Will Keys

Historical backdrop.

On the 11th November, 1965, Rhodesians listened intently as their Prime Minister the Hon. Ian D. Smith, addressed the nation.   In a strong phenotypically accented voice, he explained the catastrophic situation befalling the once loyal British subjects of Southern Rhodesia. 

In essence, the original pioneer settlers and their off-spring were being manipulated by the British Government (“Perfidious Albion”) into sacrificing themselves, on the altar of British self-interest.  The national  broadcast put Rhodesians on notice that they were in a fight for their lives.   The one thing they didn’t plan for or suspect, was the level of treachery and betrayal by Perfidious Albion provocateurs.  The parasites were entrenched within Rhodesian leadership ranks.  In the end the full extent of the betrayals would reveal itself.  By then, Rhodesians had been mightily tested and had shown great character. Most would lose everything, or nearly everything.   Rhodesians would disperse to the four corners of the earth and become a diminishing diaspora.  A silver lining is that big marbles invariably rise to the top.  This truth manifested the quality of the Rhodesian character.

To explain what happened one must read history.  It started with a British corporate entity, emboldened with the imprimatur of a Royal Charter from Queen Victoria, and titled the British South Africa Company (“the Company”).  This entity had mineral profits on it’s mind.  The Royal Charter authorised a special force with militarily prowess to be created.  The Force would go forth into the wilds of Central Africa, to conquer and subjugate the Ndebele and Shona tribes  In those days, conquest and subjugation were ‘gist for the mill’.  Should minerals be discovered, the Company promised the shareholders potential for enormous profits.  What is important is that the Company enjoyed the condescension and patronage of the British Royal family.  It boasted a share register of some of the most illustrious personages in England.  Needless to say, shareholders are typically ferociously self-serving. 

Once the financial adventurism ended, and the Company had accepted that enormous profits were not to be had.  The British Government (“Perfidious Albion”) orchestrated and manipulated an exit strategy for the Company.  Guess who would be left to carry the can?  Yes indeed, the  pioneers, the original permanent white settlers, who had fought and laboured under the direction of the Company and its Royal Charter.  The same pioneers who had been induced, enticed and encouraged to buy land from the Company.  Now the Company wanted an exit strategy and the Perfidious Albion mentality would readily oblige.    

The pioneers found themselves high and dry and in an invidious position.  What were they supposed to do? The hard pressed pioneers would be induced to provide the funds to extricate the Company, less the mineral rights which would remain reserved to the Company.  The British Government proposed and executed a scheme in which the Pioneers would provide the funds for the British Government to buy the assets off the Company and those assets would be resold back to the pioneer settlers.  A typical self-serving Perfidious Albion scam.  The British Government stipulated that the price for ‘self-government and recognition as a British Colony’, was two million pounds BPS at five percent interest.  The money was paid on time by the pioneers to the British Government Exchequer.  I refer you to section 48 of the 1923 Letters Patent Constitution of Southern Rhodesia.

Southern Rhodesia had been self-governing since 1923, and by 1961 had become the bread bowl of Central Africa, and a jewel in the British Commonwealth of Nations.  It had developed the mining industry, and in the process created enormous wealth.  It flourished in nearly every area of human endeavour.  The mega dam ‘Kariba’, a hydro-electric scheme, had seen the Zambezi river tamed.  Southern Rhodesia punched well above its weight during and after World War II.  In under forty years (1923 -1961) the country had expanded magnificently, and had outperformed all expectations.  

By 1960 the international community, and in particular the State Department of the United States of America (“USA”) had developed a very harsh, uncompromising, irresponsible, unaccountable and racist geo-political dislike for white people in Africa.  The slogan that ‘Africa was for black Africans’ was everywhere.  These sentiments were clearly racist but weirdly not considered racist. The USA placed immense pressure on Great Britain to end Rhodesian white rule.  In effect the policy was that white people in Africa regardless of law, property rights or good faith, should be pushed aside to accommodate black majority rule aspirations.  This should happen regardless of the consequences to white people.  The policy led to an anti-white mindset throughout Africa.  It was capricious, arbitrary and enormously destructive. 

