The origins of the Natal Bar, as it was then known, as a purely consultative branch of the legal profession are described in the tribute to Graham Mackeurtan in the preface to the 1943 volume of the Natal Provincial Division Law Reports.

Until the early 1920’s the method of practising known as the dual practice had prevailed in Natal. There were two roles, one of advocates and one of attorneys but anyone on either role (and there were many who were on both) was entitled to appear before the superior Courts. In fact a study of the earlier volumes of the Natal Law Reports indicates that there were members of the profession who specialised in appearing in Court and from the arguments their learning appears to have been fairly formidable.

By far the most famous member of the Natal legal profession in those days however achieved his fame in fields other than the law. He is M K Gandhi whose name appears on the roll of advocates and who occupied chambers in a building on or near the site of the present Salmon Grove Chambers where some of advocates in KwaZulu-Natal now have their chambers.

In the early 1920’s a small number of the members of the legal profession led by Mr Graham Mackeurtan decided to practise only in a consultative practice. It appears from what was said by the Judge President Mr Justice Hathorn on the occasion of the tribute to the late Graham Mackeurtan that those members were, apart from Graham Mackeurtan and the Judge President then Mr Roy Hathorn KC, that the other members who decided to take this step were Mr Arthur Carlisle KC and Mr Edmond Selke KC both of whom were later judges of the Natal Provincial Division. They were joined by some other pioneering spirits and as appears from what was said by Mr JJL Sisson in the Bar’s tribute to the late Mr Mackeurtan, in March 1923 those practising in that manner were established in Temple Chambers, a building which now houses the offices of the Registrar of the Durban and Coast Local Division.

Although described as a local division of the Supreme Court the Durban and Coast Local Division in those days was in fact very much a subsidiary division of the Natal Provisional Division. The Registrar of the Durban and Coast Local Division, for instance, was described as the Assistant Registrar, as the Registrar was the Registrar of the Natal Provincial Division and the Registrar of the Durban and Coast Local Division was strictly speaking his assistant.

Although a very great deal of work and in fact probably by the 1930’s the majority of the larger civil trials were done in Durban, the Natal Provincial Division remained the focus of the Supreme Court in the Province of Natal. Much of the criminal work was done by the Natal Native High Court until its abolition in the 1950’s (the civil jurisdiction of the Native High Court had been abolished in the late 1920’s). There were therefore very few criminal sittings of the Supreme Court in Durban and circuits of the Supreme Court came into being only on the abolition of the Native High Court. The civil sessions of the Durban and Coast Local Division were more frequent but by no means continuous throughout the year.

The development which had taken place in Durban led by Mr Graham Mackeurtan also took place in Pietermaritzburg where Mr Roy Hathorn practised. The Pietermaritzburg Bar was established in Law Society Chambers after the appointment of Roy Hathorn to the bench, Mr Frank Broome, later Judge President of Natal, was the leader of the Pietermaritzburg Bar.

In 1932 the position of having an advocate’s profession as a purely consultative profession was dealt with by rules of Court. Until then it had been an entirely voluntary arrangement. Mr Justice Feetham had been sent from the Transvaal to the be Judge President of the Natal Provincial Division and was apparently very unfavourably impressed by the dual practice system, and possibly by the performance of some of the dual practitioners, though it must be said that many of them were very competent. In consultation apparently with Mr Mackeurtan he then caused rules of Court to be passed governing the position with regard to the dual practice. The validity of the rule was challenged by Mr Stuart and Mr Geerdts the former being on the roll of attorneys, the latter on the roll of advocates. The case went to the Appellate Division and is reported in 1936 AD 418. The validity of the rule was upheld In both the Natal Provincial Division and the Appellate Division, perhaps not surprisingly in the Natal Provincial Division where the main judgment was delivered by Feetham JP with Hathorn J and Matthews J concurring.

