Showing 1674 results

The Village Management Board of Kuruman was established on 12 June 1913 under provision of the Villages Management Act, 1881 and sections 80 and 81 of the South Africa Act, 1909, in terms of Proclamation No 144, 1913 (The Province of the Cape of Good Hope Official Gazette No 269, 11 July 1913).

The Municipality of Kuruman was established on 18 April 1916 under provision of section 10 of the Cape Municipal Ordinance, 1912 in terms of Proclamation No 71, 1916 (The Province of the Cape of Good Hope Official Gazette No 431, 21 April 1916).

In 1994 Kuruman became part of the Northern Cape Province. It forms part of the Ga-Segonyana Local Municipality, one of three local municipalities that falls under the John Taolo Gaetsewe (formerly Kgalagadi) District Municipality.

The Divisional Council of Laingsburg was constituted on 3 November 1905 under the provisions of Act No 40 of 1889. According to the requirements of the said act the division was divided into six districts (Cape of Good Hope Government Gazette No 8802 dated 3 November 1905, Proclamation No 386 dated 30 October 1905).

On 1 January 1980 the Divisional Council of Laingsburg was reconstituted with the Divisional Council of Worcester to form the amalgamated Divisional Council of Matroosberg (Cape of Good Hope Official Gazette No 4061 dated 20 July 1979, Proclamation No 174 dated 18 July 1979).

A considerable amount of documents was lost during the flood of 25 January 1981.

The Court of Justice at the Cape was established in 1656. Prior to this date judicial matters were dealt with by the Council of Policy but by a resolution of 28 October 1656 the latter body decided that when it sat as a court of justice and as a military court it was to consist of the commander, five members and a secretary. In 1657 the free burghers obtained representation in the court in cases in which burghers were concerned. In 1685 provision was made for the court to consist of the governor, vice- governor and eight members, the secretary having no voice in the proceedings. Initially, two of the members were burgher councillors. Until 1734 the governor acted as president of the court. In 1786 the composition of the court was altered by having six company servants and six burgher councillors under the presidency of a member of the Council of Policy. In 1792 the secretaries of the Council of Policy and Court of Justice were respectively appointed notaries public, from which date notaries were regularly admitted by the government to practice before the court until 1858 when they were admitted by authority of the Supreme Court. In 1797 Lord McCartney decreed that the court should consist of a president, the fiscal and five ordinary members. The title of president was changed to chief justice in 1812.

Until 1795 the Court of Justice was an appeal court to the inferior courts and appeal from its sentences had to be made to the Court of Justice at Batavia. This ceased at the first British Occupation until 1797 when the governor was vested with an appellate jurisdiction in cases exceeding £200 in dispute. A further appeal lay to the King-in-council where the amount was over £500. In 1803 appeals had to be carried to the National Supreme Court at The Hague and after 1806 the same procedure was re-established as in 1797. From the members of the court, commissioners (Heeren Gecommitteerden) were appointed before whom all transfers of landed property, mortgage bonds, etc were passed. This body also acted in civil cases by taking evidence, making investigations and attempting to solve cases before bringing it before the full court.

When the court was remodeled in 1786 a board called the College of Commissioners of the Court of Justice (Commissarissen uit den Raad van Justisie) was established. This board replaced the Burgher Council and generally the commissioners’ duties were of a municipal nature. On 31 January 1796 the college was abolished, its duties being assigned to a new body, the Burgher Senate.

Until 1811, Cape Town was the only seat of the criminal court but in this year a Circuit Court was establishes to try cases in the country districts.

The Archives:
The records in civil and criminal cases are fairly complete, commencing prior to the establishment of the Court of Justice and containing the minutes of the court, papers presented to the members, petitions, affidavits and papers connected with each case. The series Notarial and other documents prepared before or received by the Court of Justice includes wills, inventories, powers of attorney, contracts, declarations, attestations, certificates and inspections of persons who died suddenly, who were wounded or drowned. The documents of the Court of Appeal, 1807 – 1827 originally described with the archives of the Court of Justice, have been transferred to the archives of the Governor, the new reference numbers being indicated in the inventory. The archives of the Fiscal, such as exist, are to be found described together with the archives of the Attorney-General of the Cape (inventory 1/19).

The Divisional Council of Worcester was proclaimed on 12 July 1855 in terms of Act No 5 of 1855.

According to the requirements of the said act, the division was divided into six districts, comprising various field-cornetcies including Tulbagh, Twenty-Four Rivers, Breede River and the Cold and Warm Bokkeveld.

