The connection between natural hazards such as droughts and floods and socio-economic problems is familiar. For example, it is well established that in France, abnormally low rainfall and poor harvests in the late 1780s led to the hunger, social disorder and lawlessness that were important precursors to and accompaniments of the revolution of 1789. Political conflict was greatly aggravated by destructive natural conditions. This was also the case in South Africa, including Port Elizabeth and its hinterland, which experienced a severe and damaging drought in 1920.

In this year, Walter Rubusana, a politician, social activist, educationist and missionary, found himself mired in Port Elizabeth’s politics instead of those of his home town, East London, where he was deeply embedded in the issues of the day. Accompanying the lack of rain, poverty and misery were beginning to bite the people of Port Elizabeth, black and white. Union action and strikes over minimum wages began to preoccupy the workers. The wave of discontent in Port Elizabeth swept over Rubusana, who happened to be visiting the city late in the year. He would emerge from the situation having suffered considerable damage to his reputation and even physical injuries.

East London also experienced this brutal drought with similar severe consequences. The Buffalo river, the main source of water for the city, ran dry. Sales of agricultural products dropped, crops failed and many cattle died. To salvage the situation, the city introduced water restrictions, and at last, some reasonable rain brought minimal relief. To attempt a long-term solution to the problem, the City Council embarked on a project to build a dam that they hoped would be completed in 1921.¹ However, as noted, despite his East London orientation, Rubusana was drawn into the politics of Port Elizabeth at this time.

The economy was not doing well in Port Elizabeth in 1920. The value of property in the city was affected. Property transfers were few, and sellers were unable to achieve the prices they hoped for and expected. Retail businesses suffered. There was a slump in commerce and industry. Agriculture was greatly affected by drought. The total amount of rain for that year in the city was 13.57 inches compared to 20.26 inches in 1919. This affected the supply of butter, milk and other dairy products. Sheep and goats were not spared. Of the 13 000 sheep and goats in the district, 550 of them (sheep and goats) did not live to see 1921 because of diseases such as heartwater, wireworm infestations, lungworm infections and gall sickness. All this drove up the cost of living, and unemployment rose to high levels.

During this time, government’s poverty relief funds also came under severe strain. The demand for these funds trebled. Owing to the depressed environment, the need for skilled labour, black and white workers, dropped significantly. Unskilled workers were particularly vulnerable and their plight was the main reason for the increasing number of people in the paupers’ list. Poverty in Port Elizabeth drove some to the edge, as the number of criminal cases recorded testifies. There were 3 068 cases recorded at the magistrates court for the year and 236 cases at the periodical court, a huge number considering that the population of Port Elizabeth in 1920 stood at 56 900 people in an area of 184 square miles.² These socio-economic conditions were a fertile environment for the perfect storm into which Rubusana was unfortunate enough to find himself trapped in.

This article looks at the strike action by workers in Port Elizabeth during these depressed socio-economic times in the area and the involvement of Rubusana in trying to mediate in the situation. In this article, I show that even greatly respected members of society, such as Rubusana, can, at times, be swept off balance by critical local circumstances, leading to tragedy.

There is existing literature on the 1920 workers’ strike, as well as that of some key individuals connected to this incident. For example, there is a Master’s thesis by Gary Bains (1988), which has been used to enhance this article. Existing literature that covers Rubusana at length includes an Master’s thesis by Songezo Ngqongqo as well as books by Peter Limb, Andre Odendaal, Brian Willan and Bongani Ngqulunga.³ These sources can deepen the readers’ understanding of Rubusana’s life. A book by Martin Plaut sheds light on Dr Abdullah Abdurahman, the first black person to be elected as a member of the Cape Provincial Council.⁴

For the workers in Port Elizabeth, 1920 was a challenging year, so much so that discontent and unhappiness among workers, brought about by the declining value of wages and the overall socio-economic situation, prompted the Port Elizabeth Industrial and Commercial Amalgamated Coloured and Native Workers Union, a union of unskilled workers with a membership of 4 000 workers, to consider strike action. The union had been formed by the fusion of the Industrial and Commercial Workers Union (ICU) and the Industrial Coloured Workers’ Union (ICWU). Even those workers who did not join the union sympathised with and supported its cause.⁵ Its president was Samuel Masabalala, an influential leader and excellent public speaker. He was no stranger to controversy, to say the least. In 1920, even the white municipal workers were unhappy with their salaries, raising questions as to whether they were market related. Later in 1920, they threatened to strike and clearly, this could have compromised service delivery in the city. The matter was eventually referred to arbitration.⁶

Rubusana was in town in 1920 when the storm was brewing, attending the annual assembly of his denomination, the Congregational Union of South Africa (CUSA), scheduled for 06 to 13 October 1920.⁷ As the CUSA minister in charge of the East London church in East Bank Location and its outstations, he had been attending the body’s annual meetings, held in different towns and cities on a rotational basis, for many years. In 1920, it was Port Elizabeth’s turn to host the annual meeting.⁸

Rubusana arrived in Port Elizabeth on 05 October 1920 and stayed in New Brighton. On his arrival in the city, the atmosphere in the locations was already thick with tension, brought about by the grievances of discontented workers who desperately needed an adequate minimum wage to survive the tumultuous times. Rubusana became aware of the gravity of the situation when he interacted with local people.⁹ At the CUSA gathering, the main purpose of Rubusana’s visit to Port Elizabeth was to present a paper on issues affecting Africans, proposing equal opportunities for all.¹⁰ It was as if he was referring to the tense situation on the ground.