Thereafter the dual practice in Natal was in a state of steady decline. Some dual practitioners continued to appear fairly frequently well into the 1950’s but they were very few and far between.

The Society of Advocates of Natal had been brought into being and nine members adopted its formal constitution in the May 1929. Mr William Burne KC was the first chairman. Apart from the years 1939 to 1945 the number of advocates in practice in KwaZulu-Natal has continued to increase.

The relationship between the Society on the one hand and the government and bureaucracy on the other hand has not always been a smooth one. This must necessarily be the case with any body of independent practitioners. The Society had a long and protracted struggle with the Group Areas with regard to obtaining chambers for Mr Hassan Mall, which was eventually successful and which meant that Mr Mall could hold chambers along with other advocates in the same building.

Relationships with the former Natal Law Society which had been considerably strained when the rules were passed in 1932 gradually improved and by the endeavours of the respective chairmen of the two societies of whom Mr Leo Caney, Mr Dennis Fannin and Mr AB Harcourt deserve special mention on the side of the Society of Advocates and Mr Michael Gallwey and Mr Walter Chaplin on the side of the Natal Law Society deserve special mention the stage was reached where the profession in Natal could in effect speak with one voice.

Members of the KwaZulu-Natal Bar have made significant contributions to the development of law and the administration of justice in the country. For example, its members were responsible for drafting the core of what is now the Uniform Rules of the High Court and the Admiralty Jurisdiction Regulation Act while others made significant contributions over the years to the development of post-apartheid laws such as current labour laws.

BELOW IS A COPY OF THE SPEECH TITLED “THE FUTURE OF THE BAR IS IN OUR HANDS” WHICH WAS DELIVERED BY ADVOCATE MARUMO MOERANE SC AT THE KZN BAR DINNER ON 3 AUGUST 2024

