Text Size

The Land Tenure Act and the Church

The Land Tenure Act and the Church
29 March 1970

NOTE: Division of land proceeds division of races.

The State has not first divided up the races and then set aside the land which they may occupy, but it has first divided up the land, and then decided which race may occupy it.

Therefore, in any question of ‘occupation’, the first question is not ‘To what race does this person belong?’ but, ‘To what race does this land belong, and in what racial areas does this building stand?’ Therefore it follows whether a person may occupy it or not, according to his race.

If a person wishes to occupy land outside his own racial area, he must first found out whether the owner of that land is permitted to permit him to occupy it. The owner must first obtain permission from the local authority or from the appropriate Minister or both; otherwise the owner and the intending occupant will both be liable to prosecution.
The Land Tenure Act is inconsistent in this respect, for section 38, which deals with Tribal Trust Land, does first of all ask, ‘Is this person a tribesman?’
Even if he is a tribesman, section 39 states that he must still have the permission of ‘an authority’, the tribal land authority (Section 47) for the area concerned, and also the consent of the Minister (of Internal Affairs) subject to any other control exercised by the said Minister.

1. What are the main points at issue between State and Church in Rhodesia?

The Government of Rhodesia by its new legislation is committed politically to a policy of racial separate development. The Church is committed to a policy of non-racial free development. These two policies are fundamentally opposed.
 As stated clearly by the Church leaders in Rhodesia, in June 1969, on behalf of the Anglican Church, the Methodist Churches, the Roman Catholic Church, the Evangelical Lutheran Church, the Presbyterian Church, the United Congregational Church of South Africa, the United Church of Christ, the Bible Societies in Rhodesia, the Christian Council of Rhodesia and other Councils of Churches:-
“These proposals to entrench separation and discrimination are a direct contradiction of the New Testament teaching that race, like other human distinctions, has lost all divisive significance, and should not be used to regulate relationships between man and God, and man and man. The Christian responsibility to love accepts no barriers and cannot be defined or restricted by legislation.” (A Message and Appeal from Church Leaders to the Christian People of Rhodesia: June 1969). 
The Government, in direct contradiction of Christian teaching, has entrenched separation and discrimination. Basing its argument on racial differences, it has introduced restrictive legislation, which equivalently denies fundamental human rights. The Declaration of rights (Constitution, Section 92) takes away with one hand what it has given with the other, and it is not enforceable in court. Briefly the Land Tenure states that “each race shall be paramount in its own area; neither race may own or occupy land in the area of the other race, EXCEPT BY PERMIT, which shall be issued or refused by a Minister of Government when it seems in his opinion desirable.” (Land Tenure Act, Sections 11 and 24). The penalties for contravention are most severe.
To have rights reduced to Ministerial permissions is totally unacceptable. The freedom of the Church to deal with people, irrespective of race, has thus been violated.
The Church refuses to be forced to behave as if it approved of or acquiesced in racial discrimination.

2. Which new laws have caused this serious crisis for the Church?

The Constitution Act no. 54 of 1969 and the Land Tenure Act no. 55 of 1969 conflict with essential Christian principles. Basic human rights have been reduced by these laws to ministerial permits; and this in such important matters as:- freedom of conscience, freedom of speech, freedom of assembly and protection from discrimination. The Christian Church, both hierarchy and laity, is not at liberty to compromise Christian principles and thus to compromise its own conscience.
In "A Call to Christians," a pastoral letter published before the Referendum in June 1969, the Roman Catholic Hierarchy rejected the following:- The ideology behind the Constitutional Proposals, the powers to be conceded to the State, and their manifestation especially in the Land Tenure Act.