Moderate black leaders in Port Elizabeth saw Rubusana’s presence in the city as an unexpected blessing. As a statesman, he had all the credentials needed to reason with the militant workers, and moreover, he was viewed as someone who could curb Masabalala’s influence. After all, between July 1918 and March 1920, Rubusana had succeeded in influencing East London workers to reconsider the demands they were making on their employers, negotiating various wage agreements.¹¹ The unskilled African and coloured workers of Port Elizabeth appeared largely favourable to the idea of negotiating to resolve the salary dispute.¹² However, some of their leaders had other ideas in mind.

The moderate black leaders requested Rubusana to address a public meeting in Korsten, the evening of 13 October 1920.¹³ At the meeting, also attended by Masabalala, Rubusana tried his best to persuade the workers to abandon the idea of embarking on strike action. He informed them that he was sympathetic to their wage grievances, but that the idea of going on strike was self-destructive. He believed that the workers could better achieve their objectives through peaceful and constitutional means and not through strike action. As he puts it, ‘nothing unpleasant happened at the meeting.’ Indeed, the audience thanked him for his address.¹⁴

Grattan, the superintendent of the New Brighton Location, was convinced that Rubusana had found his way into the hearts and minds of the workers in their demand for a minimum wage. This was seen when Grattan invited him to address another gathering in New Brighton the following evening. At this meeting, Rubusana once more persuaded the workers to reconsider their approach and take a longer view of their interests. He was assured at this meeting that the workers would not go on strike.

Rubusana was supposed to return to East London on the evening of 15 October 1920, but changed his plans after Grattan requested him to postpone his departure, hoping for an outcome favourable to his approach at a meeting scheduled for Korsten on the afternoon of Sunday 17 October 1920. This was a decision that he would live to regret. Joseph Kala, a clerk in the office of the superintendent in New Brighton, accompanied him to the meeting.¹⁵ Rubusana thought that there were about 2 000 people in attendance. Rubusana and Kala arrived at 15:30, just before the start of the meeting. Paul Kattledas, the chairman of the union, opened the meeting with a prayer and a hymn in which the Almighty was asked to bless Masabalala.¹⁶ That, in itself, should have warned Rubusana which way the wind was blowing. Nonetheless, he and Kala positioned themselves on the far side of the meeting to observe the proceedings.¹⁷

In the meeting, executive committee members of the union declared themselves opposed to strike action.¹⁸ Members of this committee believed that before considering a strike, they should extend the union’s influence to surrounding districts such as Salisbury Park and Uitenhage.¹⁹ Kettledas, who chaired the meeting, asserted that the union was not financially viable and would not be able to maintain its members while on strike particularly if it dragged on. He also argued that in the event of a strike, the employers were likely to mobilise workers from places such as Uitenhage and Grahamstown to replace them as had happened previously.²⁰ He pleaded with those in attendance to think seriously about the consequences before making a decision.²¹

Masabalala, demagogue that he was, took the union leadership by surprise by his militant speech. It was the exact opposite of that of his fellow unionist, Kettledas. He swayed the workers, persuading them to consider going on strike and asserting that the executive of the union was betraying their cause by not taking to the streets. He stressed that he was prepared to lay down his life for their cause and that there would be a strike at the end of the month, come what may. In this volatile situation, he accused Rubusana of reaping financial rewards for addressing earlier public meetings, stating that he had been drafted in by the authorities to neutralise the workers.²² To great cheering, he told the meeting not to heed strangers’ advice, irrespective of whether they came from heaven or hell.²³ He then led the crowd with what Rubusana describes as a strange hymn, leading him to believe that this was done to signal an attack on him and that the entire episode was pre-planned, with Masabalala the main instigator. At this point, Rubusana sensed, like a hound sniffing a scent, that the atmosphere was becoming dangerous, and he said to Kale that they had better leave, as trouble was in sight. The crowd began singing and chanting, swearing at Rubusana and bitterly accusing him of treachery.²⁴

What happened next was chilling. Before the two could reach their donkey cart, 50-60 men attacked Rubusana shouting that they would leave him for dead. In a kind of choreographed performance, he was first struck with a stick, followed by blows, then sticks, then blows, then sticks – in that pattern. The number of attackers rapidly increased to about a hundred, and he was, in effect, given a thorough hiding, unexpected and demeaning for a man of his stature. He was left shaking like a leaf.²⁵ Ilanga lase Natal summed up this act of violence by the workers: ‘to think that a leader of Dr. Rubusana’s reputation should be assaulted by his compatriots on such a mission is almost incredible. But we may expect anything in these days.’²⁶ In this mayhem, Rubusana shouted for a stick, obviously to take the fight to his attackers, but his pleas were in vain as no one came to his aid. He picked up stones hoping to repel his attackers, but was overpowered.²⁷ Kettledas escaped by the skin of his teeth after quickly closing the meeting.²⁸ Masabalala and his committee eventually came to Rubusana’s rescue.²⁹ In this confusion, Rubusana found his way to the nearby cottage of a certain Mr Wright until the arrival of the police who drove Rubusana away from the scene, saving him from the baying crowd.³⁰