1. Programme Directors, Ladies and Gentlemen. All protocols observed. Programme Directors, you have reduced the status of Madonsela SC. He is not only SC, but he is also QC and KC. He was counsel to Her Majesty the late Queen Mantfombi and later to his Majesty King Misuzulu of the Zulus!!
2. I refer to the matter of COMSHIPCO mentioned by Madonsela in his introduction. It was actually a pleasure doing that case way back in 2000, 24 years ago, against the doyen of the Bar, Shaw QC. You know, we advocates take pleasure in winning cases against people that you respect. So that’s the only case I’ve done against Douglas Shaw QC, and I won the case!!
3.  When I came into this room I met Justice Malcolm Wallis, who hereinafter will be called “Malcolm”, no disrespect intended. He says to me, at least he’s happy now. He’s not the oldest person in the room!
4. Ladies and gentlemen, my first encounter with the legal profession was on 8 January 1970, after my Articles of Clerkship had been registered with the Law Society in Pmb.
5. I was articled to a very busy firm of Attorneys headed by the flamboyant Reginald Ngcobo. As an articled clerk with an LLB, I had right of audience in all the inferior courts, in particular, the Bantu Commissioners Courts, as they were then called, and the Magistrates’ Courts.
6. Two years later, in June 1972, I was admitted as an attorney. I spent 5 years at the sidebar. It was during this time that I encountered an assertive young advocate at that exotic venue of litigation, namely, the Umbumbulu Bantu Commissioner’s Court. I think this was about 1973 or 1974. That young advocate was none other our distinguished guest speaker, Malcolm. I do not remember what the matter was all about and which of our respective clients succeeded, but what I remember was the fact that this young advocate wanted to win at all costs.
7. Fast forward to January 1978 when I joined the Natal Bar, as it was then called. I do not think I had any other matter against Malcom. I only recall being part of the Bar Council in 1992/1993 when Malcolm was Chairperson.He has been subjected to capitis dimunitio!!
   Comshipco Shiffahrtsagentur GmbH v The Commissioner for South African Revenue Service, SCA Case No 472/98, heard 29 November 2000, delivered 19 March 2001.
8. For the Bar, the years 1993 and 1994 were critical years. As you will all recall, the Interim Constitution was adopted in 1993. That was a very significant piece of legislation as it planted the seeds for the 1996 Constitution. For present purposes, one of its important provisions was the establishment of the Judicial Service Commission (JSC) whose task was to select, interview and effectively appoint all judges of the High Court and the Supreme Court of Appeal, and make recommendations with regard to the appointment of judges of the Constitutional Court and other senior judges, including the Chief Justice. Its other main function was generally to advise the government on issues related to the administration of justice and, in its reduced form, deal with complaints against judges. Among the members of the JSC were to be two practising advocates designated by the advocates’ profession. [Section 105(1)(e) of the IC, act 200 of 1993.] Those old enough to remember will recall that the General Council of the Bar in 1994 had nominated two white advocates for those two positions. After the intervention of the then brand new Advocates for Transformation – AFT for short (and the National Association of Democratic Lawyers- aka NADEL, and the Black Lawyers Association -BLA) – the two latter organisations in respect of the two members of the JSC representing the attorneys’ profession – the GCB relented and Adv Wim Trengove SC of the Jhb Bar and I were appointed in 1994 as representatives of the advocates’ profession. The existence of the JSC was acknowledged in section 178 of the 1996 Constitution with a few attendant amendments. The relevant provision relating to advocates was s178(1)(e) thereof. New wording: “two practising advocates nominated from within the advocates’ profession to represent the profession as a whole, and appointed by the President”. As from about 1998 the two advocates were Adv Milton Seligson SC of the Cape Bar and I. I was to serve on that body until February 2010, a period of 16 years.
9. The arrangement of a 50/50 split in the representation of advocates in the JSC was the spur to the 50/50 convention in the KZN and other Bars that has worked particularly well at our Bar. I also wish to place it on record that Malcolm played a positive role in the smooth operation of the convention, particularly when it was under threat from a most unlikely source. Those who were at the Bar at the time will know about what and whom I am talking!!
10. Why all this background? I am a firm believer in the continuum of life and experience. You cannot really appreciate the present and the envisaged future unless you know the past.
