Latest News Archive

Please select Category, Year, and then Month to display items
Previous Archive
26 April 2021 | Story Prof Chitja Twala | Photo Sonia Small
Prof Chita Twala
Prof Chitja Twala is an Associate Professor of History and Vice-Dean in the Faculty of the Humanities at the University of the Free State and writes in his personal capacity.

In South Africa, the month of April is referred to as Freedom Month with 27 April known as Freedom Day. In celebrating and commemorating this day in 2021, it is important to acknowledge the role of the contribution of safe houses to the liberation struggle. The safe houses were sometimes referred to as ‘hosting or transit’ houses. The relative dearth in academic research and the scrutiny of those houses cannot be left unattended. This academic investigation attempts to contribute to the South African historiography on cross-border politics and that of liberation struggle studies.

After the banning of liberation movements/organisations such as the African National Congress (ANC), the Pan Africanist Congress (PAC) and others by the apartheid regime in the 1960s, these movements established networks of safe houses inside and outside the country. However, in response to this, the regime stepped up its repression by targeting such houses to destabilise the underground activities of the liberation movements.

The significance of the contribution of safe houses to the liberation struggle

Therefore, it is against this background that this article briefly considers highlighting the significance of the contribution of safe houses to the country’s struggle for liberation. In counter-acting the apartheid regime’s efforts, the liberation movements embarked on tightening security measures around safe houses for those using them. These measures amongst other things included, first, that the political cross-border activities were determined by a few individuals within certain ‘cells’. These ‘cell’ leaders were responsible for masterminding the exile routes of those escaping the country.

Second, for security reasons, the owners of these houses and host families were not identified. The houses would mainly be known only to the ‘cell’ leaders. The duration of staying in these safe houses was also determined by those in leadership. Third and lastly, in most cases the political activists who used these houses were not familiar with the territory; thus, tracking their location was not an easy task. Furthermore, the apartheid agents also battled to track their routes into exile because of the limited information of how and where they stayed in transit in the north of the continent. On many occasions, the safe houses were located in towns near the border of South Africa and the intended host country. Ronnie Kasrils remembers meeting Nelson Mandela for the first time in July 1962 in a small safe house in Durban. He recalls that the house belonged to a worker.

In Lesotho there was Maleseka Kena and her husband Jacob Kena who resided in the small village of Tsoelike in the Qacha’s Neck district. Jacob Kena was an influential member of the Communist Party of Lesotho. They used their house as a safe place for South African political activists coming into the area. Although Maleseka was not actively involved in politics, she was sympathetic to the ANC liberation cause. John Aerni-Flessner notes the following about her: ‘Maleseka Kena’s  life story, child-rearing, border-crossing, refugee-smuggling, and political involvement as a woman in rural Lesotho turned out to be more compelling from the standpoint of understanding how apartheid and issues of local identity impacted lives in communities of the periphery of the apartheid state. She channelled her political work into groups on both sides of the South Africa/Lesotho border’.

Raids and attacks on safe houses

As mentioned previously, the apartheid regime launched raids and attacks on some of the safe houses. For example, on 30 January 1981 the South African Defence Force (SADF) raided safe houses in Matola, a suburb on the outskirts of Maputo (Mozambique). These safe houses served as transit points for uMkhonto WeSizwe (MK) cadres. During the raid 12 MK members and one Mozambican citizen were killed. Another MK member, Mduduzi Sibanyoni, later died of injuries sustained during the raid. On 9 December 1982 the SADF launched another attack in Maseru (Lesotho). The ‘Moscow House’ which was used as a transit camp in Lesotho became a target of the SADF. This raid was unofficially referred to as ‘Operation Blanket’. In this raid 12 Lesotho nationals and 30 South Africans were killed. Attacks on safe houses in neighbouring states showed the disregard by the apartheid regime for their sovereignty. This was to instil fear in the governments of neighbouring countries so they would desist from supporting the liberation movements. The raid in Lesotho was condemned by the Commonwealth as an infringement of the territorial integrity of the sovereign states. Not only were the safe houses or camps targets, but also offices belonging to the liberation movements. The raid in Gaborone (Botswana) on 14 June 1985 was on the office of MK. This raid was dubbed ‘Operation Plecksy’. During this raid 12 people were killed and only five were members of the ANC.

In Manzini (Swaziland), house number 43 Trelawney Park, a four-bedroomed house belonging to Buthongo and Rebecca Makgomo Masilela provided shelter for ANC members. Masilela’s house was commonly known as KwaMagogo. The house was frequented by the likes of Jacob Zuma during his underground operations in Swaziland. Others who used the house during their operations were Thabo Mbeki and Glory September. In the vicinity was the ‘White House’ which was established by John Nkadimeng on his arrival in the country in 1976. Another safe house in Swaziland was ‘Come Again’ in Fairview.

