Documents: The Minister thanked the Conference and withdrew

DOCUMENTS 40a - 40b. Minutes of Evidence, Select Committee on Subject of Native Bills, May 1927

DOCUMENT 40a. Testimony of Charles Sakwe, Elijah Qamata, and William Miandu of the Transkeian Native General Council, before the Select Committee on Subject of Native Bills, May 6, 1927 [Extracts] (Pub­lished in Minutes of Evidence, Select Committee on Subject of Native Bills)

67.  By the Chairman. (Mr. Charles Sakwe.) We are here for the purpose of giving evidence upon the Native Bills now before the House. We are all members of the Bunga and are giving evidence in that capacity. We have been delegated by the Bunga to do so. We have a report of a Select Committee of the Bunga on the three bills. We all served on that Committee and the report is signed by us as well as by the other members. The views expressed therein are the unanimous conclu­sions of the Committee. The following is the report:

Your Committee met on the 22nd, 23rd
and 25th instant and considered the following
Bills :-
1. The Union Native Council Bill.
2. The Natives' Land Act 1913 Amendment Bill.
3. The Representation of Natives in Parliament Bill.

Your Committee has appreciated the grave responsibility placed upon it and has conducted its deliberations with the earnest desire to find a via media which will not only be acceptable to the Government but will also give satisfaction to the people whom the Committee represents.

Your Committee realises that the proposed legislation discloses an honest effort to cope with certain aspects of the much debated "Native Question" and feels that the adoption by Parliament of the measures under consid­eration will, according to the form in which they may be passed, have very far reaching effects upon the future peace and welfare of the Union of South Africa and will according to their final character earn the approval or condemnation of the whole civilised world.

Certain members of your Committee were present in an accredited capacity at the recent Native Conference at Pretoria and at the European-Bantu Conference in Cape Town in January last so that they have a knowledge of public opinion as there expressed.

It is in the spirit and with the knowledge indicated above that your Committee has carried on its duties.
Your Committee is unanimous in the following statements and conclusions-General.

Though the three Bills under consideration may be corelated in substance each should be dealt with in Parliament as a separate independent measure.

The Natives' Land Act 1913 Amendment Bill.

Your Committee has found the greatest difficulty in arriving at detailed conclusions on this measure. It appears that the professed intention of the Bill is to palliate the harshness of the operation of the Natives' Land Act of 1913, to grant further facilities to Natives to acquire land and to provide in general for greater fixity and security in land tenure, but the advantages to be obtained are so circum­scribed with conditions and restrictions as to place the suggested privileges beyond the Natives' reach. For example, section 1, sub­sections (3) and (4) limit the right to acquire land in released areas to members of a recognized tribe thus restricting co-operative effort towards acquiring land.

In the competitive quest for land between European and Native; the latter on account of his less advantageous economic position is only too sure to be ousted.

In the opinion of your Committee sections 2 and 10 which make fencing a condition to the acquisition by a Native of land in a released area or the holding of land in a scheduled or released area places an almost insurmountable obstacle in the way of his acquiring or holding land. The provision is moreover a physical, heartless and unneces­sary colour discrimination.

In the opinion of your Committee the effect of the operation of Chapter II of the Bill will be to create a new landless, homeless class of Natives many of whom will inevitably drift to urban centres, not only to their own disadvantage but to that of the European community.

Your Committee respectfully suggests that the whole tenor of the Bill appears to be a tendency to give with one hand and take away with the other. As a single reason for stating this view your Committee draws attention to section 20 under which permission may be given to aged, infirm and destitute persons to reside upon land, which permission may be withdrawn at any moment.

Your Committee in the limited time per­mitted to it has made some brief enquiry into the history of Native land tenure in South Africa and has found that from earliest times landlessness has led to lawlessness. This fact was realised in the Cape Colony so far back 1828 when an Ordinance was passed giving Natives right to acquire land and giving them security of tenure.