Handing over something for no consideration in return, is invariably popular on the beneficial side.  Likewise, a handout and not a hand-up, is seldom efficacious.  White Rhodesians were expected to voluntarily surrender their labour and accumulated hard-fought wealth without any consideration or compensation.  If not voluntarily done, then violent force was applied.  The sight of whites being violently dispossessed of their assets was an injustice that reverberated  around the world.  This type of uncivilised conduct destroyed black African credibility. 

I return to the PM Hon, Ian D. Smith’s national broadcast in 1965.  That speech ended with the announcement that Rhodesia had no alternative but to declare a Unilateral Declaration of Independence (“UDI”) from Great Britain.  The Rhodesians fought until they were so betrayed from within, at which time the betrayal was complete. The Central Intelligence Organisation (“CIO”) under its Director Ken Flower, who commanded the Rhodesian Special Branch, has been exposed for his treachery.   

Please keep in mind that under the terms of the original 1923 Letters Patent Constitution, roughly half of the country had been reserved in perpetuity for black occupation as Tribal Trust Lands (“TTL’s”).  If whites entered upon TTL’s, they did so by invitation only, and as a  guest.  The remainder of the country was occupied by white settlers.  The law of the country was based predominantly on Roman-Dutch Law with English Law influences.  The final court of Adjudicature was in England.

Myself and Hannes Wessells explored the possibility of suing the British Government for, at a minimum, the “two million pounds BPS at five percent interest.”  We researched the facts and I briefed Queen’s Counsel, Nick Ferrett QC for a legal opinion.  We have one or two disagreements with QC Nick Ferrett’s opinion, but we agree with his conclusion.  We profusely thank Nick Ferrett QC for his generosity and assistance.

The opinion is published below for your edification.

By Will Keys     

Nick Ferrett QC

Dear Will,

Re: Compensation for Disenfranchised Property Owners of the former Colony of Southern Rhodesia

You have requested that I provide an opinion as to whether there is any basis upon which compensation might be claimed from the Government of the United Kingdom (“the UK Government”) for those British subjects who, as the result of the Government granting independence to Zimbabwe, lost the lands of which they had been lawful proprietors in Southern Rhodesia.

I regret to say that I do not think there is any basis for such a claim. The principal reason for that, as I explain later, is that the conduct of the UK Government throughout seems to have been authorised by Parliament, which has absolute authority. Before going into that, it is worth making some observations about the historical background.

Your apprehension that there might be a basis for a claim arises out of Letters Patent, issued in 1923, by which George V established a constitution for self-government within the Colony of Southern Rhodesia. Section 48 of that constitution provided that the “Governor in Council shall pay to the Lords Commissioners of Our Treasury not later than the First day of January, 1924, the sum of 2 million pounds ….”. It also referred to repayment of two loans of 150,000 pounds each. Section 49 relevantly provided that in consideration of those payments identified in section 48, any rights reserved to the Crown in respect of land which had previously been alienated by the British South Africa Company within the territory would thereafter be vested in the Governor of the territory for “the Public Service” of the newly self governing territory.

To understand that clause it is necessary to have regard to some of the history of the British South Africa Company and its administration of territories in Africa. A useful examination of that appears, with respect, in the speech of Lord Sumner in In Re Southern Rhodesia (1919] AC 211. The British South Africa Company (“the Company) was held in that decision to have been administering the territory on behalf of the Crown so that, when it alienated land, (for example, by granting title to a European settler) that was done with the authority of, and on behalf of the Crown. The distinction mattered because, as I understand the case, the Company was arguing that it was able to alienate land to itself. The Privy Council rejected that proposition.

As a matter of practical history, as I understand your instructions, the 2 million pounds referred to in the Letters Patent were essentially the price at which the UK Government was willing to grant self-government to the territory. The 2 million pounds was raised by the settlers of Southern Rhodesia in the course of a campaign for self-government leading up to the Letters Patent of 1923.