3. What is the ideology behind the Land Tenure Act?

The ideology behind the Land Tenure Act is, that it is desirable and right that people of different racial origins should BY LAW be segregated. This is in flagrant contradiction of the Church’s teaching that:
“Since all men possess a rational soul and are created in God’s likeness, since they have the same nature and origin, have been redeemed by Christ, and enjoy the same divine calling and destiny, the basic equality of all must receive increasingly greater recognition.
True, all men are not alike from the point of view of varying physical power and the diversity of intellectual and moral resources. Nevertheless, with the fundamental rights of the person, every type of discrimination whether social or cultural, whether based on sex, race, colour, social condition, language, or religion, is to be overcome and eradicated as contrary to God’s intent.” (Document of Vatican II, Pastoral Constitution of the Church in the Modern World, Chapter 2, para.29.)
See for instance, how the Constitution Act, no. 54 of 1969, contradicts this teaching. In Section 92, Declaration of Rights, para. 10, ‘Protection from Discrimination,’ it states:-
  “Every person is entitled to the enjoyment of the rights and freedoms set forth in this schedule, without unjust discrimination on the grounds of race, tribe, political opinion, colour or creed.”
(This sounds marvellous; but see what follows)
 “A law shall not be construed to discriminate unjustly, to the extent that it permits different treatment of persons or communities, by making due allowance for economic, social or cultural differences between them.”
(Yes, but what do these words ‘fair’ and ‘due allowance’ mean? Whatever a Minister “in his opinion considers desirable”?)
  “No law shall be construed as inconsistent … to the extent that the law in question provides for:- restriction of the ownership, occupation or use of land.”
This means in fact that a Minister has unlimited personal powers to deal with the occupation of lands or buildings anywhere he likes in the country, and to control every activity in such places, and this in any way he personally may think fit.
What the Declaration of Rights gives with one hand is taken away with the other, and not only in the example just quoted.
Furthermore, Section 84 of the Constitution states: “No Court shall inquire into or pronounce upon the validity of any law on the ground that it is inconsistent with the Declaration of Rights.”
From this it is evident that the Declaration of Rights is non-justiciable; it is deliberately prevented from being enforced in a Court of Law; this in turn makes any Minister of State legislator, judge, jury, advocate, and appellee, all at the same time.

4. Is there any safeguard against the powers which have been conceded to the State?

The powers that have been conceded to the State have been enshrined in ‘bad law’. Law is ‘good law’ when it is objectively clear and well defined; when people know where they stand. If people cannot know where they stand, it is ‘bad law.'
The Land Tenure Act contains such phrases as: “The appropriate Minister will give or refuse permission when it is, in his opinion, desirable.” The objective norm is therefore the subjective opinion of the person who happens to be a Minister of State for the time being. Should the Minister decide to refuse a permission, there is no appeal for the applicant beyond the self-same Minister.
The Minister has no obligation to the applicant in this respect, except perhaps “to hear him”. The Act nowhere states that the Minister is bound always to take advice, except on three specific occasions (transfer of land, Section 7; specially designated land, section 86; evasion of intent or purpose of Act, Section 73).
What responsibilities then has the Minister? Has he no responsibility to the individual, and therefore none to the nation as a whole? Is Rhodesia by these laws no longer in responsible hands?
This lack of obligation leaves the citizen defenceless, and leaves the minister entirely free to follow his won whim, and so to be literally a law unto himself.
In such circumstances the same law can be operated with the same legality in two totally contrary manners, depending solely on the different opinions or even the caprices of two people who may succeed one another as the appropriate Minister: more dangerously still, it could depend on two different moods of the same Minister.
If the norm is to be the personal opinion of any Minister, the door is left wide open for the lawful operation of this Act equally by irresponsible people, or by people who hold extreme and dangerous political opinions.