11. We come from a divided and divisive apartheid past where Black people, in general, and Africans, in particular, were treated as a sub-human species, where the apartheid regime made dogma out of race and even sought biblical and pseudo-scientific justification for the subjugation and economic exploitation of Black people. The apartheid policies were buttressed by a battery of measures such as the Native Land Act 27 of 1913; whose devastating effects were brilliantly described by Sol Plaatje in his famous book “Native Life in South Africa”, with oft quoted introductory words “Awaking on Friday morning, June 20, 1913, the South African native found himself, not actually a slave but a pariah in the land of his birth”. the Native Administration Act 38 of 1927; which set up a separate legal system for the administration of African law and made the proclaimed native areas subject to a separate political regime from the remainder of the country, ultimately subject only to rule by proclamation; the notorious Hertzog Bills of 1936 , which created a legal framework for apartheid and were intended to “settle the Native Question once and for all”; [this was under United Party rule]; It is a myth to think that apartheid was created by the National Party when they assumed power after the all-White general election of 1948; the National Party only perfected that system; the Natives (Urban Areas) Consolidation Act 25 of 1945; the Prohibition of Mixed Marriages Act 55 of 1949; the Population Registration Act 30 of 1950; the curiously named Natives (Abolition of passes and Co-ordination of Documents) Act 67 of 1952; this obnoxious and most hated measure applied only to the native inhabitants of South Africa and was an effective means of the total control of the lives of Africans 24 hours a day and from the cradle to the grave; then there was that Act that has been referred to as “petty Apartheid” the Reservation of Separate Amenities Act 49 of 1953; a curious thing about this Act is that it preserved exclusive rights to the best facilities for what was referred to as Europeans. You had big signs “Europeans only” just imagine the irony of it, Europeans in Africa!!; the diabolical Bantu Education Act 47 of 1953; which was introduced by the infamous racist and anti-Semitic Minister of Native Administration Hendrik Frensch Verwoerd with the notorious words, inter alia,: “Natives will be taught from childhood to realise that equality with Europeans is not for them….People who believe in equality are not desirable teachers for Natives…The Bantu must be guided to serve his community in all respects. There is no place for him in the European community above the level of certain forms of labour. Within his community, however, all doors are open. For that reason, it is of no avail for him to receive a training which has as its aim absorption in the European community, where he cannot be absorbed. Until now he has been subjected to a school system which drew him away from his own community andFour Bills first introduced in Parliament in 1926, Representation of Natives in Parliament Bill, Union Native Council Bill, Natives Land Act Amendment Bill and Coloured Persons Rights Bill. Two thirds majority not secured till fusion of Hertzog’s National Party with Smuts’ South African Party into United Party in 1934. Bills were rationalised and reduced to two: Representation of Natives Bill and Natives Trust and Land Bill passed in 1936. RNB abolished Cape Native franchise and created NRC consisting of 22 reps. Chair Secretary for Native Affairs and appointed by Gov-Gen. NT&LB made provision for the creation of a trust that would buy land for settlement by natives. Proposed increase of land from 7% to about 13%. Never reached. [Ngqulunga – The man who founded the ANC 2017, P193 – 194].misled him by showing him the green pastures of European society in which he was not allowed to graze…..if the Native in South Africa today in any kind of school in existence is being taught to expect that he will live his adult life under a policy of equal rights, he is making a big mistake. The Native who attends school must know that he will be the labourer in the country” …. “What is the use of teaching the Bantu child mathematics when it cannot use it in practice? That is quite absurd. Education must train people in accordance with their opportunities in life, according to the sphere in which they live.”; to think ladies and gentlemen that those were the words that were uttered by a highly educated Professor of Applied Psychology! But that is our past and we have to acknowledge it, we can’t bury our heads and pretend that these things did not happen, or they were not said. Another piece of legislation is the (incorrigibly immoral) Immorality Act 23 of 1957, which as you know, criminalised sexual intercourse between Europeans and people who were not Europeans as they were called; the cynically named Extension of University Education Act 45 of 1959, which created tribal universities; the Group Areas Act 36 of 1966, which effectively barred, in particular, Africans from owning or occupying land and buildings in urban areas . The last-mentioned measure particularly affected Black members of the Bar. In order to run their practices in urban areas, African legal practitioners had to obtain leases or sub-leases from Indian landlords who owned buildings in the Indian Group area, particularly in the Grey Street area north of West Street