So, as a matter of construction, section 49 of the 1923 constitution did not record a grant of land rights to settlers, but rather a promise to reserve money due to the Crown from land (for example, rent or unpaid purchase prices) to the colonial government for use within Southern Rhodesia. The settlers who had been granted land by the Company already owned that land in the eyes of the Crown.

There were further constitutional interventions by the UK Government over the years. Southern Rhodesia was gathered together with the UK protectorates of Northern Rhodesia and Nyasaland into the Federation of Rhodesia and Nyasaland in 1953. That does not appear to have affected its constitutional status as a self-governing colony. A further constitution was promulgated in 1961. The federation was dissolved in 1963.

The colonial government unilaterally declared independence in 1965. That declaration was never accepted by the UK Government but it did not take any action to reassert control. It did, however, work to obtain sanctions against the new Rhodesian Government in the United Nations.

The constitution adopted within Rhodesia as part of the declaration of independence in 1965 contemplated Rhodesia’s remaining a constitutional monarchy. It made provision for the appointment by Her Majesty of a Governor-General and, in default of that, the appointment of an administrator by the newly formed Rhodesian Government. Ultimately, in 1970, the Prime Minister, Mr Smith, declared Rhodesia to be a republic.

Those machinations form the background to the establishment of the independent State of Zimbabwe in 1979. That followed a conference at Lancaster House in London led by Lord Soames and which brought together the various combatants of the Rhodesian Bush War. Following the accord reached at Lancaster House, and with the unanimous consent of the Rhodesian Parliament, Britain reasserted control over the territory before enacting legislation to grant independence on terms which had been agreed amongst the various interests.

It is important not to gloss over the Rhodesian Bush War, and the conflicting interests violently expressed in it. There had been, for a long time before Lancaster House, growing dissent amongst the indigenous population from what it saw as the imposition of European rule. The 1965 constitution which accompanied the declaration of independence reads as a very liberal document. It included a declaration of universal human rights, specifically articulated as being available to all persons regardless of race. Whatever the practical effect of that, one of the main combatant forces in the Bush War was philosophically communist, and unlikely to accept government on such liberal terms. As well, those combatants were unlikely to accept a government on terms which saw substantial retention of property and wealth by European settlers.

I make those observations because they inform the background to the agreement to dissolve the Colony of Southern Rhodesia and establish the new nation of Zimbabwe. Put at its crudest, there is real reason to think that without an end to the war which saw the grant of independence, the turmoil in Rhodesia would have continued for a very long time and to the disbenefit of its citizens, black and white. That in turn, would affect the assessment of compensation, where there are legal bases to recover any.

As to the legal questions raised, the reference to grants in the 1921 constitution being in consideration of payments made by the settlers invites a discussion as to whether any contractual obligation arose. Since the Crown Proceedings Act 1947, it has been possible under English law to sue the crown for breach of contract, whereas before it had been necessary to pursue the more arcane procedure of a petition of right. The problem is that, closely analysed, the promise in the 1923 constitution had nothing to do with the grant of land rights, so the bargain identified, if it was enforceable, would be of no assistance.

There are other problems. Any such action would now be time barred. More fundamentally, the circumstances do not give rise to any contract in any event. The Letters Patent were an Order by the King in Council. That Order was made under legislative authority. The UK Parliament always retained, as a matter of constitutional principle, the capacity to change the law as and when it saw fit (see R (Jackson) v Attorney General [2006] 1 AC 262 at 274). No contract could be regarded as fettering that absolute right.

The fact that any such fetter was impossible would tell against the conclusion, on an objective basis, that the parties intended to contract at all.

Any other action at law or in equity will have to confront the same obstacle of parliamentary sovereignty. The fact that the acts of the Government in facilitating the creation of the new State were exercises by it of power granted by the parliament tells against, not only the intervention of equity, but also against the conclusions that any equitable duty was imposed on the Government or that any equitable interest enured to the land owners of 1923.