Coming to modern times we find that the earlier part of the late great war farm< for purposes of economy found it necessary to dispense with the services of a large proportion of their Native and Coloured farm servants. These banded themselves together groups committing in their desperate ca thefts and robberies and creating a condition of general lawlessness.

Your Committee has reason to urge that the operation of the Bill is likely to have the effect of driving large numbers of people fro the land they at present occupy, this contingency should be anticipated by making suitable provision for such persons.

Your Committee in brief feels that sue merit as the Bill may contain is nullified b the disabilities it imposes.

Union Native Council Bill.

In stating its views upon this Bill your Committee wishes to make it plain that it in no way commits itself to an acceptance of the principles of the Bill on the understanding that such acceptance suggests a surrendering of the Franchise. Your Committee believe itself to be justified in stating that the Native of the Cape Province would be prepared t forego all the legislative and other privilege included in the Bill provided they are permitted to retain the Franchise.

Your Committee suggests that the name "Pretoria" be deleted from section 2 (1) o the Bill and the words "some suitable place' be inserted in place thereof. Your Committee' does not consider Pretoria to be a central or suitable place for the meetings of the Council.

Your Committee suggests that the Council itself and not the President should have the power to alter its rules, and that section ;
sub-section (2) should be altered accordingly.

Your Committee considers the mode 01 election provided to be cumbrous, involved and generally unsatisfactory. If the proposed method of election is to operate, elected members of Council will almost all be Govern­ment employees (Chiefs and Headman) the
other members being Government nominees, so that practically the whole weight of voting power will be that of persons who are in a sense committed to a Government point of view. Your Committee strongly recommends the preparation of a roll of male persons to be entitled to a straight and final vote for the election of members of Council, the right to vote depending upon the person concerned being a tax payer or upon some other similar suitable qualification.

Your Committee recommends that the words in section 3, sub-section (4) from "Provided" to "prescribed" be deleted so that members of Council hold office for three years and do not retire by rotation.

Your Committee considers that the Council should have the right to legislate of its own volition, such legislation to be subject to the veto of the Governor-General, and recommends that section 4, sub-section (3) be amended accordingly.

The Representation Of Natives In Parliament Bill
Your Committee holds that the right of the Natives of the

Cape Province to vote for full members of the Union House of Assembly as confirmed by the terms of the South Africa Act was in intent entrenched for all time.

Your Committee is absolutely and entirely opposed to the terms of this Bill in so far as it entails the withdrawal of the franchise from the Natives of the Cape Province, and it cannot conceive of any present set of circumstances warranting such withdrawal. Your Committee knows of no precedent in history for the deprivation by the Government of a state of the full citizen rights possessed by a section of its law abiding subjects, and holds that it has never been shown that the exercise of the franchise has been abused by those Natives of the Cape Province who have enjoyed it.

Your Committee acknowledges with deep appreciation the proposal to grant a measure of representation to the Natives of the Transvaal, Natal and Orange Free State, but it is in a position definitely to state that whatever merit the proposed legislation now under consideration may contain such merit in the eyes of the Natives of the whole Union will be entirely nullified by the withdrawal of the franchise from the Natives of the Cape Province which would engender in the Native mind a deep and everlasting sense of injury and injustice. On the other hand your Com­mittee has good grounds for stating that if the Native franchise in the Cape is guaranteed, the Natives throughout the Union will incline to the support of the principles in the three Bills now under consideration.

Your Committee wishes to stress the point that their claim to the retention of the franchise are in no way coupled with claims to social equality.

In conclusion your Committee wishes to state that it has endeavoured to express itself with all modesty, moderation and reserve and it trusts that if this end has been achieved this Council and the Select Committee of Parlia­ment before which it is desired this report shall be placed, will believe that your Com­mittee has placed upon itself such restraint in dealing with the vital matters laid before it as will indicate the deepest earnestness of purpose.