12. According to the History of the Society of Advocates of KwaZulu-Natal appearing on the Society’s website , “the Society had a long and protracted struggle with the Group Areas with regard to obtaining chambers for Mr Hassan Mall, which was eventually successful, and which meant that Mr Mall could hold chambers along with other advocates in the same building.” The Constitution of the Natal Bar did not exclude African advocates from membership of the Society. However, when Advocate Vuka Tshabalala started practising as an advocate, the above-mentioned apartheid laws, particularly the Group Areas Act, prohibited him from occupying chambers in the same building as his white counterparts. It will be recalled that at the time, the apartheid regime discriminated even between so-called Indians and so-called Natives/Bantus. The Indians at the time were preferred to the so-called Natives/Bantus. As stated above, they could occupy Indian group areas in cities. Unfortunately to its eternal shame, in 1969 the NatalThe Man Who Killed Apartheid, Harris Dousemetzis, 2018, p149, fn. 40.
    Except perhaps beer halls, such as the eMatsheni Native Beer Hall where the men consumed what was then referred to as “kaffir” beer, then “Bantu” beer and later “sorghum” beer.
    Renamed Dr Yusuf Dadoo street.
    Renamed Dr Pixley KaSeme Street.
    This section of the website is outdated. It relies on the account given by the late Shaw QC more than 10 years ago. It also does not chronicle the struggles and contributions of the Black members of the Bar.Bar refused to permit Advocate Tshabalala to do pupillage with the late Advocate Phillip Meskin (as he then was). Retired Judge President Tshabalala informs me that two reasons were given for the refusal, the first being that his doing pupillage in Advocate Meskin’s chambers would be a violation of the Group Areas Act. The second was that the white persons who would be consulting with Adv Meskin would be embarrassed and uncomfortable to have an African sitting in on the consultation. I sincerely believe the KwaZulu-Natal Bar owes Judge-President Tshabalala an apology for the disgraceful and undignified way in which he had been treated. As a direct result of the shameful way in which Tshabalala had been treated, Adv Thembile Skweyiya, who later became a judge of the Constitutional Court, did not bother to apply for pupillage but commenced practice at CNR House, Durban, which was in a so-called Indian Group Area. Advocate Zakeria Yacoob, who also later became a judge of the Constitutional Court, notwithstanding his visual impairment, did pupillage with Adv Hassan Mall at the white Group Area, but kept chambers at the said CNR House.
13. That was also the lot of certain gentlemen in Johannesburg, namely, Advocates Duma Nokwe and Advocate, at that time, Ismail Mahomed, the last-mentioned who eventually became Chief Justice in the democratic era. The policy of rigorously applying the apartheid Group Areas Act which precluded blacks from occupying chambers in the CBD was religiously accepted and adopted by the Pretoria Bar and incorporated in its constitution. A prominent African Advocate that fell victim to this policy was Advocate Fikile Bam whose application for membership was in 1977 refused on racial grounds. As some of you might know, Adv Bam went on to become President of the Land Claims Court. In 1979 Advocate Dikgang Moseneke (who later became Deputy Chief Justice of South Africa)⃰ [many people believe that, like Justice Schreiner, advocate Moseneke was the Chief Justice that South Africa never had] considered applying for membership of the Pretoria Bar but did not proceed with the application because of apartheid provision in that Bar’s constitution and instead applied for admission as an attorney, whereafter he ran a successful attorneys’ partnership with Maluleke, Seriti and Mavundla (all of whom subsequently became judges of the High Court In Gauteng, Seriti being later elevated to the SCA). On 23 February 1980, the Pretoria Bar finally removed the discriminatory provision from its constitution. However, it was only in 1982 that the Pretoria Bar accepted its first Black advocate, in the person of Moseneke, even then after concerted opposition from the Chair of the Bar Council, Advocate William de Villiers of SARFU fame!
14. The Natal Bar eventually applied for Group Areas permits to allow Black advocates to occupy chambers in the same building as their white counterparts. This led toMy Own Liberator, Dikgang Moseneke, 2016, p.223.an influx of Black advocates into Natal Bar from about 1977. As the older members will recall, almost all the Durban advocates were accommodated in Salmon Grove Chambers from about 1978.
15. As this was still during the height of apartheid, Black advocates refused to participate in the governance structures of the provincial Bar and the GCB or even accept acting appointments. It is only when irreversible steps had been taken to destroy the apartheid edifice that Black advocates agreed to take part in the governance structures of the Bar. I recall that in 1988 the late Judge President Milne came to Adv Hassan Mall’s chambers and with him went through his diary to find dates on which Adv Mall could act. That is how he became the first Black advocate to act in the High Court in South Africa. As this was in 1988, Adv Mall was subjected to a great deal of criticism from certain quarters in the black community. It was felt that the time was not ripe for a Black advocate to accept acting appointments and take part in the application and administration of apartheid laws. It was only after the unbanning of the liberation movements and other organisations in 1990 and the return of freedom fighters and other South Africans that had been exiled and the repeal of some of the most obnoxious apartheid measures, that it was deemed appropriate to accept acting appointments and positions in the governance structures of the Bar. I personally had my first stint as a junior representative of more than 5 years in 1992. The Chairperson at the time was Malcolm.
