Guardian

IN The Guardian of May 14, 2013, I could not fail to relish reading Luke Onyekakeyah’s brilliant opinion piece titled, “What the African Union should do at 50”. However, he goofed up to blemish the piece. Inter alia, he wrote, “Over the years, 21 other states have joined the organisation with South Africa becoming the 53rd member after her Independence in 1994. The error is about the date of South Africa’s political independence. I believe that it is a mistake of the head and not of the heart, because a writer’s heart often controls the head. It is no grandstanding to point out plainly that this is a serious error of historical fact; a twist of history to confuse younger generations.

My treatment of this rejoinder shall be two-pronged – from the perspectives of British Constitutional law and of British Empire and Commonwealth history. The term “Independence” has political denotation. It means the freedom from political control by another superior country – freedom to govern itself. In short, it also stands for “Sovereignty”. According to Barry Buzan, Professor of International Relations, London School of Economics, “Sovereignty is the claim by a state to full self-government. It is the claim to be the ultimate political authority, subject to no higher power regarding the making and enforcing of political decisions”. Does South Africa fit into these descriptions?

Indeed, the answer to the question is in the affirmative, South Africa came into being as an independent country on May 31, 1910, and not in 1994, as most people erroneously believe. The year 1994 was when the scaffoldings of apartheid were dismantled for the erection of a rock-solid pillar of democracy, which is majority rule. It was an election year. Before Independence could be granted to any country, it was customary for British Parliament to pass legislation in support of it. For instance, in the case of our country, Nigeria Independence Act, 1960, was passed in July of that year. Therefore, in the case of South Africa, it is irrefutable that it became independent under the South Africa Act 1909. That is why it is said to be one of the oldest, if not the oldest independent country in Africa and the Commonwealth. Apart from Britain, four countries were original or founding member-countries of the Commonwealth – The Dominion of Canada formed in 1867, the Commonwealth of Australia in 1901, the Union of South Africa in 1910. The New Zealand was styled a Dominion in 1907, but had long before enjoyed the right of self-government. The reading public may inquire: “What is a dominion?”

A dominion is a self-governing country, which owes or owed allegiance to the Crown. At the Imperial Conference in 1907, the term was used in contrast with the term “Colony”. South Africa’s form of Royal Title was: “Elizabeth the Second, Queen of South Africa and of Her other Realms and Territories, Head of the Commonwealth”, which was retained until 1961 when it became a Republic. Each of the four originating dominion countries had its form of Royal Title. The question may be asked: “Why did the country not join the continental organisation in 1963?”

The answer is found in its apartheid policy. This is the cause of the confusion that 1994 was the year of Independence. The explanation is this. The British defeated the independent republic of the Transvaal and the Orange Free State in the Anglo-Boer War of 1899 to 1902. Apartheid, the policy of separate development of the races, separated residential areas and ultimate political Independence for the Whites, Bantus, Asians and the Coloured, was officially introduced after the elections of 1948. The word “apartheid” was coined by Dr. D. F. Malan of the South African Bureau for Racial Affairs in the late 1930s and was introduced by the ruling Afrikaner National Party in 1944. Nelson Mandela, a black South African lawyer-cum-politician, became a leading member of the African National Congress (ANC). He fought against the apartheid and was jailed for life.

He was freed in 1990 by F. W. de Klerk from decades of imprisonment, to continue the struggle for majority rule through dialogue with the country’s authorities and world government leaders. The term “Majority Rule” is synonymous with “Universal franchise”. Earlier on May 31, 1961, the White-dominated government became a Republic. That was exactly 51 years after Independence, and was for that, expelled from the Commonwealth. The choice of the date, that is, the month and day, was deliberate to make it a real landmark. If the Independence year was 1994, there was no way that it could be a Republic in 1961, putting the cart before the horse. The constitutional situation could be incongruous, absurd and topsy-turvy.

Viewed from another angle, that it became Independent in 1994 is rebuttable. Students of British Constitutional law must recall the Statute of Westminster 1931 which granted legislative effects to the four founding-members of the Commonwealth, including South Africa. It marked the legal transformation from colonial to dominion status, and dominion status, in turn, gave way to the status of membership of the Commonwealth. Therefore, South Africa had for long enjoyed dominion status. Concerning its membership of the African Union (AU), but for its segregation policy, it could be one of the originating members of the organisation at the inception in 1963, having been politically Independent on May 31, 1910. The attainment of majority rule in 1994, after an election, qualified it to the AU membership, as the leper was cleansed of her leprosy.

I seize this opportunity to advise political journalists to read history. The past was the foundation of today, and today is the mother of tomorrow. I have gone thus far to establish that South Africa became Independent on May 31, 1910, and not 1994, so as not to twist history and confuse younger generations.

• Oshisada, a veteran journalist, lives at Ikorodu, Lagos.