GQEBERHA – Proceedings in the Cradock Four Inquest resumed today, 25 March, at the Gqeberha High Court, with testimony from former apartheid-era communications official Adamus Paulus Stemmet focusing on the interpretation of a 1985 signal allegedly linked to the deaths of the activists.
The Cradock Four, Matthew Goniwe, a school principal and prominent United Democratic Front leader; Fort Calata, a teacher and organiser; Sicelo Mhlauli, a railway worker and community activist; and Sparrow Mkhonto, also a railway worker and organiser, were abducted and killed in June 1985.
Stemmet, 89, told the court he rejected the interpretation that the term “eliminate” in the May 1985 signal meant killing. He maintained that he “did not like the language used” and understood it to mean removal from a specific area rather than physical harm, comparing it to forced relocations carried out during apartheid. He stated that his role within the State’s communication structures was administrative, insisting that his office dealt with transmitting information rather than operational decisions.
According to his testimony and affidavit, the signal recommending the “permanent removal” of the activists passed through communication channels in his presence, but he claimed it was not treated with urgency. He further stated that he was not informed of any subsequent instruction to kill and maintained that no eliminations were carried out by his department. Throughout questioning, Stemmet distanced himself from security and law enforcement structures, repeatedly emphasising that his responsibilities were limited to communications.
When pressed on whether other arms of the apartheid State may have been responsible for killings, Stemmet deferred the questions, consistently returning to his department’s mandate. He ultimately told the court that the apartheid State did not carry out killings, asserting instead that such acts were the responsibility of police structures. He maintained this position despite repeated attempts to broaden the scope of accountability.
The court also considered an affidavit from former communications official James Galvin, who had previously provided detailed evidence regarding the signal and its implications. Galvin’s statement, compiled before his death, forms part of the evidentiary record being examined in relation to the chain of communication and intent behind the directive.
Stemmet confirmed that activists, particularly Goniwe, were subject to ongoing monitoring, with media coverage tightly controlled. He described such surveillance as routine and acknowledged that documentation relating to Goniwe’s professional position had been prepared by both education authorities and police structures, though he said he could not recall specific details.
This interpretation of events was challenged in court by Lukhanyo Calata, who disputed the credibility of Stemmet’s account. He argued that the wording of the original signal indicated an expectation of widespread reaction and dismissed the alternative explanation as implausible, further questioning the reliability of testimony from individuals linked to apartheid-era strategic communications structures.
Family members of the victims, including relatives of Mhlauli and Calata, were present during proceedings as the inquest continues to examine whether the 1985 signal constituted an instruction to kill the Cradock Four.
The matter continues tomorrow, 26 March, for the continuation of witness statements.
ALSO READ: Cradock Four inquest: Murder case dockets disappear from two locations