We still hold the views expressed by us in that report, and those are the views which we wish to lay before this Committee. We have nothing to add except in reply to questions you may wish to ask us. We admit in the report that there is an honest effort made in these bills to cope with certain aspects of the native question. We think it will be better if these bills are dealt with as separate and independent measures, and not have them connected as at present. When considering the Natives Land (Amendment) Bill we had before us the bill that was discussed by the official Congress at Pretoria last, which is the only copy we had. We interpret sub-section (3) of Clause one to mean that only tribal land can be bought by natives within the released areas. We want the natives not only as a tribe but by co-operative means to have the right of buying land as an association or company, and even the individual should be allowed to buy. It is not clear to us that by this Bill individuals as well as tribes are allowed to buy land. If that is made clear in the bill we will be satisfied as far as that point is concerned. We are agreeable that companies or associations which are purely native should be able to buy land. (Mr. Qamata.)

The point is this: At present individual natives are unable to buy land by reason of their eco­nomic position unless they club together as an association. In the meantime while tribes are still unable to buy land for themselves, native companies or associations should be allowed to acquire land in the areas set apart for natives. (Mr. Sakwe.) You draw attention to cases where an association of about 100 natives have bought a farm and when one dies the farm has to be subdivided, or where the farm has to be subdivided where any one of the 100 desires it, which results in great cost to the other natives, but that aspect has never occurred to us. (Mr. Qamata.) Will it not be possible when land is bought by an association to insert a condition in regard to subdivision which will not run them into expense? We express the fear in our report that in the competitive quest for land in the released areas between the European and the native, the European will in every case have the better of the native. You say, however, that the experience of the department is that when a released area is created the inclination is for the European to get out of it and not to buy land there, and we accept your word. Our experience is derived from Scheduled Areas themselves.

The Europeans living in these areas very seldom part with their land on account of the quality of the land. I am speaking about land about the Transkei. (Mr. Sakwe.) I think it is quite the natural thing as stated by you that the Government finds it easier to get money to buy land for native purposes in a released area than it would be to get money to buy land in amongst Europeans, and I think that that supports our contention when we tell you that it is difficult even to get Europeans to part with their land in scheduled areas. (Mr. Qamata.) We would like .it to be distinctly laid down that Europeans have no right to buy land in the released areas set aside for natives. (Mr. Sakwe.) We do realise that we are more likely to be efficiently assisted by the Government in the matter of improving our agricultural conditions within the released areas than if we were spread all over the country, and we would be better off if that can be done. We next take exception to the conditions in regard to fencing. We consider they are far too harsh. (Mr. Qamata.) We must consider that from the economic position of the native. He will exhaust all his means in buying the land and will have no money for the purpose of erecting the fence. We had clause twelve (2) in mind when we drew up our report, but it still does not do away with the difficulty. The man will have to borrow the money, it will be advanced to him on loan and will be a debt due by him to the State.

We say in our report that Chapter II will create a landless, homeless class of natives that will drift to urban centres. We think that will be the effect of the licence fees and other things in the Chapter which will force the natives to leave the farms, and they will have no homes to go to. The bill does provide that the licence fee shall be paid by the farmer, but by experience we have had we know the farmer will get it out of the squatter, and that is going to drive him from the farm owing to changed conditions. It is a fact that to-day under the Cape law squatters are not allowed on farms in the Cape Province unless a licence is granted by the Divisional Council for which the farmer has to pay £2. It does not matter to us whether the licence is £2 or £3 our point is that the farmer, notwithstanding any pro­vision in the Bill, will pass that burden on to the squatter. If the squatter refuses to pay the amount the farmer is at liberty to tell him to leave the farm. That is a hardship we foresee. We quite appreciate your view that this is not a hardship now created by this Bill. (Mr. Miandu.) You must bear in mind that when the Cape law was framed the natives were not consulted, but now we have been taken into consultation and we say that provision should be made to overcome this hardship so that the natives on account of what I have stated will not be forced to leave the farms. We have taken into consideration the fact that under this Bill the money derived from licences will go to a fund for assisting the natives in fencing and buying land. In the Cape this law has never had any bad effect upon the natives, but in the other provinces it is just the opposite, and we fear that with the progress of time we may have the same conditions here in the Cape.