I should add finally that I have considered whether a case could be mounted for compensation on the basis that the legislative and executive acts to which I have referred constituted the Government’s expropriating the assets of the colonists of Southern Rhodesia.

There are cases in which government action to destroy property rights has been held to require compensation. The best known is the decision of the House of Lords in Burmah Oil Co Limited v Lord Advocate [1965] AC 75. In that case, during World War 2, the senior British Officer in Burma ordered the destruction of oil fields owned by the Burmah Oil Company as British forces retreated, so as to deny resources to the enemy.

The House of Lords held that the company was entitled to compensation because the damage had been done without parliamentary authority, but on the authority of the King, in whose name the military officer had been acting. The right to wage war remained within the ever-narrowing scope of the royal prerogative so that the damage was done lawfully, but in circumstances where compensation was payable.

Of course, the distinction from this case is obvious: the UK Government acted with parliamentary authority.

For these reasons, I have come to the conclusion, as disappointing as that will be to you, that there is no basis upon which compensation might be sought, either at law or in equity.

Yours sincerely

Nicholas Ferrett QC Chambers

20 May 2020

23 thoughts on “What happened to Rhodesia? And a Queen’s Counsel (“QC”) Legal Opinion.”
  1. Total Truth you need help you ignoramus. You are delusional saying Ian Smith lied, lied, lied. Smith was known for his integrity. Stop wasting our time posting your drivel on this platform.

  2. People can write what they like. But here are some facts. Ian Smith was an arrogant self centre so and so. Declaring UDI on the 11th November shows total disrespect to those who served in WW2.

    The day before he declared UDI he implemented laws that banned all media other than his state media. Really what was he hiding?

    The man was setting up the biggest betrayal of his own. A betrayal he put onto the people of Rhodesia.

    He lied to all the whites, he lied to all the blacks. He took the media and made it into his propaganda tool. Ian Smith maybe be lauded as a great man, but have a look with in yourself and you have to admit he lied, lied lied. He wasn’t betrayed. He was the betrayer. Us Rhodesians are the ones who were betrayed.

    Ian Smith gave us Mugabe……

    1. The country’s main daily, the Rhodesia Herald was owned by the Argus Group and was consistently critical of the Smith administration. The international media was consistently hostile and resolute in its determination to provide only one side of the story to the world. In this campaign, the BBC led the way.
      Can you be more specific and explain what exactly he lied about?

      1. The original commentator said “”But here are the facts”. His are opinions not facts.

  3. The Atlantic Charter of 1941 was the beginning of the end for white minority rule in southern Africa. Churchill and Roosevelt agreed that in the post war world all peoples should have the right of self determination. They probably had Poland and Czechoslovakia in mind, but after the war it became apparent that colonialism was incompatible with this principle. Not all colonialism mind you, not in cases where the settlers had outnumbered the indigenous (Australia, New Zealand, Canada and the USA for example), but only in those cases where the settlers had failed to outnumber the indigenous. So Rhodesia and South Africa, being still ruled by white minorities, lost legitimacy, in the eyes of the West, from 1945 onwards. I suppose we should have read the winds of change earlier and begun negotiating with the black majority to hand over power from the early 1950s. Would that have made much difference to the outcomes in southern Africa today? Probably not.
    Despite the fact that everyone knew that the principles of western democracy would not take root or flourish in Africa, democracy was nevertheless trumped up as a moral virtue. This was because the continued existence of colonial white minority rule was an embarrassment for the West. The different fate that therefore befell Rhodesia and South Africa compared with that of Australia, New Zealand, Canada and the US, was consequently all about numbers, and in fact simply the outcome of demographic accidents. Had there been, say, 20 million Aborigines in Australia in 1788 instead of less than one million, fewer whites would have been needed for the labour force and in the 1960s white minority Australia would have found itself in the same situation as Rhodesia and South Africa.
    I conclude that we just did not have the numbers to prevail and achieve legitimacy. Those other countries did. The outcome was realpolitik pure and simple.

