I need to state at the outset that I am a white Afrikaner, and what I am about to relate pertains to the political shenanigans of the National Party of the 1950s in their endeavours to deprive coloureds of their rights in terms of the constitution.

When I was thirteen year old I became aware of political discussions concerning coloured people, in which my relatives were involved. What I remembered vividly was that my father, uncles and their cronies expressed profound admiration for one or other political caper of the ruling National Party regarding coloured people. The predominant opinion was that the particular political manoeuvre was brilliant and indicative of the fact that a number of members of the legislature held qualifications inter alia as theologians and lawyers. It was only some years later that I became aware, as a law student, of the fact that the so-called brilliant political move of which my relatives and their cronies were ever so proud, was in fact the cause of the most important constitutional crisis in South African constitutional history – the shameful coloured vote issue.

When the South Africa Act of 1909 established the Union of South Africa in 1910, the Westminster system of government became the model for the constitution of the Union. One of the cardinal features of the Westminster system of government is that the legislative authority comprised inter alia of two houses, one being an upper house of members (that are not elected) and a lower, elected house. In the Union the upper house was the Senate and the lower house the House of Assembly.

However, unlike the Westminster model, the South Africa Act contained “entrenched” provisions that could only be affected by an enactment of parliament that had been passed by a two-thirds majority of all members of parliament at a joint sitting of the two houses.

During 1951 the Nationalists government adopted the Separate Registration of Voters Act in terms of which coloured voters in the Cape Province were placed on a separate voters roll. The legislation was however passed by an ordinary majority in a joint sitting of the Senate and the House of Assembly. When a coloured voter, Harris, challenged the validity of the law in court (The first Harris case: Harris v. Minister of the Interior 1952 (2) SA 428), the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court (as the Supreme Court of Appeal was known at the time) in due course ruled against the government, dismissing its argument that the sovereign parliament (albeit cast in the Westminster mould) is not subject to procedural restrictions.

The government thereafter endeavoured to sidestep the entrenched provisions of the constitution by creating a High Court of Parliament similar to the judicial committee of the House of Lords in Britain. That led to the second Harris case (Minister of the Interior v. Harris 1954(4) SA 769) in which the Appellate Division rejected the high court of parliament due to the total absence of the features of a true court.

But that is not where the matter ended. The ruling party then came up with shenanigans that, during my teen years, the National Party supporters perceived as sheer political brilliance. It used a political gimmick to achieve the two-thirds majority that was required to deprive coloureds of their voting rights. It passed a law that changed the composition of the Senate. Since the law did not pertain to an “entrenched” provision of the constitution, it was passed by the ordinary procedure. Given that the ruling National Party held the majority of seats in the House of Assembly, the legislation went through without any hitch whatsoever, and the senate was thereafter enlarged without any further ado. The National Party subsequently seeded the enlarged senate with its cronies by appointing senators of its choice, thereafter held a joint sitting of the Senate and the House of Assembly, and subsequently procured the two-thirds majority that was required for passing the deplorable Separate Representation of Voters Act. And coloured voters were subsequently removed from the common roll?

But in due these latest government antics were considered by the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in Collins v. Minister of the Interior 1957 (1) SA 552 (A) where the government emerged as victors. The matter was heard by eleven judges of appeal and ten of them found  (quite rightly so, in my humble opinion) that the Senate Act and the Separate Representation of Voters Act as passed by the House of Assembly and the Senate, sitting unicamerally was in order, given that the composition of the Senate was not entrenched and therefore did not require a special procedure for its amendment.

The upshot of all of that was that coloured persons lost voting rights and thereafter distrusted (I dare say, even hated) the Afrikaner.

It is actually most appropriate at this juncture to consider another issue that was enshrined in the “entrenched” provisions of the constitution, being the equality of English and Dutch as official languages. In that regard it must be remembered that the United Party was in power before the Nationalists came into power in 1948. One wonders whether there would have been anything less that profound anarchy if the (predominantly English-speaking) United Party went through the same motions as those that I have just described herein, and amended the entrenched provisions in such a manner that Afrikaans enjoyed a lesser status (or no status) as official language. There would have been hell to play!

I must make one thing clear, and that is that there was nothing illegal in the actions of the National Party in their endeavours to deprive the coloureds of voting rights. But that does not mean that what they did was right, or evidenced prudent judgement. At the very least it was profoundly insensitive to enlarge the Senate for the specific purpose of vitiating the effect of the entrenched provisions regarding voting rights of coloureds.

But at this juncture I need to make a confession. But before I do so I need to explain how I became familiar with the nitty-gritty of this issue. It was in my second year as law student that I encountered the subject, “Staatsreg”. Professor Marinus Wiechers was our lecturer. A year or so before I met Prof. Wiechers, his brother, Dr Adriaan Wiechers was one of my lecturers when I did a B.Sc. (Hons.) degree in Chemistry). It was during one of my one-on-one discussions with Marinus Wiechers that he made a passing comment regarding the constitutional crisis of the 1950s. It was then that I was transported back in time to when, at the age of thirteen, I first became aware of the coloured voters issue. But it was only when Wiechers made a remark to the effect that the constitutional crises caused hatred and animosity towards the white people, that I gained insight regarding the fact that actions may be legally correct, and yet be wrong from another perspective.

And now for the confession: Before I became aware, as law student, of the true perspective that attaches to the National Party tomfoolery regarding the coloured voters issue, I voted for the National Party, and even continued to do so thereafter, even after I had graduated.

And why, you may ask, do I refer to white Afrikaners? Because a large proportion of the people who were deprived of constitutional rights during the 1950s, are also Afrikaners, albeit that they are coloureds.