The natives have been driven out and scattered about on account of the operation of such law in other provinces. I am alluding to the operation of the Native Land Act in the other provinces. It is a well known fact that when that Act was put into force many natives who were living on the farms had to go, and trekked from one farm to another and lost their stock on the way, and even some of the people died on the road. Some of them never got a place to go to. This information was in the newspapers at the time. (Mr. Sakwe.) With regard to the Union Council Bill, we say that instead of Pretoria being made the seat of the Council the Bill should simply say "some suitable place." We also say that the Council itself and not the President should have the power to alter the rules of the Council. The Bunga has not that power, we simply make recommendations to the Gov­ernor-General. In regard to electoral qualifica­tion we say that all native tax payers, irrespective of educational qualification, should have the power to vote. We do not like the idea of the elected members being merely Government nominees. That is why we are opposed to the provisions as they stand in the Bill. We wish every man to have the right of choosing his own representative.

The electoral practice in the Transkei is this: A Government official will go round to a certain location where a general meeting has been called, and he will take the votes of the people. Voting will not always necessarily be by ballot. It may also be by a show of hands. The Government officials could go to all the location centres and take the votes of the people in this way instead of having one day set apart for a general election which will draw all the natives away from their work to go to the ballot box. The method suggested by me will differ very much from that provided for in the Bill. The difference is that according to our practice every man has the right of saying who will be his representative. The natives on the farms can vote by a centre being arranged for them there rather than that they should leave the farms. (Mr. Qamata.) It is so that the natives on the farms will have to go to the ballot box or to some place equivalent to the ballot box on a certain day. You ask whether we have considered the effect that this system will have on the economic position of the country. To-day in the Cape, even with the ordinary general election, it has never as far as the natives are concerned, especially in respect of those on the farms, dislocated the work of the European at all. The main consideration is that most of the natives on the farms have not yet reached the standard of exercising the right to vote or else they do not care to exercise it. We wish the present practice not to be disturbed. It has never interfered with the work of the country and has never caused trouble during general elections. (Mr. Sakwe.) The people scattered on the farms are also in a minority.

We are speaking about the mass of the people in the locations. (Mr. Qamata.) With regard to the costs that will be involved there will be nothing beyond the expense of the official who will go round from one meeting to the other taking the votes. (Mr. Sakwe.) A mass meeting on one day will include all the locations round about and no expense will be incurred. We also ask that retirement of members by rotation should be done away with, and that the Council have the right to legislate of its own volition upon any subject, subject however to the veto of the Governor-General. With regard to the Representation of Natives in Parliament Bill we are entirely opposed to the withdrawal of the franchise from natives in the Cape Province.

We are aware that the Bill provides for the substitu­tion of another native franchise. We do not accept the principle of having native representation apart from that of the Europeans, because we are living together with the Euro­peans and our interests are interwoven with theirs and we see no necessity for having them separated. Your scheme would work well if we natives were living in our own territory all by ourselves where there are no Europeans, and where nothing is in common between the native and Europeans. Our reply is a general reply covering the provinces as a whole. We are not confining ourselves to one particular district or locality. We are in principle against the separation of representation between Europeans and natives in Parliament. (Mr. Qamata.) You ask whether we are prepared to make any suggestion better than what is provided for in the Bill on the basis of separate representation by natives in the Cape.

That question suggests something which is outside the scope of the report of the Native Select Committee, and we do not desire to deal with any matter that was not dealt with by that Committee. That suggestion would really require a new Bill and would have to be put before the people again for consideration.

