Latest News Archive

Please select Category, Year, and then Month to display items
Categories
UFS News Media Release Research
Years
2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024
Months
January February March April May June July August September October November December
Previous Archive
26 April 2019 | Story Opinion article by Dr Chitja Twala | Photo Sonia Small
Dr Chitja Twala
Dr Chitja Twala is the Vice-Dean of the Faculty of the Humanities at the University of the Free State.

This opinion piece is to reflect on the sacrifices and roles played by the Twelve Disciples in the Liberation Struggle in honour of #Freedom Day.

To the majority of South Africans, the struggle for liberation centres around high-profiled political leaders such as Nelson Mandela, Walter Sisulu, Govan Mbeki, Robert Sobukwe, Steve Biko, and others. Less known is the experience of a generation of young men who left South Africa clandestinely to build the ANC and spread its liberation message in places abroad. These young men became known as the Twelve Disciples of Mandela. Like many other youngsters who became political activists elsewhere in the country, this group received its political conscientisation at school at the then Bantu High School (later known as Sehunelo High School).

This group of youngsters came from the Mangaung township in Bloemfontein, although it is not clear why they were referred to as the Twelve Disciples of Mandela. When they left Bloemfontein, they were destined to join MK in exile. The formation of MK was announced on 16 December 1961. At the same time, MK began a sabotage campaign against strategic installations throughout South Africa. In a leaflet issued on 16 December 1961, the MK high command made its political allegiance quite clear by stating: “Umkhonto we Sizwe will carry on the struggle for freedom and democracy by methods which are necessary to complement the actions of the established national liberation organisations. Umkhonto we Sizwe fully supports the national liberation movement and calls on members, jointly and individually, to place themselves under the overall political guidance of the movement”. During the initial stages of its formation, MK avoided openly mentioning the ANC for tactical reasons. MK sought to protect the leadership of the ANC from reprisals by the South African government, in particular those who had nothing to do with the decision to take the route of armed struggle.

It is clear from interviews conducted with the surviving members of this group that nobody knew exactly why they were called the Twelve Disciples, except that there was a plan conceived by Mandela, called the M-Plan, calling for the total restructuring of the ANC to enable it to operate underground should it get banned. However, although several authors such as Edward Feit, Karis and Carter, Nelson Mandela, and Bruno Mtolo and a number of court records provide information on the M-Plan, details are sketchy.

The group of young men from Bloemfontein were Billy ‘Marakas’ Mokhonoana (left the country earlier than the others and allegedly died in London); Selebano ‘Tlhaps’ Matlhape (left for Tanganyika and later studied in Yugoslavia and East Germany); Theodore ‘Max’ Motobi (left for Tanganyika and underwent military training in Cuba); Moses ‘Dups’ Modupe (left for Tanganyika and later studied Economics in Yugoslavia); Benjamin ‘Lee’ Leinaeng (left for Tanganyika and later studied journalism in East Germany); Joseph Shuping ‘Coaps’ Coapoge (left for Tanganyika and later attended Lincoln and Temple Universities in the US); Elias Pule Matjoa (worked in the Ministry of Communications in Tanzania and underwent military training in Cuba. He later studied dentistry there); Percy Mokonopi (received military training in Cuba and later served on the Helsinki World Peace Council); Mochubela ‘Wesi’ Seekoie (left for Tanganyika and underwent military training in Cuba. He later studied Chemistry in the USSR); Matthew Olehile ‘Beans’ Mokgele (left for Tanganyika and became a professional boxer in exile. Following an injury, he went to East Africa and joined the MK); Bethuel Setai (left for Tanganyika and later obtained a PhD in Economics from Colombia University. He taught at the University of California Santa Cruz, and Lincoln University in the USA) ; and Peter Swartz (was an active member of the ANC from the coloured community in Bloemfontein. He met with the group in Dar es Salaam, following his arrest on his way to Tanzania. He attended Kivukoni College and later went to the UK where he attended the London School of Economics. He went missing in London in 1965, never to be seen again).

In honour of many of these unsung heroes, the history of the Twelve Disciples needs to be told to reflect what one could refer to as a ‘bottom up’ kind of history. Without doubt, this kind of history will add value to the country’s historiography about the liberation struggle and demystify the one-sided narrative that the (Orange) Free State played little if no role at all in the struggle for liberation.