5. Why is the Land Tenure Act unacceptable in these respects?

The Land Tenure Act is unacceptable because in it the whole ideology of the Constitution is here carried to its legal conclusion.
The power to prohibit or to authorise the “occupation” of land in the newly determined racial areas, the power to “extinguish any rights of ownership” of a particular class of European in a particular part of any European area, all spring from this Act. (Sections 11 and 24)
The main objectives of the Act were described by the Minister of Lands in his second reading speech in Parliament on 15th October 1969:
“The main objectives of the Bill are to divide the major portion of the land in Rhodesia into equal areas … to set out the respective areas … to eliminate racial friction arising out of the ownership, occupation and use of the land. (Hansard 21. Vol. 75. Col. 1478) … I come now to the fundamental principle of this Bill, which is that the interests of Europeans are paramount in the European area and the interests of Africans are paramount in the African area. (ibid. Col.1483) … bearing in mind that the points of contact between races occur mostly at local level, the power to authorise persons of one race to occupy land in the other’s area,  or to prohibit them from doing so, is being vested in local authorities, with provision for call-in powers by the appropriate Minister in cases where national policy may become involved.” (ibid. Col. 1487) … “I want to make it clear that in terms of this Bill the European, Asian and Coloured Communities are all regarded as Europeans … However, proposals designed to avoid friction and discord between these Communities, particularly in relation to residential areas, are under consideration by the Government.” (ibid. Col. 1483)

6. In what way has the Land Tenure Act restricted the Church?

The Land Tenure Act has restricted the Church in the following ways:
The Church is no longer at liberty to move freely among people of all races to carry out her mission.
People of different races may no longer freely associate for the worship of God in churches outside their own prescribed racial areas.
The Church has no longer the right to admit to her own schools whomsoever she wills.
The Church is forbidden to admit to her own hospitals people of a race different from that of the prescribed area.
The Church can no longer – without a permit from a Minister of State – admit priests and Religious of different races to live in the same communities.
The Church can no longer use freely its own land or property.
Why have all these restrictions been imposed? In order to carry to a logical conclusion the State’s ideology of segregation.
To facilitate legislation, the State required that the Church declare itself either African or European. As a non-racial society, the Church could not agree to this. The State then suggested a compromise which would eliminate the problem created by a non-racial institution being the owner of land and property in a declared racial area. It suggested that the Church should apply to register itself as a Voluntary Association, like the Boy Scouts or Girl Guides, so that the difficulty might be overcome. No one with any idea of the true nature and purpose of the Church could not but find the comparison odious. Apart from this indignity, the Catholic Church cannot in principle and will not in practice divide itself racially for the administrative convenience of any State anywhere in the world.

7. Has the State ever discussed the new legislation with the Church?

The Government has never of its own accord discussed its proposals for the new Constitution or the Land Tenure Act with the Church.
In 1967 the people of Rhodesia were asked to submit proposals for a new Constitution for Rhodesia. Among others, the Catholic Bishops availed themselves of the opportunity, and presented to the Whaley  Commission carefully prepared suggestions designed to ensure that the Constitution should promote the common good, guarantee the dignity and freedom  of every individual, build up a true social order,  and bring bout the unity of the nation,  and establish concord with other nations.
A White paper, "Proposal for a New Constitution" was published on 20th May 1969. To these Proposals, the Church reacted at once. A Pastoral Letter of the Catholic Bishops of Rhodesia, entitled "A Call to Christians" was issued on 5th June 1969, and similarly, "A Message and Appeal from Church Leaders to the Christian People of Rhodesia" was issued at the same time, to which the Catholic Bishops of Rhodesia also added their signatures. All these Churches strongly rejected the proposals contained in the White Paper.
The Land Tenure Bill was published and had its First Reading in Parliament on 14th October 1969. One month later the whole parliamentary process of debate, which in fact took only five days, was complete. The Land Tenure Act 55 of 1969 was published in December 1969, and the appointed day of its promulgation was 2nd March 1970. It is now in force.
The Church was not invited to discuss the provisions of the Land Tenure Bill. Shocked at the implications of the Bill, which had at no time been discussed with the Church, the Churches met and set an inter-denominational deputation to seek an interview with the Minister of lands. At this interview, which lasted for two long periods on 20th and 27th October, were also present the Minister of Internal Affairs and the Minister of Local Government and Housing; thus all three Ministers who administer this Act were present. The deputation represented the Anglican Church, the Methodist Synod, the Roman Catholic Church, the United Congregational Church of South Africa, and all the Religious Bodies who are members of the Rhodesia Christian Conference. The deputation put its objectives clearly, and made particular positive suggestions. Apart from one partial amendment (concerning ownership by Voluntary Associations) and many personal assurances of goodwill by the Ministers present, no heed was given to the suggestions made by the deputation. In any case, Ministerial assurances of lenient interpretation of the law have no legal value, and Ministers themselves are less permanent than their laws.

