The Double Standard of 'Rule of Law': A Story of Privilege, Power, and Postcolonial Africa

Introduction

In the shadows of colonialism, the notion of "rule of law" has often been distorted to serve as a tool of oppression, masking the sinister reality of "rule by law". The Land Apportionment Act of 1930 in Southern Rhodesia (now Zimbabwe) epitomizes this phenomenon, where the law was deliberately crafted to perpetuate racial segregation, displacement, and economic inequality. This legislation not only entrenched colonial power dynamics but also embedded a class action that protected the interests of dominant classes, perpetuating a system of oppression that percolated through generations. This article reveals how the colonial regime exploited the facade of "rule of law" to maintain power and control over marginalized communities, subverting the very principles of equality, justice, and fairness that the rule of law purports to uphold by examining this pivotal legislation. The article delves into the complexities of this double standard, exposing the dark underbelly of "rule by law" and its enduring impact on postcolonial Africa, where the law continues to serve as a shield for the powerful and a sword against the?marginalized.

90 years of Colonialism

Southern Rhodesia came about as an extension of the British Crown by political conquest alongside Terra Nullius and Trusteeship concepts to exploit the region and the people of its resources for the benefit of the British monarch. From 1889 to 1923, the British South African Police (BSAC) governed Southern Rhodesia as a private commercial enterprise under the authority granted by the British government through a series of Orders in Council.?These Orders established the legal and administrative framework for the BSAC's control over the land, natural resources, and local population during this period. It is trite that enactments in Southern Rhodesia from 1923 to 1979 carried a preamble that stated as follows:

?“BE IT ENACTED by the King’s Most Excellent Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Legislature of the Colony of Southern Rhodesia, as follows:-”

It is established that this was the standard preamble used in the legislation passed by the Southern Rhodesian Parliament during the 90-year colonial period at the behest of the British Crown. Undoubtedly, the preamble underscores the fact that all Rhodesian laws were under Britain, as Rhodesia was an extension of Britain by colonization. In some instances, other enactments carried the following;

“WHEREAS by section 1 of the “... Act,” it is provided that the said Act shall not come into operation until the Governor has declared by proclamation in the Gazette that it is His Majesty’s pleasure not to disallow the same;

And whereas it is also provided by the said section that the said Act shall come into operation on such date as the Governor may, by the same or like Proclamation declare:

Now, therefore, under and by virtue of the powers vested in me aforesaid, I do hereby proclaim, declare and make known that it is His Majesty’s pleasure not to disallow the said Act.

And further, I do hereby declare that the said Act shall come into operation on the ….”

The British monarch, acting on the advice of the Southern Rhodesian legislature enacted these repressive laws. It follows, therefore, that all the racially promulgated laws were at the instigation and pleasure of the monarch and were carried out by the British monarch’s trusted lieutenants scattered around the world.

The Land Apportionment Act (1930)

A Land Commission was established in 1925 to look into the subject of land segregation, and as a result of its recommendations, one of the strictest laws of the colonial era was enacted. The Land Apportionment Act, that was passed at the pleasure of the British monarch in 1930, entrenched segregation between colonial emigrant settlers of British origin and Africans.?The obvious racial basis for land ownership, usage, and habitation was required. In other words, this Act made skin color a legal requirement and a primary determining factor in determining who owned, used, and occupied land in that part of the country. Additionally, Native Purchase Areas where Africans could buy land were established under this Act, and their?demand for land was legally limited within the region designated for Africans.

For the avoidance of doubt, the Act defines Native as:

“Native” means any member of the aboriginal tribes or races of Africa or any person having the blood of such tribes or races and living among and after the manner of natives, and includes any company or body of persons, corporate or unincorporate, if the persons who have a controlling interest therein are natives as herein defined.”

The Act's reliance on blood quantum and cultural assimilation as markers of racial identity reinforced the concept of racial purity and hierarchy, that was prevalent during the colonial era. This definition effectively excluded Africans from participating fully in the economic and political life of the colony, perpetuating their marginalization and disenfranchisement. The Act's application to both individuals and corporate entities further demonstrates the pervasiveness of racial segregation in Southern Rhodesian society. Even if Africans attempted to gain economic independence through business ownership, they were still subject to the same discriminatory land ownership restrictions as individual Africans.

The Land Apportionment Act of 1930 in Southern Rhodesia (now Zimbabwe) was a prime example of "rule by law" rather than "rule of law". While it was a legally enacted statute, its purpose and application were contrary to the principles of rule of law.

Rule of law implies that all individuals are equal before the law, and the law is applied impartially to protect their rights and freedoms. In contrast, rule by law refers to a situation where the law is used as a tool of oppression to maintain power and control over certain groups.

The Land Apportionment Act was a tool of oppression, designed to maintain white minority rule and privilege. The following is what RULE BY LAW achieved in pre-independent Zimbabwe:

1. Racial Discrimination

The Act divided the land into European and Native areas, privileging white settlers and marginalizing Africans.