News Archive

CR Swart Memorial Lecture: Mr Cecil le Fleur
2006-08-08

Khoe and San call for government to speed up policy dialogue with indigenous communities  

 Mr Cecil le Fleur, leader of the National Khoe-San Consultative Conference and member of the executive management of the National Khoe-San Council, has called for a national policy on indigenous peoples to protect the human rights and special needs of indigenous people in South Africa.

 Mr Le Fleur delivered the 38th CR Swart Memorial Lecture on the Khoe and San at the University of the Free State (UFS).  He commended the UFS for its serious approach to the Khoe and San and for initiating initiatives such as a research project on the Griqua in which various aspects linked to language, -culture, -history, - leadership, their role in the South African community (past and present) and the conservation of their historical cultural heritages will be covered.   

 “The policy dialogue with indigenous communities initiated by government in 1999 and supported by the International Labour Organisation (ILO), has been exceedingly slow, owing to political and bureaucratic problems,” said Mr Le Fleur.

 According to Mr Le Fleur the slow pace is also impacting negatively on the United Nations’ efforts to expand the international standards and mechanisms for human rights so as to include the special needs of indigenous peoples.

 “The successful adoption of a South African policy would probably have a major impact on the human rights culture of Africa and, more specifically, on the UN system,” he said.

 “South Africa has a powerful moral authority internationally and is willing to use this authority in multilateral forums. At this stage, however, South Africa’s Department of Foreign Affairs (DFA) may not take an official position on UN instruments and declarations pertaining to indigenous issues, until the Cabinet has resolved its own domestic policy position,” he said. 

 According to Mr le Fleur it therefore came as a great surprise when the DFA brought out a positive vote in the UN for the adoption of the "Draft Declaration on the Rights of indigenous Peoples" in June this year, even before the completion of the policy process. 

 Policy consolidation in South Africa is the primary key to creating a new policy climate in Africa in order to protect the rights of indigenous peoples.  “The existing constitution of the Republic of South Africa is one of the most liberal on the continent, and embraces the concept of redress of past discrimination.  It already includes a clause (Section 6) making provision for the protection of language rights for Khoe and San peoples - the fist peoples of southern Africa,” he said. 

 “If South Africa can effectively integrate this ‘third generation’ of collective rights within an existing democratic constitution, this will send a clear message to Africa and the world that indigenous rights are a necessary component of human and civil rights in modern democracies,” he said.

 Mr Le Fleur proposed an institutional framework based on set principles that would satisfy the needs and aspirations of the Griqua and other first indigenous peoples in South Africa.  “The proposed framework was based on the notion of vulnerability as a result of colonialism and apartheid, which stripped us of our indigenous identity, cultural identity and pride as people.  This injustice can hardly be addressed within the existing mechanisms provided by the current text of the Constitution,” he said.

 Mr Le Fleur also proposed that the principles of unique first-nation status, as recognised in international law, should be applied in the construction of the framework of the constitutional accommodation for the Khoe and San. 

 Mr Le Fleur further proposed that the Khoe and San’s indigenous status in constitutional terms must be separate from the constitutional acknowledgement of their status as a cultural community, as envisaged in sections 185 and 186 of the Constitution of 1996.

 According to Mr Le Fleur, the suggested mechanism should make provision for structures such as:

  •  A statutory representative council for First Indigenous Peoples of South Africa at a national level;
  • a separate Joint Standing Committee on Indigenous and Traditional Affairs, in both the National Assembly and the National Council of Provinces on which the Khoe and San can be represented;
  • a representative structure for the Khoe and San in the legislature of each relevant province; and
  • ex officio membership in the relevant structures of local government.

Media release
Issued by: Lacea Loader
Media Representative
Tel:   (051) 401-2584
Cell:  083 645 2454
E-mail:  loaderl.stg@mail.uovs.ac.za 
24 August 2006


- Full lecture
- Photo gallery
 

 

 

 

We use cookies to make interactions with our websites and services easy and meaningful. To better understand how they are used, read more about the UFS cookie policy. By continuing to use this site you are giving us your consent to do this.

Accept