|
 Within months of taking up office, Tshekedi clashed repeatedly with the British Administration.
In view of his later, acrimonious relationship with the Resident Commissioner, Colonel Rey, it is worth noting the sad comment of the retiring Commissioner, Jules Ellenberger in 1929 that, “having earned the respect of previous Chiefs and enjoyed their friendship and confidence, I see myself treated in this way by a young and inexperienced Regent who two years ago, was still at school”.
Rey inherited from Ellenberger two of the four major issues which were to dominate his seven year relationship with Tshekedi; the first of these was the status and situation of the Basarwa. British concern about them, and the manner in which this concern was expressed was much resented by Tshekedi. The second major issue was mining and as with the Basarwa, there was no middle ground between the two opposing views. The other two issues were the continuing drive by South Africa to absorb the Protectorate and Rey’s attempts to reform the system of tribal government. The fifth issue, the flogging of McIntosh was described in a previous article and was, in any case, more of an opportunity for Rey than a genuine issue.
In 1929, the British High Commission and the British South Africa Company proposed to implement the mineral concession which Khama III had made in 1893 and which had been left dormant since then. Both believed, as most people still do, that mining would act as a development trigger creating jobs and bringing in new forms of income. Tshekedi was having none of it. Both he and Rey had seen the Johannesburg mines and had come away with completely different impressions; the one, convinced that this was the way forward, the other that mining was something to be avoided at all costs. Tshekedi knew very well the kinds of social problems that would be unleashed by mining in Gamangwato and as he was later to explain in the UK, ‘if mines spring up in my country, I am concerned about the women of my tribe because I know what happens when Europeans of the mining class enter into a native country.’ Even more pertinently, perhaps, he also argued there that, ‘the larger proportion of the wealth obtained from the mines will go to other people, the Europeans’. Tshekedi, however, was unable to convince either the Resident Commissioner or the High Commissioner that he had a legal right to cancel the concession and as he could not win them over, he proposed to by-pass them by going himself to London. The tribe endorsed both his stand and his trip. In March 1930, therefore, Tshekedi arrived in London, aged just 24. As his father had been initially rebuffed by Chamberlain in 1895, so too was he, by Lord Passfield, Secretary of State for the Dominions. It made no difference. Tshekedi set about finding friends and making contacts, which he achieved most notably with the Anti-Slavery and Aborigines Protection Society, with the London Missionary Society, with MPs on both sides of the political divide and amongst the press. Tshekedi returned to Serowe in May, greatly strengthened and ready to re-engage with Rey. In the end, both were obliged to make significant compromises before Tshekedi finally signed a much- improved Concession in March 1932. But in that same month, Rey informed the Native Advisory Council of his proposal to reform the entire system of tribal government by means of two draft Proclamations, Numbers 74 and 75, the first for Native Administration and the second, for Native Justice. There had been little prior warning of these proposed changes and certainly no discussions with the Chiefs who were supposed to endorse what amounted to a radical re-structuring of the Tswana political and judicial system.
Amongst the proposed changes, the kgotla was to be replaced by a Council with the Chief as its President. This would conduct the affairs of the tribe. A Chief would need to be endorsed by the government before he could be installed. A system of Tribunals would replace the dikgotla and Tswana law and custom would be recorded and codified. In short, Rey was determined to reduce the powers of the Chiefs. Tshekedi, with Bathoen, promptly resisted arguing that the Proclamations violated the agreement made with the British that the Chiefs should govern their people, ‘much as before’. In August 1933, Tshekedi and Bathoen, going over Rey’s head, informed the High Commissioner, Sir Herbert Stanley, that the Proclamations raised very serious constitutional issues embracing the treaty rights negotiated in London in 1895, and asked him to appoint a Commission to ‘examine the constitutional position of the Crown in relation to the territories of our fathers, the Chiefs Khama, Bathoen and Sebele.’ In early 1935, all the Tswana Chiefs informed Sir Herbert Stanley of their opposition to the Proclamations explaining to him that they saw an alarming similarity between them and the South African Native Affairs Act of 1927. With the South African Prime Minister, General J.B.M. Hertzog making renewed efforts, at this same time, to achieve the incorporation of the Protectorate into South Africa, the coincidence, for them, was deeply disturbing. Because the Proclamations had been enacted before the Native Advisory Council had even had the chance of discussing them, it asked for a six months delay.
This was refused. Tshekedi and Bathoen appealed to the Secretary of State and to Stanley’s successor as High Commissioner, Sir William Clark. Both appeals were rejected and the Proclamations were promulgated in January 1935. Initially, Tshekedi spun out time by submitting for the new Ngwato Council the names of little known nonentities and then finding no other avenue, he and Bathoen sued the High Commissioner. The dramatic case in the High Court lasted for twelve months.
It was eventually decided not on the anticipated question of whether or not the Proclamations violated native law and custom but on whether the Crown had unfettered and unlimited power to legislate for the government and administration of the native tribes. The question was referred to the Dominions Secretary in London who confirmed that the British Government did indeed possess this power. Tshekedi and Bathoen lost their case but saved part of their costs and were reassured by the Judge’s view that the Proclamations did indeed violate native law and custom.
Rey had won his last hollow victory. Seven months later, he left Mafikeng on retirement without having seen Tshekedi implement his Proclamations. His successor, Charles Arden-Clarke reversed Rey’s approach by involving Tshekedi in the process of local government reform. In their final, agreed form, the Proclamations excluded all the clauses for which Rey had fought so hard.
The High Court action taken by Tshekedi and Bathoen against the British High Commissioner currently rates only as a minor footnote in the country’s modern history. But their action reinforced a measure of Tswana independence, reminded the British of their moral and legal obligations to this country and thereby helped, for a time, to rebuff the racist South African government.
|