68. By Gen. Smuts.} (Mr. Sakwe.) This report is the report of a Select Committee appointed by the Bunga to consider the Native Bills. The Bunga has discussed this report and approved of it, and has sent us here to give evidence. The report represents the views of the Bunga. Our position is that we are afraid that the Cape natives will lose under the Bills. At present we can buy land freely as we like, and under his Land Bill we will be restricted to buy only in the released areas. Our land rights are therefore going to be curtailed. We also stand to lose our present franchise for Parliament. We think that the sacrifice asked from us in the Cape is too great although the natives in the other provinces will be the gainers by being given rights under these Bills.

The Bunga is not prepared to make these sacrifices. We wish natives only to have the right to buy in the released areas. If the Government takes the Land Bill entirely by itself independent of the other Bills and our franchise rights are not going to be effected we will be prepared, for the sake of the natives in the other provinces who are not free to buy land as we are, to accept this Bill if the right to buy in the released areas is restricted to natives only. We wish this to be clear that we only agree to the condition that natives only be allowed to buy, and that we do not accept the whole of the Bill as it stands. We object to Chapter II of the Bill. (Mr. Qamata.) We think the effect of the licence will be to drive the natives from the farms, and there is not enough other land for them to go to. We do not like Chapter II of the Bill, and we do not like the fencing clause of the Bill. If the fencing clause and the licences are made right or taken away we are prepared to accept the Land Bill if it is confined to natives. (Mr. Sakwe.) That will not yet satisfy us with the whole Bill. Even suppose the released areas are solely for natives there is not enough land for the natives as far as the Cape is concerned. There is too much congestion. We think the released areas for the Cape should be larger. We have not enough land in the Transkei even if cultivated properly. It is not only individual tenure that is making it difficult for us in the Transkei.

The people there still go in for both individual and communal tenure. Some prefer one form and some the other. Those who go in for individual tenure like it, and those who go in for communal tenure have no definite opinion. We say there is not enough released area given in the Cape and that the congestion is too great.

In regard to the Native Council Bill, there is a great difference between the natives in the various provinces. (Mr. Mlandu.) Personally as far as we are concerned the suggestion to have native provincial councils for the provinces instead of one big council for the whole of the Union would be a good arrangement for the Cape. Experience has shown us when we meet at these conferences that some of the natives from the other provinces have not kept pace with the Cape in development, and differ in their psychology and their policy differs from ours because we came into contact with the white man before they did. We find at these conferences our views are in advance of theirs and we may accordingly be retarded in our progress.

A provincial council at the Cape for the natives will suit our interests better (Mr. Qamata.} With regard to the franchise question our report deals only with the mode of election but does not deal with the qualifica­tion of electors. We leave that open and it still can be arranged to deal with the qualification. What we like to see is that the native males vote for themselves and not the chiefs and headmen to vote for them. If the Government says that not every male must vote and that there must be some qualification for civilised natives we will accept it, but we would add that the natives who are living under the tribal system in the Transkei have accommodated themselves to the present system existing there and are fully satisfied therewith. For those who prefer the other mode of election the Government can lay down a qualification. The tribal system in the Transkei is different from the tribal system in other pans. Under the Bunga system they have learned to exer­cise their vote and if they are to come under the system proposed in the Bill they will not accept it and carry on as they are doing at present.

With regard to the Representation of Natives in Parliament Bill, we are opposed to taking away the votes of the Cape natives under any circumstances. (Mr. Sakwe.) You ask us whether we would be prepared to consider a compromise that the natives who are on the roll at present remain there but that no further natives be put on. We have discussed this matter very fully and the people have come to this one conclusion that they will accept no compromise on this question. They simply stand on their existing rights. (Mr. Qamata.) That includes voting in the white constituencies with the whites. We want the Cape to be left as it is and rights given to the other provinces as the Government may desire. We do not want to make any sacrifice on the franchise question. (Mr. Sakwe.) We are prepared to make a sacrifice on the land question to some extent.

<<MENU / DOCUMENT 39d / DOCUMENT 40a / DOCUMENT 40b>>