  4. Bullshit baffles brains? I have just watched Nick Swanepoel, Colin Cloete, Harry Orphanides, Allan York, Andy Pascoe and Charles Taffs all support the ED Zanu Regime at the recent 78th Annual Congress. To a man they all said that ZIDERA sanctions were the whole problem in Zimbabwe. Not once was a genocide or the murder of their fellow farmers by Zanu raised – and they all support the Zanu Govt’s re-engagement process with the world. Chief Ndiweni is busy trying register 5 million diaspora votes and engaging with the EU and the UK to explain what Zanu are up to – whilst ex Saloon Scouts are busy telling the world how wonderful ED and Zanu are. One day people might twig that politicians do not solve problems – they cause cause problems. It is high time that the CFU dropped its pretence and have their annual conference with the Zanu Conference – they are all one of the same now.

  5. Annette Holloway – “I agree on one thing Will has said in the past. That the government were slow in promoting blacks to middle management. Especially in Intaf. Not one DC or ADC amongst it’s ranks.”

    It mattered not what Rhodesia did or didn’t do. That’s all smoke and mirrors. Rhodesia had to be destroyed at all costs to fulfil an agenda which is coming to fruition before our very eyes as I write. We were too successful, too self-sufficient, loved our country, were proud, etc, etc. All of the above attributes were absolute anathema to those who have placed themselves in positions from which they are able to control all of our destinies.

    I have posted the following document on Africaunauthorised before. This is what it was all about:-

    http://www.untoldtales.net/behind-the-international-war-against-rhodesia.html

    BEHIND THE INTERNATIONAL WAR AGAINST RHODESIA
    THE NEW TIMES AUGUST, 1976
    It is no secret that Dr. Kissinger wants to establish a “New World Order.”
    He has said so himself. And he also sees central control of the world’s
    resources, including food, along with a world financial monopoly, as
    essential for the building of the “New World Order”. He also believes that
    it is possible to work together with the Communists to achieve the ultimate
    goal. The Rockefellers and other Wall Street international financiers hold
    the same view, which is why they have over half a century financed massive
    economic blood transfusions to the Communists. This ensures that the
    Communist threat is maintained so that the peoples of what is left of the
    Free World can be stampeded progressively into surrendering more of their

  6. Something wrong with this story. The above statement 2nd paragraph blames the British Government and treachery for the problems.
    9th paragraph “USA placed immense pressure on Great Britain to end Rhodesian white rule” and blames USA. This paragraph needs to be explained. Who in the USA? Names?.

    The British were driving the downfall of Rhodesia, the Americas were roped in for the sanctions.

    In the QC legal opinion 2nd para the term ‘seems’ is used. I do not expect to see that term in a professional QC report. Not definitive enough. It either is or isn’t. Get a 2nd opinion.

  7. Further to my last.
    In one of David Icke’s books ” The Truth Shall set you Free” pages 374/5 the sorry tale of Lancaster House and the murder of Rhodesian Lawyer John Giles is recorded.

    One of the leading lights was of course Lord Carrington whom Ian Smith apparently described as the most evil man he had ever met. I puzzle over this as Carrington won an MC during WW2. but I suppose anyone can be corrupted.
    Carrington of course had mining interests. RTZ I think. I am reminded of the puzzling quote byOswald Spengler in his tome”The Decline of the WesT”. “there is no proletarian, not even a communist (Marxist?) movement that has not operated in the interest of money – in the direction indicated by money and for the time permitted by money and that without the idealists amongst its leaders having the slightest suspicion of the fact” THerefore you could say that Mugabe and Co were acting in the interests of big money to relieve the Rhodesians of control of those valuable assets like CHROME?
    This takes me back to the first obvious example of this, the Russian Revolution and “Wall Street and the Bolshevik Revolution ” by Prof A Sutton.the financing of the revolution from America. The riddle is entirely solved if the reader Google’s “The Rulers of Russsia” by Revd D Fahey. This reminds me of what Douglas Reed (Battle for Rhodesia) wrote, elsewhere re Soviet Union/USA. “and what if similar men rule IN BOTH CAMPS”?.

