In accordance with the provisions of Section 32 of the Republic of South Africa Constitution Act, 1961, I wish to announce that the undermentioned Bills will be introduced in the Senate during the present Session of Parliament:

1. (i) Land Settlement Amendment Bill;
2. (ii) Land Surveyors’ Registration Amendment Bill;
3. (iii) Removal of Restrictions in Townships Amendment Bill;
4. (iv) Aliens Control Bill;
5. (v) Higher Education Amendment Bill;
6. (vi) Agricultural Pests Amendment Bill;
7. (vii) Veterinary Amendment Bill;
8. (viii) Fencing Bill;
9. (ix) Stock Improvement Bill;
10. (x) Export of Ostriches Bill;
11. (xi) Indians General Law Amendment Bill;
12. (xii) Companies Amendment Bill;
13. (xiii) Explosives Amendment Bill;
14. (xiv) Trade Coupons Bill;
15. (xv) Patents Amendment Bill;
16. (xvi) Electricity Amendment Bill;
17. (xvii) Mines and Works Amendment Bill;
18. (xviii) Pneumoconiosis Compensation Amendment Bill;
19. (xix) Factories, Machinery and Building Work Amendment Bill;
20. (xx) Co-operative Societies Amendment Bill;
21. (xxi) Justices of the Peace and Commissioners of Oaths Bill;
22. (xxii) Magistrates’ Courts Amendment Bill; and
23. (xxiii) Maintenance Bill.

May I, with leave, make the following statement—

The International Court has, by the closest margin in the history of that Court—indeed by the narrowest margin possible—decided that it is competent to entertain the complaints of Liberia and Ethiopia on the South West African issue.

In view of the narrow majority of one vote in a Court of 15 judges, and having regard to the fact that some of the seven distinguished judges, who delivered dissenting judgments, not only denied the jurisdiction of the Court, but also disagreed with the 1950 Advisory Opinion on the same question, the Government of the Republic has to decide whether in these circumstances, South Africa should participate in the second phase of the proceedings, by filing counter-memorials in reply to the allegations of the applicants, viz. that the Republic is not administering the territory in accordance with the provisions of the mandate originally granted by the defunct League of Nations.

South Africa’s representatives to the United Nations have, since the first Assembly in 1946, denied these allegations, and have regularly given to the Fourth Committee the true facts regarding certain of the more serious allegations. Furthermore, the South African Government has repeatedly given proof of its bona fides, by inviting representatives of the United Nations to visit the territory including three distinguished past-Presidents of the organization—invitations which were unfortunately not accepted.

The most recent was the invitation extended to the Chairman and the Vice-Chairman of the Special United Nations Committee of Seven. This invitation was accepted, and the two United Nations emissaries duly visited South West Africa, where they were given every facility to go wherever they pleased, and to meet any person, or the representatives of organizations that had expressed a desire to see them.

Subsequent events are familiar to all. In spite of the South African Government’s readiness to co-operate in providing facilities for an objective assessment of its administration of South West Africa, it became only too clear that all that was desired and expected of the United Nations emissaries was that they should produce a series of findings and judgments in keeping with the predetermined policies and prejudices of the majority of the United Nations membership.

In the circumstances set out above, particularly the very narrow majority in the matter of the Court’s jurisdiction, the Government of the Republic would be fully justified in not filing counter-memorials in reply to the allegations contained in the memorials of the two complainants.

The position is, however, that the decision of the majority of the Court entitles the complainants to proceed with the merits of the case, and unless South Africa files counter-memorials, its case will go by default. The South African Government, being satisfied that the Republic is administering South West Africa in the spirit of and in keeping with the intentions of the original mandate, has decided to enter into the second phase of the case and to file counter-memorials in reply to the allegations of the complainants.

The Government’s decision should, however, not be construed as implying a change in the attitude which it has consistently held in regard to the South West Africa issue, namely that the International Court has no jurisdiction—a matter on which the present members of the Court are themselves so sharply divided.