle was once again re-defined between two major protagonists - the Nationalists and their acolytes (tri-cameral parliament and homelands) and the liberation movements (ANC, PAC, Azapo, Unity Movement and the worker and civic organisations aligned to these liberation movements). The declaration of a State of Emergency in 1985 was the final throw of the dice by the National Party to put an end to political activity by force. But the seeds of renewed resistance that were sown in the early 70s had taken root throughout the country. The fear factor was removed and more space was created inside the country for legal political activity. The ANC and PAC used the opportunity of space to encourage the creation of new organisations - the Mass Democratic Movement and the Pan Africanist Movement respectively. Nationalist rule under a continued State of Emergency could not stem the unstoppable tide. The third defining moment was a cluster of events – the meeting between Chris Heunis (Nationalist Party minister) and the ANC, the Canon Collins Memorial Lecture by ANC leader, Oliver Tambo, in London in 1986 and the Childrens’ Conference in Harare in 1987. At these meetings and the subsequent constitutional proposals that were put out in 1988, the ANC gave a strong signal of its preference for a negotiated settlement. The Southern African leaders were also very persuasive in unifying the position of both the ANC and PAC towards a negotiated settlement in South Africa, more especially in light of external international political developments. FORMATION OF NADEL
Liberation movements used political trials as a means to advance the objectives and legitimacy of the struggle. At an operational level, the legal platform gave a measure of reassurance to activists in the country and cadres from outside that they would always be able to call on lawyers when the need arose. In 1985 the Mass Democratic Movement decided to organise the legal fraternity to meet these two main objectives – protection and publicity. Towards the end of 1986 a third objective was added- organisation of the legal fraternity in preparation for a new order. In practically every sphere of civic activity, political alignment and allegiance were the operative factors and turf battles among the liberation movements surfaced from time to time. This was evident in sport, culture and the labour movement. Any effort to organise the legal fraternity was not expected to be any different. At the time of the formation of NADEL there were two lawyers organisations already in existence – Lawyers for Human Rights (LHR) and the Black Lawyers Association (BLA). They operated in two different constituencies and with fundamentally different objectives. The LHR substantially challenged the deprivation of the freedom of movement. A substantial part of their work was the defence of people charged under the Group Areas Act and for Pass Law offences. LHR also became the defender of challenges brought to the fore by the Black Sash Movement. In the main the LHR operated within the existing legal framework. It was a body of mainly White lawyers who were willing to offer free legal service to people and organisations whose freedom of movement was curtailed. The BLA, on the other hand, focused on ways and means of challenging and changing the system. In the various projects of the BLA the central objective was to fight for the restoration of human dignity to the Black man. In the legal fraternity itself the lack of mutual respect between Black and White colleagues was evident. A group of individual lawyers aligned to the Mass Democratic Movement formed a Steering Committee under the acronym SAADEL (South African Association of Democratic Lawyers). Members of the Steering Committee included the late Dullah Omar, Pius Langa, Mathole Motshekga, Mahmood Kajee, Ismail Ayob, Krish Govender, Silas Nkanunu and Krish Naidoo. At the inaugural meeting of SAADEL in Durban in 1986 the only order of business was the need to form another lawyers’ organisation. After a weekend of deliberations it was decided that the SAADEL Steering Committee would work as a pressure group and engage both the LHR and BLA with a view to forming a single strong lawyers organisation. Meetings with the LHR were relatively easy and within a few months a co-operative agreement was reached in terms whereof the LHR agreed to join the initiative to form a single lawyers organisation. In the case of the BLA there were a few obstacles. The first was the inclusion of the LHR. The view expressed by the leaders of the BLA was that SAADEL and the BLA should join forces and then absorb the LHR on our terms. The second obstacle was that the BLA considered SAADEL to be a pressure group and not an organisation with a defined membership as was the case with the BLA. Consequently, it was argued that SAADEL members should join the BLA as individuals. The third obstacle, which was not spoken about in open forum, was the issue of political alignment. I recall having several discussions with leading BLA members on the need to include the LHR at inception and not at a later stage. The meetings between SAADEL and BLA went on for a few months and the Steering Committee of SAADEL was extended to include representatives from the BLA. Ultimately it was decided to form a single lawyers’ organisation and a constitution was drafted in preparation for the launch of the organisation. At the inaugural meeting in Durban in 1987 the name of the organisation was changed to National Association of Democratic Lawyers and the acronym NADEL was adopted. It was apparent at the meeting that the house was split on ideological lines. There were efforts prior to and during the meeting to seek a compromise on the composition of the National Executive Committee of NADEL but to no avail. Ultimately, all the positions on the NEC were filled by members of the BLA. What was significant, however, was that the BLA did not dissolve as an organisation. FUNCTIONING OF NADEL IN THE EARLY YEARS
Despite this development, the Mass Democratic Movement component did not form another organisation. The strategy agreed upon was to recruit more members into NADEL and hopefully make an impact at the next BGM which was scheduled for 1989. NADEL, under the BLA, continued with the programmes of the BLA, and never really embraced or implemented the objectives and programmes of NADEL. At the BGM in Cape Town in 1989 the house was once again divided on ideological lines. This time however, the lawyers aligned to the MDM had come in force and there were several members from LHR present. At the outset, two key amendments were effected to the constitution – those present would be eligible to vote and, second, voting would take place by a show of hands. As expected the MDM aligned members won the day and filled all positions on the NEC. Prior to the elections there was a serious effort to achieve a compromise with BLA and include some of its members on the NEC by consensus. The BLA declined this offer and withdrew from NADEL prior to the elections. Pius Langa was elected President with Dullah Omar as his deputy. The one person who was not very thrilled with this victory was Nelson Mandela. He wrote me a letter suggesting that the first task of NADEL should be to win back the BLA. But the rapid developments on the political landscape and the entrenched ideological lines between the liberation movements, at least inside the country, negated such an outcome. At that stage some of us were aware of the initiatives to release Nelson Mandela and other political prisoners. Consequently NADEL threw its weight being the initiative for the release of political prisoners and used its platform to pronounce on a variety of issues and challenges facing the liberation movements at the time. Anything that could advance the liberation struggle fell within the purview of NADEL and it seems that this tradition has remained with the organisation.