8. In the Land Tenure Act, does the all-important word “OCCUPATION” carry the same meaning as the word’s normal everyday meaning?

No; the normal everyday meaning would not cover all the eventualities which the Government has decided to include; for instance, the Minister has the power to prescribe that “Attendance” shall also constitute “occupation”.
Here is a verbatim excerpt of the Second Reading Speech by the Minister of Lands:
The term “occupation” is one that has caused great difficulty in the past. It has caused no less difficulty in the drafting of this Bill. Indeed, it has proved impossible to define the term “occupation” in a way which would satisfactorily cover all eventualities, and it is therefore not defined in the Bill. It follows that unless it were qualified in some way it would be interpreted by the courts in accordance with case law and the word’s normal everyday meaning. Its ordinary everyday meaning carries a connotation of habitual use. For example, a shop assistant would be regarded as occupying the premises where he works, whereas a shopper calling in to make a purchase would not. A cinema-goer would not be occupying the cinema, but the term “occupation” would apply to the projectionist and usherettes.
Attendance at a place to which the public is admitted does not normally constitute “occupation”. However, in some cases admission to a place of this sort may have to be controlled if racial friction is to be avoided, and it is proposed that the Minister shall have power to prescribe that attendance for a specified purpose at a specified place or classes of place to which members of the public are admitted shall constitute “occupation” for the purposes of the Act. Furthermore, the Bill specifically makes it clear that a person who attends at a school or other educational institution, whether as a teacher or pupil, or who attends at a clinic, hospital or other medical institution, whether as a doctor, employee or patient, shall be regarded for the purposes of the Act as “occupying” the land on which the institution is situated. So will anyone staying at a hotel, club or similar premises.
Bearing in mind that the points of contact between the races occur mostly at local level, the power to authorise persons of one race to occupy land in the other’s area, or to prohibit them from doing so, is being vested in local authorities, with provision for call-in powers by the appropriate Minister in cases where national policy may become involved.
In dealing with the occupation of land in one area by persons of the other race, the Bill requires the adoption of more stringent procedures for urban land than it does for rural land. This is because the points of contact between the races in the rural areas are more natural and thus less likely to cause friction that in the urban areas.”(Hansard no. 21. Vol. 75. Col. 1486-7)
By this device of “occupation,” the State can by law put any piece of land or any institution “out of bounds” to whomsoever it will.

9. Has the State forbidden the Church freedom of movement and action?

The Government has forbidden, under severe penalties, freedom of movement and action to the Church in the following sections of the Land Tenure Act no. 55 of 1969:-
11. (2)
An African shall not own, lease, or occupy land in the European area. (38 million acres.)
The owner (etc.) of land in the European Area shall not
iii) permit, suffer or allow an African to occupy any such land.
  If an African is occupying land in the European Area, the owner (etc.) of such land shall be deemed to have permitted (etc.) such African to occupy such land unless the contrary is proved.
24. (2)
A European shall not own, lease or occupy land in the African Area. (43 million acres.)
The owner (etc.) of land in the African Area shall not
(iii) permit, suffer or allow a European to occupy any such land.
    If a European is occupying land in the African Area, the owner (etc.) of such land shall be deemed to have permitted (etc.) such European to occupy such land unless the contrary is proved.
38.     No person other than a tribesman shall occupy any portion of the Tribal Trust Land (40 million acres) except
 in the exercise of any previously acquired right subsisting on the appointed day (2nd March 1970). (There is no definition of this ‘right’).
In accordance with such terms and conditions as may be prescribed (after 2nd March 1970) in regulations for any of the following purposes:
(ii) religious or educational purposes in the interest of tribesmen.
(iii) hospitals, clinics or any other establishments for the benefit of tribesmen.
71. (1)  Any person who
contravenes any provisions of this Act, where no penalty is especially provided, shall be guilty of an offence and liable to a fine not exceeding five hundred pounds or to imprisonment for a period not exceeding twelve months or to both such fine and imprisonment.
73.  (1) Severe penalties are also provided for any who shall attempt to ‘evade the intent or purpose of the Act.” viz: -
Eviction of persons unlawfully occupying the land.
Disposal of land or termination of the lease
The Government of Rhodesia, by means of all this legislation, has assumed the authority to decide how the Church shall function in this country.