In Botswana, a kingpin in accommodating political activists crossing into the country from South Africa was Fish Keitsing. He was a Botswana-born ANC activist who was responsible for establishing The Road to Freedom. He came to South Africa at the age of 23 as a migrant worker and joined the ANC in 1949, later becoming the leader of the Newclare Congress Branch and was its volunteer-in-chief during the 1952 Defiance Campaign. He was charged along with others in the Treason Trial of 1959-1961 and was later deported to Botswana. Before he left South Africa, Walter Sisulu asked him to set up a safe house in Lobatse. Assisted in his task of controlling the Road to Freedom were other ANC activists, including Free State-born Dan Tloome, Michael Dingake, Mack Mosepeli and Mpho Motsamai.

Although this article samples just a few of these safe houses and the role the owners played in assisting South African political activists en route to exile, more is still to be academically recorded in this regard.

* Chitja Twala is an Associate Professor of History and Vice-Dean in the Faculty of the Humanities at the University of the Free State and writes in his personal capacity

News Archive

The state of HIV/AIDS at the UFS
2010-05-11

“The University of the Free State (UFS) remains concerned about the threat of HIV/AIDS and will not become complacent in its efforts to combat HIV/AIDS by preventing new infections”, states Ms Estelle Heideman, Manager of the Kovsies HIV/AIDS Centre at the UFS.

She was responding to the results of a study that was done at Higher Education Institutions (HEIs) in 2008. The survey was initiated by Higher Education AIDS (HEAIDS) to establish the knowledge, attitudes, behaviours and practices (KABP) related to HIV and AIDS and to measure the HIV prevalence levels among staff and students. The primary aim of this research was to develop estimates for the sector.

The study populations consisted of students and employees from 21 HEIs in South Africa where contact teaching occurs. For the purpose of the cross-sectional study an ‘anonymous HIV survey with informed consent’ was used. The study comprised an HIV prevalence study, KABP survey, a qualitative study, and a risk assessment.

Each HEI was stratified by campus and faculty, whereupon clusters of students and staff were randomly selected. Self-administered questionnaires were used to obtain demographic, socio-economic and behavioural data. The HIV status of participants was determined by laboratory testing of dry blood spots obtained by finger pricks. The qualitative study consisted of focus group discussions and key informant interviews at each HEI.

Ethical approval was provided by the UFS Ethics Committee. Participation in all research was voluntary and written informed consent was obtained from all participants. Fieldwork for the study was conducted between September 2008 and February 2009.

A total of 1 004 people participated at the UFS, including the Main and the Qwaqwa campuses, comprising 659 students, 85 academic staff and 256 administration/service staff. The overall response rate was 75,6%.

The main findings of the study were:

HIV prevalence among students was 3,5%, 0% among academics, 1,3% among administrative staff, and 12,4% among service staff. “This might not be a true reflection of the actual prevalence of HIV at the UFS, as the sample was relatively small,” said Heideman. However, she went on to say that if we really want to show our commitment towards fighting this disease at our institution a number of problem areas should be addressed:

  • Around half of all students under the age of 20 have had sex before and this increased to almost three-quarters of students older than 20.

     
  • The majority of staff and a third of students had ever been tested for HIV.

     
  • More than 50% of students drink more than once per week and 44% of students reported being drunk in the past month. Qualitative data suggests that binge drinking over weekends and at campus ‘bashes’ is an area of concern.

Recommendations of the study:

  • Emphasis should be on increased knowledge of sexual risk behaviours, in particular those involving a high turnover of sexual partners and multiple sexual partnerships. Among students, emphasis should further be placed on staying HIV negative throughout university study.

     
  • The distribution of condoms on all campuses should be expanded, systematised and monitored. If resistance is encountered, attempts should be made to engage and educate dissenting institutional members about the importance of condom use in HIV prevention.

     
  • The relationship between alcohol misuse and pregnancy, sexually transmitted infections (STIs), HIV and AIDS needs to be made known, and there should be a drive to curb high levels of student drinking, promote non-alcohol oriented forms of recreation, and improve regulation of alcohol consumption at university-sponsored “bashes”.

     
  • There is need to reach out to students and staff who have undergone HIV testing and who know their HIV status, but do not access or benefit from support services. Because many HIV-positive students and staff are not receiving any kind of support, resources should be directed towards the development of HIV care services, including support groups.

Says Heideman, “If we really want to prove that we are serious about an HIV/AIDS-free campus, these results are a good starting point. It definitely provides us with a strong basis from which to work.” Since the study was done in 2008 the UFS has committed itself to a more comprehensive response to HIV/AIDS. The current proposed ‘HIV/AIDS Institutional response and strategic plan’, builds and expands on work that has been done before, the lessons learned from previous interventions, and a thorough study of good practices at other universities.

Media Release
Issued by: Mangaliso Radebe
Assistant Director: Media Liaison
Tel: 051 401 2828
Cell: 078 460 3320
E-mail: radebemt@ufs.ac.za  
10 May 2010

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