In terms of Act No 13 of 1856 the district of Tulbagh was proclaimed a division and the boundaries of the Divisional Council of Worcester were redefined as follows:
District No 1 Field-Cornetcy and Town of Worcester;
District No 2 Field-Cornetcies of Wagenboom’s River and Goudini;
District No 3 Over Hex River and Achter Hex River;
District No 4 Voorste and Middle Bosjesveld;
District No 5 Kleine Swarte Berg and Klein Roggeveld;
District No 6 Great Fish River, Koreeka River, Riet River and Komsberg.

In the ensuing years the boundaries were altered various times, for example in 1869(4) and 1905.

On 1 January 1980 the Divisional Council of Worcester was reconstituted together with the Divisional Council of Laingsburg to form the amalgamated Divisional Council of Matroosberg.

1. Administrative Outline

1.1 Introduction

The “Convention for a Democratic South Africa” or CODESA, in short formed part of a political negotiating process. CODESA, as a whole can be viewed in the following broad categories. Two major Plenary Sessions were held. The first was held on 20-21 December 1991 and the second on 15-16 May 1992. During the First Plenary Session, 5 initial Work Groups were established, each with their own Terms of Reference. At a later stage 2 new sub-committees were also established. These Work Groups met and negotiated frequently in the period prior to the Second Plenary Session, where they eventually delivered their reports on their agreements and recommendations.

1.2 Preparatory meetings

From 29 – 30 November 1991 Preparatory meetings were held at the Jan Smuts Holiday Inn, Johannesburg. 20 different parties attended these meetings. It was decided that the all-party process would be convened under the title “Convention for a Democratic South Africa” (CODESA). It was also agreed that the first meeting of CODESA would take place on the 20-21 December 1991 at the World Trade Centre in Kempton Park, Johannesburg. Issues on the first agenda were:

• the creation of the climate for free political participation
• general Constitutional principles
• constitution making body/process
• transitional arrangements/Interim Government/Transitional Authority
• the future of the TBVC states
• the role of the international community
• time frames with regard to all these processes
• implementation of decisions of CODESA
• other items to be identified by the Steering Committee and decided upon by CODESA

During the Preparatory meetings it was also decided that the original invitees would be invited to the first meeting of CODESA and that each participating organization would be entitled to a maximum of 12 delegates.

A Steering Committee comprising of one person from each of the participating organizations was established. Their tasks were to convene the first plenary meeting of CODESA, attend to outstanding items which featured on the agenda of the Preparatory meeting, the funding of CODESA, administration, standing rules, agenda for the first meeting, press and media and other items. Mr Zac de Beer of the Democratic Party was elected to chair the Steering Committee.

It was further agreed that 5 international organizations would be invited to attend the first meeting of CODESA as observers.

It was also decided that decisions of CODESA would be taken by consensus and that where consensus does not exist, the principle of “sufficient consensus” shall be invoked. Another decision that was made was that all plenary sessions of CODESA would be open to the media.1

The Steering Committee, as established by the Preparatory meeting, held its first meeting on 4 December 1991. During this meeting decisions such as the allocation of tasks to subordinate groups (or Task groups) under the supervision of the Steering Committee and how to resolve deadlocks were discussed. The Steering Committee decided to form three Task groups that would be involved in the Organisation and Planning of CODESA 1 (20-21 December 1991). The portfolios allocated to the three Task groups were: Task group 1: Organisation and Planning; Task group 2: Drafting and Task group 3: Process.

• Task group 1’s responsibilities were w.r.t the arrangements of the venue, finances and invitations; it also had the responsibility of Security, Media and Communication and Protocol (that subsequently led to the establishment of s 3 sub-committees for these portfolios)
• Task group 2’s responsibilities were w.r.t. the Declaration of Intent (Purpose, goals and broad principles), the commitment of the Parties and the Government, standing rules and decision making.
• Task group 3’s responsibilities were w.r.t. the Agenda for CODESA 1, input on the identifying, assignments and functioning of possible Working Groups and additional items to be handled by the Steering Committee, mediation and facilitation.

During the first meeting the convenors of the Task Groups were chosen from members of the Steering Committee delegates. A proposal was adopted that each party participating in the Steering Committee, would have the opportunity to appoint one delegate each of the three Task groups.

A five-person secretariat was also appointed to oversee the provision of administrative services for the Task groups, the Steering Committee and the first plenary meeting of CODESA2.

1.3 CODESA 1: First Plenary Session

The First Plenary Session was held on 20-21 December 1991, at the World Trade Centre, near the Jan Smuts Airport in Johannesburg. Two judges, Piet Schabort and Ismail Mohamed were chosen to the chair of the Convention.

In the period prior to the First Plenary Session, Mr M Buthelezi and the IFP insisted that their delegation was not enough. They also requested two other delegations, one headed by the King of the Zulus and the other representing the KwaZulu administration, to be seated. No agreement was reached on this issue and the IFP and Mr Buthelezi chose to stay away. This resulted that the IFP did not sign the “Declaration of Intent”. After certain amendments were made to the “Declaration of Intent”, the IFP eventually did sign the declaration at the Second Plenary Session.