10. Is a Church which insists that it is non-racial forbidden to own land in either African or European areas?

A non-racial Church is forbidden to own land in the African or European areas (by definition in the Act, “land” includes any building or on land, or part of such building or structure), unless it applies for a certificate to become a Voluntary Association within the meaning of the Act. Otherwise the Minister at any time when “he considers it desirable” may ascertain whether “the controlling interest in a company or body is held by Europeans or Africans, and thereupon declare that for the purpose of this Act that company or body shall be deemed to be a European or African, as the case may be.” (Section 68). The Church is essentially non-racial. It must therefore refuse to be classified as being controlled by any one particular race.
The Minister of Lands amended the original Bill on the 6th November 1969 in the committee stage, saying “It would not be practicable to require the Voluntary Association to dispose of its properties in either the European or African area every time its racial composition changed.” (Hansard 9. Vol. 76. Col. 1162).
Consequently Section 72 now applies. “The Minister may, on the application in writing by a Voluntary Association (which includes a ‘religious order or sect’) authorise the applicant to own or lease land in the European Area or the African Area irrespective of the race of the member thereof, subject to such terms and conditions as he thinks fit. The Minister may, at any time, after giving notice to the Voluntary Association concerned and affording it an opportunity of being heard, cancel such certificate.”
The curious position therefore arises that the Superior of a Religious Order composed entirely of African subjects, by becoming a Voluntary Association, may own or lease land in the European Area, but is forbidden to permit any African subject to occupy the land unless the local authority or the Minister give permission to the Voluntary Association to permit their ‘African’ subjects to do so.
The Government assumes, incorrectly, that the Church shall be “a European”, unless it applies to be classified as a Voluntary Association. Therefore, if the Church refuses to be “racialised” or to become a Voluntary Association, “like the Boy Scouts” (Hansard no. 9, Vol. 76. Col. 1162), it will be illegally in occupation of any of the land and premises it owns, except in a non-racial residential area.
To permit ownership but restrict occupation does not solve the problem of how the Church shall function in this country.

11. What about all the land owned by the Church?

The Catholic Church owns approximately 150,000 acres of land in Rhodesia. This land is for the major part classified as “Mission Land” in terms of the Land Apportionment Act Chapter 257, Section 2. Most of these lands were freely granted to the Church between the years 1893 and 1906 by the British South Africa Company; a few were purchased for Church use between 1901 and 1945.
The purpose for which these lands were granted to or purchased by the Church was ensure the support of the early missionaries and to enable them to carry out their beneficial work among the people.
The Land is composed of estates which are scattered throughout the country. Each of these estates supports at least one large mission complex, usually comprising schools and hospitals and accommodation for mission staff. Installation for these estates include:
  13 Mission Stations  
  13 Public Churches  
  35 Religious Houses  
  12 Primary Boarding Schools  
  11 Secondary Boarding Schools  
  5 Teacher Training Boarding Schools  
  5 Trade and Home-craft Schools  
  7 Primary Day Schools  
  8 Hospitals (including one hospital with two resident doctors) and clinics
  1 Orphanage  
On the five main Mission Estates, out of a total of 144,000 acres, 105,000 acres have, with the permission of the Government in power at the time, been leased to African Tenants since 1941.
The Church finds her ownership of large acreage an embarrassment particularly when the African people complain of land hunger. The practical difficulties of disposing of such land, especially to individual Africans, are enormous.
The number of people at present living permanently on Mission Lands are:
  1270 tenant African families
  Europeans Lay/religious 
  Africans Lay/religious
In addition, 6,900 African school children board and reside on these lands for the greater part of the year.
From the beginning, therefore, these lands have been used for the purpose for which they were granted to the Church, part of the estates being farmed for the support in part of the individual mission station by the supply of fresh food for home consumption, and the surplus being leased to African tenants.
It cannot be said that the Church derives financial profit from its ownership of these estates. In fact, for the past ten years the Church has had to subsidise heavily the cost of management of most of these estates.