    Going back to Perfidious Albion, I think the English are the finest people in the world, as thought Rhodes and Milton who wrote:”let not the English forget their precedence in teaching other nations how to live”. At the beginning of the Channel 4 TV serires “End of Empire” (Google) it shows a Malaysian gent giving thanks to God he lived under the protection of the Rule of Law and the British Empire.

    We English have been betrayed by migrants who worked their way into our society and corrupted it. Ben Greene’s booklet shows the corruption which has taken place via the party system.
    May I finish off with another Spengler quote (the man was a genius). “the will-to-power operating behind a democratic disguise has so perfected its masterpiece that the object’s sense of freedom is actually flattered by the most thorough-going enslavement that has ever existed”. Reading Ben Greene’s booklet gives clues to how this was done. As before. If the reader would like an explanatory leaflet before Ben’s booklet arrives I am happy to help john.cruttwell@sfr.fr

  8. We Rhodesians owe a huge thank you to Will, Hannes, and Nicholas Ferrett QC, for this detailed and valuable account of the workings and mind-set of ” perfidious Albion”.

  9. Just as the Jameson Raid was a planned exercise to draw the Boers into the Boer War – so history may well have been repeating itself with the maBritish up to their old tricks in 1965. Ian Smith was warned by older and wiser men not to take the UDI option as it was playing into the Ma British plan – but the stubbornness of the RF ensured that international isolation and a bloody civil war would follow like day follows night. Only when power was handed to Muzorewa at the 11th hour was there any hint of the RF having made a monumental error of judgement in terms of strategy. Captain of Chaplin Rugby was not really an intellectual match for a Chinese and Russian backed military offensive against the country that was combined with the British, EU and the US sanctions? Ian Smith was known to not have a good sense of timing in passing the ball in rugby – June 1979 to Muzorewa was a touch late? The RF with the likes of Lardner Burk and Cowper were not up to much as a cabinet and professional people with any brains packed their bags in the late seventies in disgust at the cabinet incompetence. The mess that Zimbabwe is in today is part PF and part RF stubbornness to cling to power. The Zanu govt of today any well be a Nightwatchman Govt like Muzorewa because all they know is to loot, rape, torture and murder any perceived opposition. The more things change the more things stay the same?

    1. Interesting. Have you got Smith’s record as Captain of the 1st XV? It’s the first time I’m hearing that his sense of timing was below par. For that matter, it would be good to see his record as Captain of cricket and tennis as well. I have some interest in Chaplin for personal reasons. Perhaps you are right in that he wasn’t a match for the powers he came up against, but I think Chaplin (and Rhodes Uni) produced some greats.

  10. As someone who spent time in Rhodesia during the 1960s,(almost by accident) having quit the British Army in disgust when it was likely that elements of the British Army like the SAS would be used by the Wilson Government against a loyal Rhodesia.
    I am disturbed to read Will Keys report but not surprised. The term “Parliamentary Sovereignty” is a term which hides the fact that the English Constitution has been corrupted by the political party system. The lawful constitutIon of England requires the separation of powers between the three separate institutions of Commons, Lords and Crown and no legislation can pass lawfully without the free cosnent of all three institutions.
    To cut a long story shortr may I refer readers to “The British Constitution and the Corruption of Parliament” by Ben Greene, available from http://www.candour.org.uk, an organisation originally associated with the now defunct “League of Empire Loyalists”. Readers in UK will have no problem with postage. I am not sure overseas. Plenty of copies available,
    The term Parliamentry Sovereignty is one which PARTY politicians apply to the fact that a party government inside the House of Commons is the ultimate power, because it is “ELECTED By THE PEOPLE” and that no other power Legal or Regal may gainsay that power. This is a form of lawless government. The Party politicians have removed the Crown from the constItutional process (see my leaflets) and it is now eNgaaged in charity work or fighting Megan Markle for headlines
    In 1970 the late Lord Hailsham , he of “elective dictatorship” fame wrote: “It is the Parliamentarty majority which has the potential for tyranny. The thing the Courts cannot protect you against is Parliament, the tradional protector of liberty. But Parliament is constantly making mistakes and could in theory become the most oppressive instrument in the world”. What Hailsham confirms is that the party system changed the Commons from protector of liberty to agency of government. Hence the tyranny. In Britain for over a century we have has this dictatorship pretending to be a democracy.. I have done a lot of research and if anyone wants the grisly story while they await Ben Greene’s excellent book please e-mail me john.cruttwelll@sfr.fr. regrettably it won’t bring Rhodesia back.