2. Entrenched inequality

The Act perpetuated economic disparities and limited African access to resources by allocating the most fertile land to white settlers.

3. Reinforced segregation

The Act solidified social segregation, restricting interaction between white settlers and African communities.

Justification for "rule by law" rather than "rule of law":

1. Discriminatory intent

The Act's purpose was to maintain white dominance and control over land, demonstrating a clear intent to discriminate.

2. Unequal application

The law was applied differently to different racial groups, with white settlers receiving preferential treatment.

3. Lack of due process

Africans were denied meaningful participation in the decision-making process, and their rights were ignored.

4. Entrenchment of inequality

The Act perpetuated economic and social disparities, rather than promoting equality and justice.

5. Legalized dispossession

The Act legitimized the forced removal of Africans from their land, allowing white settlers to take possession of vast areas without compensation or consent.

6. Racial categorization

The Act defined "Native" and "European" areas, solidifying racial segregation and entrenching a hierarchical system with whites at the top.

7. Limited African land ownership

Africans were restricted from buying or owning land in "European" areas, while whites could acquire land in "Native" areas, perpetuating unequal access to resources.

8. Administrative discretion

The Act granted colonial administrators significant powers to allocate land, effectively allowing them to favor white settlers and marginalize Africans.

9. Lack of due process

Africans were denied meaningful participation in the decision-making process, and their rights were ignored, demonstrating a disregard for procedural fairness.

10. Perpetuation of inequality

The Act reinforced the existing power dynamics, perpetuating economic and social disparities between white settlers and Africans.

11. Entrenchment of colonialism

The Land Apportionment Act was a tool of colonial oppression, designed to maintain British dominance and control over the land and resources of Southern Rhodesia.

Resultantly, the Land Apportionment Act of 1930 was a manifestation of "rule by law", where the law was used to maintain power and control over marginalized groups, rather than upholding the principles of equality, justice, and fairness inherent in the rule of law.

The irony of Rule of Law

The concept of "rule of law" is being used in a contradictory manner. During the Rhodesian era, the white minority used "rule by law" to maintain their power and privilege, enforcing laws that perpetuated inequality and oppression. This was a tool of colonialism and oppression.

In contrast, the postcolonial cry for "rule of law" by displaced whites is often a call for the protection of their property rights and interests, which were built on the foundations of colonialism and privilege. This narrative ignores the historical injustices and perpetuates the notion that their rights are more important than the rights of the marginalized black majority.

It's essential to recognize the hypocrisy and double standards in the application of "rule of law". True rule of law should prioritize justice, equity, and the protection of human rights for all, rather than perpetuating privilege and oppression. The postcolonial era requires a transformation from "rule by law" to "rule of law", where the laws serve the people, not just a privileged few.

Impact of "rule by law" in postcolonial Africa

1. Perpetuation of inequality

Laws perpetuate economic and social disparities, favoring the elite and marginalizing the vulnerable.

2. Entrenchment of power dynamics

Dominant classes maintain control, while the oppressed remain disenfranchised.

3. Limited access to justice

Marginalized groups face barriers to legal recourse, perpetuating their powerlessness.

4. Protection of colonial legacy

Laws shield colonial-era privileges, preventing true decolonization.

5. Systemic oppression

Laws criminalize dissent, perpetuating state repression and silencing marginalized voices.

6. Perpetuation of historical injustices

Unaddressed colonial-era wrongs continue to affect marginalized communities.

7. Lack of accountability

The powerful remain unaccountable, while the marginalized are held culpable.

8. Reinforcement of harmful narratives

Laws perpetuate colonial-era narratives, legitimizing dominant group supremacy.

9. Stifling of social change

Laws maintain the status quo, hindering progress toward true equality and justice.

This double standard perpetuates a cycle of oppression, entrenching the power of dominant classes and marginalizing already vulnerable groups, making it essential to confront and dismantle this legacy to build a more just and equitable?society.

Conclusion

The Land Apportionment Act of 1930 in Southern Rhodesia (now Zimbabwe) embodies the destructive legacy of "rule by law" in postcolonial Africa. This legislation, disguised as a legitimate legal framework, perpetuated racial segregation, displacement, and economic inequality, entrenching colonial power dynamics and protecting the interests of dominant classes.

The double standard of "rule of law" has had a profound impact on postcolonial Africa, perpetuating inequality, limiting access to justice, and maintaining the power of dominant groups. To build a more just and equitable society, it is crucial to confront and dismantle this legacy, acknowledging the historical injustices perpetuated by "rule by law" and working towards a true decolonization of the legal system.

Through this examination, I hope to have exposed the dark underbelly of "rule by law" and its enduring impact on postcolonial Africa, highlighting the need for a nuanced understanding of the complex relationships between law, power, and privilege. Only by acknowledging and addressing these dynamics can we begin to build a more just?future?for?all.