12. Is the Church ONLY interested in her OWNERSHIP of land?

By no means. It is the Land Tenure Act which relates all human activities and all occasions of associations between people to the question of occupation of land.
Some people may think that the Church raises a hue and cry just because owned land and property is at stake. This is not the case. Land is owned and worked for a purpose: the evangelisation of the people. It is thus only one (often necessary) means to achieve its mission. As a matter of fact most of the Church’s activities in Rhodesia take place not on owned, but on leased land in the Tribal Trust Lands. The Land Tenure Act cripples this work in an equally fatal way by restricting the free movement of staff.
Consider for instance the Diocese of Gwelo, which is 40,000 square miles in extent, is only one of the five Dioceses of the Rhodesia Catholic Bishops’ Conference. The following is a list of the establishments which in 1969 were owned by the Church but situated on land which is leased by the Church in that Diocese alone:
  Mission Stations 
  Public Churches  
  Private Chapels 
  Primary Day Schools
  Secondary Boarding Schools
  Special Schools 
In the above list, the acreage per site varies from 1 acre to 100 acres; the number of pupils at educational institutions exceeds 51,000; the number of hospital beds is 1,200; in 1968 the number of in-patients was 23,300, and the number of out-patient treatments was 260,000.
The Land Tenure Act, by putting half the country “out of bounds” to one or other section of the community, has harassed the Church and made its task impossible of fulfilment, except with Ministerial permission.

13. What happens to MISSION LAND in the European Area when it is SPECIALLY DESIGNATED by the State to be land in the African area?

“Mission Land” as defined in the Land Apportionment Act 1931, means “land in the European Area which is owned by or held in trust for a religious body and on which missionary work is carried on among Africans by such a body.”
Over the past 70 years, and especially in the last 40 years, an enormous amount of building and capital development has been undertaken for the purpose of “carrying on missionary work among Africans”, in accordance with the definition quoted.
“Specially designated land” is not defined in the Land Tenure Act, but was described by the Minister of Lands in Parliament as follows:
“The purpose of this category of land is to facilitate the elimination of various small islands of land, owned by persons of one race within the area of the other race, without undue disturbance of the present owners.
Land which falls into this category, may continue to be owned by its present owner and to be occupied by him and any member of his family. However, if he disposes of the land it may only be to a member of the appropriate race having regard to the area in which the land is situated.
In the case of the European Area, there will be some specially designated land, that is, land which is to be transferred into the African Area, but which is at present owned by a European."”(Hansard no. 21. Vol. 75. Col. 1482).
This transfer has automatically taken place by the promulgation of the Land Tenure Act on 2nd March 1970.
There are 300,000 acres of land which are at present owned by Europeans and which have now automatically been incorporated into the African Area. At least half of the 300,000 acres is in fact Mission Land. The Act specifically excludes the owner of Mission Land from the right of recourse to the Government to purchase it within five years of 2nd March 1970. Other European owners of such land, provided that it is not Mission Land, do have the right to call on Government to purchase that land. (Section 74)
At a meeting between the Heads of Churches and the Minister of Lands on 23rd January 1970, a Government memorandum was said to have been submitted to the Minister, suggesting ways and means of giving effect to such disposal. The Churches had neither the expertise nor the finances nor man-power to carry out the sale of such land to individual Africans. It was suggested that Government could assist in this exercise in one of the following ways:-
by purchasing the land and using it for settlement, either freehold or communal;
 by providing expertise in the subdivision of land for sale to Africans by the Churches;
by taking over land, subdividing it and disposing of it, and paying the Churches any profits resulting from the exercise.
It is not yet known whether the Government will accept the principle of assisting.
This section chiefly applies to the Empandeni Mission which was a free grant to the Church in 1899, and to Triashill Mission which was a free grant to the Church in 1895.