Friedman called the first day of the First Plenary Session, “a bland gathering”, which consisted of a procession of speakers that read prepared speeches. According to Friedman the “centerpiece of CODESA 1 was the signing of a Declaration of Intent, consisting largely of vague statements of goodwill and designed primarily to avoid possibilities for disagreement...”.

During the second day of CODESA 1, comments were delivered on the “Declaration of Intent. On the Agenda was also the formation of Working Groups and the decisions on what important items the Working Groups should negotiate.

During the session a Secretariat was elected for CODESA 2 and their task was allocated as to “attend to the day-to-day supervision and the creation of the necessary administrative capacity...”.3 A management Committee replaced the old Steering Committee. Its mandate was to supervise the administration of CODESA, implement the decisions or agreements, create necessary sub-structures and supervise the work of the Working Groups. Its first meeting was held on 13 January 1992. On this occasion the Management Committee established the Daily Management Committee, which replaced the outgoing Secretariat.4

CODESA 1 appointed five working groups, whose tasks were to prepare for a second plenary and according to Friedman it was in these groups that the real bargaining was expected to occur.5

1.4 Working Groups

CODESA 1 and 2’s work was delegated to five working groups in which each participant or organization was represented by two delegates and two advisers. Their tasks were to reach agreement on key issues assigned to them and to compile a report, reflecting consensus to the next plenary. In response to complaints pertaining to the poor representivity of women during the convention, the CODESA also established a Gender Advisory Committee, whose structure was similar to the five working groups, to advise it on the gender implications of the Working Groups. The issues allocated to the five working groups were:

Working Group 1’s first assignment was for the: Creation of a climate for free political participation. Working Group 1’s second assignment was the Role of the International Community. Working Group 1 compiled a report to a CODESA 2 on its activities and sub-groups.6

Working Group 2’s assignment was “General Constitutional Principles”. Working Group 2 was unable to deliver a report to the Second Plenary Session, because no agreement on certain outstanding issues was reached.

Working Group 3’s assignment was: Transitional arrangements/interim government/transitional authority. Working Group 3 compiled a report to CODESA 2 on its activities.7

Working Group 4’s assignment was the Future of the TBVC States. Working Group 4 compiled a report to CODESA 2 on its activities.8

Working Group 5’s assignment was: Time frames and implementation of CODESA decisions. This Working Group compiled a report to CODESA 2 on its activities.9

Except for the working groups, the Daily Management Committee was established to manage the convention as a whole. This committee was responsible for the settling of procedural disputes within the working groups. The Daily Management Committee in turn, as well as the Working groups was administered by a Secretariat.10

During the Management Committee’s first meeting on 13 January 1992 a sub-committee investigating the participation of the King of the Zulus and Other Traditional Leaders was also appointed. The sub-committee was mandated to investigate and make recommendations to the Management Committee on an appropriate role in the negotiating process for the King of the Zulus and other Traditional leaders. It was decided that the sub-committee must report in advance of the CODESA 2.

During the meeting of the Management Committee on 10 February 1992, it was agreed that a sub-committee should be established to investigate amendments proposed by the IFP to the Declaration of Intent. This committee concluded its business on 9 March 1992.

The Gender Advisory Committee to CODESA 2, met for the first time on 6 April 1992. The committee was charged with the special task of looking into the Terms of Reference, minutes and decisions of each of the Working Groups, and those of the Management Committee and advising on their gender  implications.  The  Committee  handed in  their  report for  the Second

Plenary Session11, but continued their work in the Post-CODESA stages.

1.5 CODESA 2: Second Plenary Session

The Second Plenary Session took place on 15 – 16 May 1992. During the first day the CODESA Working Groups reports were tabled. A summarized version of the reports was delivered during the first day. It was followed by a discussion on the agreements in the Working Group reports, an adoption of the agreements and a discussion on the outstanding matters from the Working group reports. These discussions continued on the second day.

During the second day certain resolutions were also adopted “on the way forward”. It was mandated during this meeting that to promote better co-ordination and improve efficiency, that the Management Committee suspend the work of the Working Groups, with the mandate to convene any Working Group, if necessary. The Management Committee was further given the responsibility to resolve any outstanding matters and examine the agreements of the Working Groups with a view to establish what would be done with regard to implementation of the adopted agreements.

1.6 The Post-CODESA Phase

The Post-CODESA phase was short-lived. Despite the establishment of several Sub-committees and Task Groups, and the allocation of tasks, all CODESA meetings were suspended at the end of June 1992. This decision was made after a request for the suspension of meetings by the ANC~s, due the unstable political situation in the country at that stage.12