16. As a consequence of the measures and policies described above and the resultant unlawful and unfair discrimination, the number of Black advocates at the various bars was very small. If Blacks were to play an effective and meaningful role in the governance structures of the Bar, it was deemed necessary to adopt corrective measures (I prefer the Afrikaans version of “regstellende aksie” I think it describes it better than “affirmative action”) whereby such objective could be realised. Such measures, as we all know, are required by the Constitution in order to achieve real and substantive equality. At this time an organisation that was intended to achieve this goal was formed – Advocates for Transformation (AFT). The principle of co-governance of the Bar by AFT and non-AFT members is now firmly established as a principle among the constituent bars of the GCB. However, at some bars it does not work well in practice. At others it is non-existent. At the KwaZulu-Natal Bar it has worked very well for the past 30 years. The leadership and general membership of the KZN Bar are level-headed, sensible and pragmatic. Where there have been attempts to rock the boat in KZN, the majoritySection 9(2) of the Constitution provides that: Equality includes the full and equal enjoyment of all rights and freedoms. To promote the achievement of equality, legislative and other measures designed to protect or advance persons, or categories of persons, disadvantaged by unfair discrimination may be taken.of the Bar have always taken the wiser option and maintained the arrangement. As a matter of fact, in my view, the KZN Bar is the most transformed Bar. As far as I am aware, it is the only Bar that has had a woman chairperson and a majority of women on the Council.
17. To answer the question “Is the future of the Bar in our hands? I think that answer has already been given, Sandhya Mahabeer has given that answer. Pingla Hemraj has given that answer. The further answer to that question depends upon what each one of us as individuals and each Bar does to advance the interests and wellbeing of each member of the Bar. However, I have a few suggestions:
    17.1 We should insist on our right to form and join our self-governing associations to represent our interests, promote our continuing education and training and protect our professional integrity.
    17.2 We should also continue to insist that our Councils should be elected by our members and should exercise their functions without any external interference.
    17.3 The organised Bar must be made more representative of the population it serves. This is analogous to the injunction of the Constitution relating to consideration of the demographic and gender factors when the appointment of judicial officers is being considered. Serious efforts must continue to be made to enhance the progress of more Black and women advocates.
    17.4 The Bar should redouble its efforts to make the administration of justice more accessible to those who cannot afford it.
    17.5 The Bar should not release the pressure on the State Attorney’s office and the legal departments of state-owned enterprises to pursue briefing patterns that enable Black and women advocates to gain experience and expertise in order to improve their forensic skills.
    17.6 The Silks at the various bars must consider it their duty to take on black and women advocates as they carry out their briefs in order to transfer skills to them.
    17.7 The leaders of the Bars should introduce black and women juniors to partners or directors in large busy firms to enable them to acquire the necessary experience and skills in commercial and other more complex work.Section 174(2) of the Constitution of South Africa, 1996.17.8 Bars should introduce or maintain continuing education and skills development among all members of the Bar.
    17.9 Finally, I believe that the Bar should strive towards achieving maximum unity. The recent tendency of the constituent bars of the GCB to split and create little fiefdoms is subversive of such unity. It deprives the advocates’ profession as a whole the ability to speak with one voice in matters relating to the well-being of members of the profession and the ultimate survival of the Bar.
18. If we do the things mentioned above and succeed, the future of the Bar is likely to be bright and secure. If, however, we fail, the Bar will continue to lose its new entrants, particularly Blacks and women, and will be the poorer for it.
19. Finally, I wish to commend Mahabeer and the outgoing Council on the sterling work they have done over the period of their stewardship of the Bar. They have advanced the interests of the Bar and its members and have striven to keep the KZN Bar united and relevant. Congratulations to them.
20. I thank you.