14. In the Land Tenure Act, what are the consequences for the Church of the prohibitions concerning ‘OCCUPATION’?

The consequences of the prohibitions in the Land Tenure Act are, that many forms of ‘Occupation’ are illegal and subject to penalty unless the appropriate Minister or the local authority concerned or both are prepared to give their permission, subject to such conditions as they may think fit, when it is in their opinion desirable to do so.
The above provisions apply in the following examples, which are taken in the order found in the Land Tenure Act (L.T.A.):-
A. African employees in European urban areas.
L.T.A. Section 2. If an African Priest, Nun or Brother fulfilled the definition of ‘bona fide employee’, he or she would be allowed to work in the European Area (L.T.A. Section 16) and so to occupy  land in that area, without a permit, “for the purpose of his employment” and for the “purpose of occupying residential accommodation provided at the place of employment” provided that no permit in that area is required.
Local by-laws, however, would require that he live in the servants quarters or out-buildings and not in the main residence.
B. Multiracial worship in either area.
L.T.A. Section 3. A European wishing to visit a church in the African Area, or in an African township in the European Area, or an African wishing to visit a church in the European Area for the purpose of worshipping Almighty God either privately or in a congregation, would be prevented from doing so, if the Minister were to exercise his personal power to “prescribe that attendance at a specified place to which members of the public are admitted shall constitute occupation for the purpose of this Act”. The Minister of Lands in his Second Reading Speech on the Land Tenure Bill said “admission to a place of this sort may have to be controlled if racial friction is to be avoided”. (Hansard no. 21. Vol. 75. Col. 1487).
On behalf of the Churches, Dr Palley, the Independent Member of Parliament for Highfield, formally moved the following amendment in Parliament on 5th November 1969: “To add the following subsection:
The provisions of this section shall not apply to attendance at a place of worship for the purpose of being present at a religious gathering conducted by a member of a bona fide religious organisation”. (Hansard 8 Vol.76, Col.928).
Amendment proposed by Dr Palley had the house and the committee divided. There being fewer than 10 members voting in favour, amendment accordingly negatived.” (Hansard 8 Vol.76, Col.941).
It is no use now saying that the Government was only thinking about Municipal swimming baths.
C. African servants separated from wife and children.
L.T.A. Section 16. An African who is an employee working in the European Urban Area may occupy land (without permit) in the European Area for the purposes of his employment, unless it is in an area, or unless he is an employee of a special class detailed in Section 17, where permits are needed. Local by-laws may require him to live in separate servants’ quarters and forbid him to keep his wife and children there.
D.European Priests in an African Township.
L.T.A. Section 15. A European may not own, lease or occupy land in an African Township in the European Area. (7)b.(c). Therefore no European Priest may work for example in Harari or Highfield, and the Church, unless it becomes a Voluntary Association, is taken to be a European and therefore may not own any church, church residence or Convent in that area, (and vice versa in Section 29 for the African Area).
E.African pupils or patients at institutions in the European Urban Area.

