The Reikert Commission has recommended to the South African government that certain changes be made to the pass law system affecting Africans in the urban areas. It is not evident that these will improve the situation for those concerned, as 'the abolished provisions will be replaced by other controls to achieve the same objective: to limit the number of blacks in the "white" towns and cities'.
The proposals are that Section 10 residence rights under the Urban Areas Acts be removed and entry into the urban areas be "linked only to the availability of work and of approved housing". This is in line with the longstanding intention of the state to migratise all black labour and deny permanent residence rights to Africans outside the Bantustans.
Other recent announcements also reflect this key aspect of apartheid policy. The 'reference books' (better known as 'passes') which all Africans are obliged to carry, are to be replaced with 'identity documents' according to the Minister of Plural Relations and Development in a statement to Parliament in February.
However it appears that this new document will not be different from a reference book in any important sense. The new measure is reminiscent of 1952, when parliament passed the so-called 'Abolition of Passes and Co-ordination of Documents Act' which renamed the hated pass-book (or 'dompass') a 'reference book'. In fact the definition of reference book in the 1952 Act included any identity document issued to Africans.
The present definition of reference book includes 'travel documents' issued by the Transkei and BophuthaTswana governments. These travel documents contain the same particulars as reference books, including the 'tribal nationality' of the holder, serial number and special endorsements to be in white areas. They must be produced on demand at any time and failure to do so is an offence carrying penalties of a fine or imprisonment.
Pass law arrests in South Africa increased by 36% in 1978 over the previous year. As stated in FOCUS 20 p.10, a total of 272,887 Africans were arrested for pass and influx control offences in 1978, according to figures released in parliament. During the period July 1977 to June 1978 there were a total of 17,472 prosecutions under South Africa's curfew regulations for urban areas.
These "white by night" curfew laws by which no African is allowed on town streets after 9, 10 or 11 pm. apply in 177 towns and villages in South Africa.
Since the "independence" of the Transkei and BophuthaTswana, all Africans in South Africa who are judged to have 'originated' from these Bantustans have lost their South African citizenship and are now 'citizens' of these areas, whether they live in them or not. It is estimated that over half the six million people affected by this granting of 'independence' do not live in the Bantustans.
The only way that a 'national' of the Transkei or BophuthaTswana can (temporarily) avoid losing South African citizenship is by becoming a citizen of a 'non-independent' bantustan. This is provided for in the Black Homelands Citizenship Amendment Act 13 of 1978, which allows the Minister to grant such a dispensation. However such a person would again lose his South African citizenship when the new Bantustan became "independent".
It is obvious that the implementation of the new measure is not popular. In early February the Daily Dispatch reported that more than 1.6 million people of Transkei 'origin' living in South Africa outside the Transkei had been granted an extra two years in which to replace their South African reference books with Transkei travel documents. This decision was taken after only 57 people had applied for Transkei travel documents since 1976.
Government officials have been keen to stress that BophuthaTswana 'citizens' have been given until 6 December 1979 to exchange their reference books for travel documents and that 'citizens' of these two Bantustans who qualified to live in South Africa would not lose their rights (such as section 10 residence rights under the Urban Areas Act) if they took out travel documents, as long as they ensured that their rights were endorsed in their travel documents. Officials have also said that there will be no discrimination against holders of 'travel documents' in terms of jobs and housing in urban areas.
But there have been many reports of precisely this kind of job discrimination. For example a letter in the Johannesburg Post of 21.1.79 stated that (Bantu) Administration Board officials refused to recognise homeland documents, or to grant work rights to holders of these documents.
Black Sash president Mrs Sheena Duncan said the Government's solution to the unemployment crisis was to deport the jobless in the cities to the bantustans and then to pretend that unemployment was under control.
Even if holders of the Transkei and BophuthaTswana travel documents are entitled to retain section 10 rights, this will only apply to Africans who were once South African citizens. Children born to 'citizens' of these two bantustans after the date of their 'independence' are no longer eligible by birth for either SA citizenship or residence rights in so-called 'white' areas, even if they were born in these 'white' areas.
If the Riekert proposals are adopted, section 10 rights will be anyway abolished, and no Africans will be admitted to white areas except on a temporary basis. How this will affect the 'home ownership, or 99-year leases now available in the townships, and the 'greater stability' promised to urban Africans remains to be seen.