  11. Good article Will. In spite of the tragedy of Rhodesia, in recent years I have decided to look at what Perfidious Albion did to us in a different way.

    Just look at that sorry bunch of fools in the UK who don’t even know what sex they are any more. Just look at their pathetic government falling in love with every foreigner who sets foot in their country and treating their own people as second class citizens, and worse, their citizens do nothing about it. A 100% gutless species. Look at their pathetic little politically correct, gutless police force who refuse to arrest the muslim rape and grooming gangs who prey on their vulnerable young teenage girls because they are terrified of being accused of being racist and look at them arresting their own kind (activist Tommy Robinson) for trying to alert the public about these grooming gangs. How low can you sink? And look at the buffoon who now runs the UK and everyone seems happy enough with him. Well at least he does seem to know what sex he is I suppose. That’s something. Even the Royal family seem to be falling apart and I can’t say I am sorry. I could go on and on but I don’t feel like spending any more time on that degenerate species. Their perfidy has finally caught up with them yet they don’t see it and I am thinking to myself who has actually ended up better off? Them, or what is left of us Rhodesians who still, for the most part, excel wherever we go?

    1. Thanks Alistair, you are on the right track. However, nothing detracts from the damage we did to ourselves, when we stupidly approved the 1961 Constitution at the 1961 Referendum. We affectively agreed to destroy our own property rights. I don’t believe that my father and mother, they voted in favour of the referendum, understood what they were doing. It was a typical Sir Edgar Whitehead, Perfidious Albion conn job, orchestrated in the UK.

  12. I believe all we Rhodesians owe a huge vote of thanks to you Will, Hannes Wessels, and Nicholas Ferrett QC. for your valuable account of the workings of “perfidious Albion”.

  13. Indicative of a bastardly devious nation.
    Perhaps then, as Will and I have discussed previously, the British Govt, as signatories to the Lancaster House Agreement, can agree that they have a responsibility, or even a moral responsibility, to FORCE the thug Zimbabwe Govt to pay our pensions. 19 years is a long time to wait for what is rightfully one’s hard earned pension. Instead of dishing out millions of pounds each week, they could siphon off an amount to pay us?
    We are getting old now and every single cent will help us to survive.
    Failing to pay our pensions, surely, would fall within the definition of a Crime Against Humanity?

    1. If we hadn’t approved the 1961 Constitution by 60%, in a referendum, we may have had a decent ‘legal cause of action’ against the British Government. If not in contract law, than in equity law. However, we stupidly allowed ourselves to be duped by Perfidious Albion.

  14. Well researched article. Lots of big words, Will obviously has an extensive vocabulary.
    But The Silk has spoken. BSAC did nothing wrong legally, morally maybe. So Will and Hannes are well advised not to sue the British government for £2m plus back interest. Would have dragged on for years, in a London court. Mega expensive.
    The BSAC are a profit making outfit. The Company in the title is the clue. So no profits in Southern Rhodesia? Let’s pull out. Made financial sense. Happened all around the world, still happens.
    As stated before Will is a complex character. Stood agsinst IDS and his RF party in 77. So obviously not a IDS fan.
    I agree on one thing Will has said in the past. That the government were slow in promoting blacks to middle management. Especially in Intaf. Not one DC or ADC amongst it’s ranks.

Comments are closed.