The Government can, in virtue of this Act, segregate private schools and hospitals even against the Rule and Constitution of the Religious Orders who founded and own and operate them, and even against the expressed wishes of their benefactors. Such institutions must inevitably suffer as a result, since donations and benefactions may cease, and members of Religious Orders may no longer wish to offer themselves for missionary work in a country where their apostolate is restricted by Government interference.

L.T.A. Section 17. An African who is not an employee, as above, “who attends at a school or other educational institution as a teacher or pupil thereat, or attends at a clinic, hospital or other medical institution as a doctor or other employee thereat or as a patient, or stays at a hotel (etc) shall be regarded for the purposes of this Act as occupying the land on which the premises are situated”. [Section 3 (2).

If a suitable African pupil wants to go to a private school in the European Area, the owner (etc) would have to apply in writing on the prescribed form and wait while the Local Authority canvasses at the expense of the applicant for objection within and immediately outside the school. The Local Authority or the Minister or both shall take note of the objection and may refuse to issue the permit, or agree to issue the permit. An indefinite period permit may, by notice in writing, be cancelled at any time.

The Government can thereby now put an end to any integrated school in an urban area simply by refusing any further permit beyond 2nd September 1970. Similarly, any African patient who could afford the fees charged, and who was admitted, for example, to St. Anne’s Hospital, could be an illegal occupant of that hospital. In either case, the school or hospital authorities, and the parents of the pupil and the patient, would be liable to a fine of 500 pounds or 12 months in prison etc. (and vice versa in the African Urban Area, where there is one. Section 31).

This legislation would affect, for example, such schools as St. George’s College in Salisbury, the Marist Brothers College at Que Que, the Dominican Convent in Salisbury, Marymount College in Umtali; such hospitals St. Anne’s Hospital and Nazareth House in Salisbury and Mater Dei Hospital in Bulawayo. If Asians and Coloureds are to be treated differently from other “Europeans”, it will, for example, affect St. Martin’s School in Salisbury, the Orphanage at Emerald Hill, and the Marist Brothers College at Que Que. [L.T.A. Section 11 (4).]
F. Africans at the University College of Rhodesia.

L.T.A. Section 83. With regard to

An African who is undergoing instruction or is engaged as a research worker, professor, lecturer or teacher at the University College established on stand number 7777A, Salisbury Township:
it should be noted that “it is to be deemed that the Minister has issued a permit in terms of Section 17 for an indefinite period” which means that he may, by notice in writing, cancel the permit at any time”. (13)
G.African employees, pupils and patients in the European rural Area.

19      An African occupying rural land in the European Area, unless

 he is an employee actually engaged in that employment or when occupying accommodation provided on the land where he is employed,
 he is a pupil at a school already registered in terms of the Education Act or African Education Act with fresh permits to be applied for between 2nd March 1970 and before 2nd September 1970, under this Act,
 he is a patient at a medical institution authorised with fresh permits to be applied for between 2nd March 1970 and before 2nd September 1970, under this Act would have to apply for a permit under Section 20.
Nevertheless, that Minister may prohibit specified Africans or impose conditions on their occupation, if it be in “his opinion desirable”; or he may exclude any land from such permission; if anyone objects, he “may appeal to the Minister, whose decision shall be final.” (4). 
“Any person who wishes –
  to establish an educational or medical institution on rural land in the European Area for occupation by Africans; or
 to permit Africans to occupy an educational or medical institution which has been established on rural land in the European Area,
shall apply in writing in the prescribed manner to the issuing authority (e.g. a Rural Council) for the issue of a permit…” 
The local authority or the Minister or both may refuse to issue the permit, or agree to issue the permit. An indefinite period permit may, by notice in writing, be cancelled at any time. (Vice versa the same would apply to Europeans in the African Purchase Area: Section 33).

The Government can thereby put an end to any hospital or school which caters for Africans and is situated in a European Rural Area by refusing any further permit beyond 2nd September 1970.

This means in practice that the Government could close down the Minor Seminaries of the Dioceses of Gwelo and Umtali, the Noviciate of the Precious Blood