The government created the NRC as a platform for educated Africans to express their political desires, granting them official recognition as leaders of the black community in South Africa. According to Smuts, Hertzog intended for the Council to serve as an outlet for the expression of African views and to steer both public and parliamentary opinions in their desired direction. This was expected to distract them from what the government considered disruptive and hazardous pursuits. The government also viewed the NRC as a useful tool, using it to identify prominent African leaders through its electoral processes. The NRC did not have a fixed venue for its biannual meetings and instead convened in various locations across
Pretoria, the nation's administrative capital, including school halls and other less impressive venues. On some occasions, the meetings were held in
Cape Town. The NRC was responsible for providing feedback on legislation affecting Africans and advising Parliament on matters of importance to the NRC's constituents. All proposed legislation concerning Africans had to be presented to the NRC for review, and the Council would subsequently submit its reports to Parliament through the Minister of Native Affairs. However, starting in 1941, the government began to consolidate and modify laws without presenting them to the NRC, claiming that they only had to bring
bills and not
amendments to existing legislation to the NRC. Some members of Parliament disputed this, arguing that the Minister of Native Affairs was legally required to present all proposed legislation, whether it was in the form of bills or amendments, to the NRC for review. Following the 1942 elections, newly elected Councilors
Z.K. Matthews and
James Moroka formed a
caucus within the NRC with Matthews as chair. Under his leadership, a recess committee proposed several changes to the NRC, which were supported by
A.B. Xuma, President-General of the ANC. The proposals included increasing Council membership, separating public servants from the Council, making an African councilor the chair, moving the venue to Cape Town, extending
council sessions, and granting the Council statutory powers. However, these changes were never implemented and all the government was willing to endorse was an increase in Council membership three years later.
1946 adjournment From 1942 to 1946, the legislation that the NRC was requested to pass and the government's failure to present amendments to legislation, led to growing frustration among the members. They had expected that the end of
World War II would bring some relief to the restrictions placed on the African population, especially in light of the
Atlantic Charter, which advocated for self-determination of all people. Instead, the opposite happened and restrictions increased. On August 15, 1946, Z.K. Matthews, as the Chairman of the Council, drafted a motion to
adjourn the NRC, presented by Moroka and unanimously passed by both elected and nominated councilors. The adjournment statement expressed the Council's disapproval of the government's policy of segregation towards non-European citizens, which they saw as contrary to the values of the Atlantic Charter and the
United Nations Charter, and demanded that all discriminatory legislation affecting non-Europeans be immediately abolished. The NRC's decision to suspend its 1946 session did not arise spontaneously, nor was it solely caused by the brutal suppression of a mineworkers' strike 11 days earlier, as is popularly claimed. It was the result of a carefully arranged agreement between the NRC and A.B. Xuma, who was the President-General of the ANC. At the request of Xuma, the NRC agreed to terminate its session unilaterally unless the Smuts' government agreed to abolish all
pass laws, recognise African
trade unions, and repeal the Ministry of Native Affairs' authority to
banish Africans without trial. When the NRC decided to adjourn, it sent a clear message to the government that they had reached their breaking point and could no longer tolerate discriminatory policies. The adjournment also underscored the prominent role of the ANC in shaping African politics. The idea of whether the councilors should resign and not participate in the 1948 NRC elections generated a lot of debate. ANC leaders and councilors deemed it impossible to boycott the election, as they believed that the NRC was a tool that could be utilised in the struggle for freedom and the elections were too complicated to contemplate a successful boycott. Instead, the councilors aimed to use the adjournment as a tactic to disrupt Parliament. They believed that bills concerning Africans could not be presented before Parliament unless they had been previously presented before the NRC. Therefore, Parliament would find it difficult to pass certain legislation.
Aftermath The NRC held their next session on November 20, 1946, as the councilors gathered in Pretoria to hear the government's response to their adjournment resolution. Prior to the session, the government compiled a list of reasons for the August adjournment, based on statements made by Z.K. Matthews to the
Bantu World newspaper. The causes listed included a lack of respect for the NRC, failure to consult the Council, inaction on the Council's resolutions, and continued oppressive legislation. This included restrictions on rights such as the prohibition of all meetings in the northern
Transvaal, the prohibition of meetings on mining ground, the extension of pass laws to the Cape, and restrictions on travel. From August to November, a strict control measure was imposed in the form of a
proclamation that restricted the rights of Africans in urban areas under the control of certain local authorities. This proclamation demonstrated the government's intention to ignore the Council's decision to adjourn until discriminatory legislation was abolished. During their meeting with the NRC,
Jan Hofmeyr, the deputy prime minister, delivered a speech which outlined what the African people had received from the government, but it did not contain any political concessions or compromise. Hofmeyr was regarded as a leading
liberal of his time, and the absence of Smuts—who was overseas at the time—led Africans to believe that Hofmeyr had written the speech himself, without any influence from Smuts. In reality, the government's response had been thoroughly discussed with Smuts, who even made an amendment to Hofmeyr's speech to make it less apologetic and stiffer in tone. Although the NRC soon realised that the speech did not truly reflect Hofmeyr's views, they became disillusioned with white liberals. They believed that if Hofmeyr could compromise his principles for political expediency, he would likely do so again if he became prime minister. The councilors stressed that, being the only representatives of the African people, they had no intention of resigning. Instead, they would wait for the government to fully meet their demands before taking any further action. Following the councilors' meeting with Hofmeyr, the NRC adjourned again. In May 1947, Prime Minister Smuts requested a meeting with six members of the NRC, including Matthews, to discuss proposals. The Smuts proposals were for a policy of
self-government in black areas under a reconstituted NRC, thereby giving Africans a greater share in their own administration. However, once these proposals were revealed, Smuts was accused by white politicians of wanting to form a black parliament that would unite the 8 million Africans under anti-white leadership. While the Council's adjournment succeeded in forcing the government to acknowledge the need for a new "native policy", its refusal to abolish discriminatory legislation made it impossible for Smuts' ideas to have any real impact on the NRC. == Later years and abolition ==