Hostname: page-component-84b7d79bbc-g78kv Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-30T04:57:11.925Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Rhodesia: The Constitutional Conflict

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 November 2008

James P. Barber
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The Rhodesian rebellion was announced by no whiff of grapeshot but by Mr Ian Smith declaiming that he and his colleagues, ‘in humble submission to Almighty God’, were giving Rhodesia a new constitution, ‘so that the dignity and freedom of all men may be assured’. Subsequently the rebellion has continued to centre around a constitutional dispute. Although there have been armed clashes between the Rhodesian security forces and some guerrilla fighters who have infiltrated from Zambia, there has been no conflict between the forces of the legal authority, the British Government, and those which obey the rebel régime.

Type
Articles
Information
The Journal of Modern African Studies , Volume 4 , Issue 4 , December 1966 , pp. 457 - 469
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1966

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Page 458 note 1 Quoted by Palley, C., The Constitutional History and Law of Southern Rhodesia, 1888—1965 (Oxford, 1965), p. 270Google Scholar.

Page 459 note 1 Ibid, pp. 270–1.

Page 461 note 1 The Central African Examiner (Salisbury), 11 1962Google Scholar.

Page 462 note 1 I am not here suggesting that their rejection of the constitution was the sole reason for the banning, nor that the boycott started government attacks upon the nationalists. Already in 1959 the U.F.P. Government had banned the African National Congress because it claimed that the Congress intended to organise civil disturbances and violence. The point I am making is that the boycott continued to leave the nationalists open to government attack.

Page 464 note 1 House of Commons Debates, (London, 1965) vol. 713, col. 1558Google Scholar.

Page 466 note 1 Newsweek (New York), 19 12 1966Google Scholar.

Page 468 note 1 Judgment, High Court of Rhodesia (Salisbury), GD/CIV/66 of 9/9/66, p. 25Google Scholar.

Page 468 note 2 Ibid. pp. 81 and 77.

age 469 note 21 Sir Edgar Whitehead has estimated that the Tiger proposals would have ‘the effect of greatly postponing the possible date of African majority rule almost certainly beyond the end of the century’. The Spectator (London), 16 12 1966Google Scholar.