Clearly, 1920 was not a good year for Rubusana. Even before his trip to Port Elizabeth, tragedy had struck at the heart of his family when his wife, Deena, died on 14 July 1920 at Frere Hospital in East London at the untimely age of 58 years.³¹ The CUSA sent him its condolences.³² It undoubtedly devastated Rubusana that his wife of 37 years would not walk beside him again. However, painful as it was, he now had to attend to the immediate task of funeral arrangements for his beloved wife. The funeral was held on 16 July 1920, just two days after her death.

Deena’s funeral was a large and dignified ceremony, attended by people from different walks of life including Jessamy Sprigg, the daughter of the late Sir Gordon Sprigg, the premier of the Cape. Also in attendance was Rubusana’s long time friend and politician, Meshach Pelem and his wife. Reverend R.W. Lowe presided over this emotionally charged event. Deena’s remains were interred at East Bank Location’s old cemetery.³³ This marked the end of an era for the couple and their five surviving children. Tragically, before the end of the year, Rubusana’s surviving children would be reduced to four, following the death of their daughter, Hilda W.P. Mjo.³⁴

Deena’s death also complicated Rubusana’s financial circumstances as their estate was frozen by the master of the court until further notice. As a result, he could not service an overdraft of which his son-in-law, A.Z. Mazingi, was guarantor and the National Bank of South Africa was on his case.³⁵ In addition, although nominated for the Tembuland seat in the Cape Provincial Council, in the election on 15 September 1920, he lost to Alfred Payn who secured 1035 votes against Rubusana’s 835 votes.³⁶ The debacle among the Port Elizabeth workers simply added to Rubusana’s woes in that turbulent year.

The events of the night of 17 October 1920 came as a shock to Rubusana. He was furious after facing this violent mob. The brush with death deeply unsettled him. Fresh from the ordeal, he was eager to get to the police station to report it. He believed that his influence was a blow to Masabalala’s plans and that was the reason why he was so badly assaulted. As soon as a chance presented itself, some days after the incident, he and Kala swore affidavits at one of the local police stations, giving details of their ordeal in Korsten.

The police were probably very eager to arrest Masabalala anyway. He had been a constant irritation to them for some time. On the morning of 23 October 1920, plainclothes policemen descended on his house in Korsten and seized him without an arrest warrant.³⁷ Masabalala was charged with inciting violence and for contravening Section 7 of Act 27, the Riotous Assemblies and Criminal Law Amendment Act of 1914.³⁸ The police hoped to keep him cooling his heels in police custody until his appearance in court on Monday, 25 October 1920.

By the morning of Saturday 23 October 1920, news had reached the workers that their leader had been put behind bars. That, on its own, was enough to make them gather at the Market Square in the city for a protest meeting. Coincidentally, some of them were working in the city that Saturday, making it easier for them to assemble quickly at the square. They were addressed by some of their leaders.³⁹ The secretary of the Port Elizabeth Industrial and Commercial Amalgamated Native and Coloured Workers Union, Alfred Sidzumo, tried to explain to them that Masabalala was in good condition and that he would appear in court on the coming Monday. His words fell on deaf ears. All they wanted was the release of their leader at once.⁴⁰

A decision was made that their leaders should hold a meeting with the magistrate and the inspector of police to try to secure Masabalala’s release, pending court proceedings. But the inspector of police put his foot down. He was determined to keep Masabalala behind bars. His decision only moved the workers to further militancy. They demanded the release of Masabalala by 17:00. If this did not happen, they said they would force their way into the police station in Baakens Street and free him themselves.⁴¹

This was not an idle threat. Around 17:00, they returned to the police station, some armed with sticks. By then, the showdown had drawn a large crowd of spectators. A stand-off ensued between the demonstrators and the police under Sub-Inspector Hart, together with some white civilians who were ex-servicemen. Together with the police, they took position. Eventually, a volley of shots was fired by the police and the white civilians at the demonstrators, and many were hit while retreating. In the mayhem, 23 demonstrators were shot and killed, and 76 were injured and treated in the hospital.⁴² The wounds sustained by the deceased revealed that the intention was to shoot to kill. David George, for example, was killed when a bullet entered the right side of his chest. His body was identified at the mortuary by a relative from the George family. John Jacobs was fatally shot in the neck. Another victim, Edward Mqonla, sustained a gunshot wound to the head.⁴³ As the demonstrators were retreating during the mayhem, their blood boiling, they came across a European woman. Her fate was sealed. They pounced on her and killed her.⁴⁴ The massacre made headlines in the local newspaper, The Eastern Province Herald, on 27 October 1920, reading: ‘Terrible Calamity in City Tragedy - Tragic end to Native Riot - Police Fire on Dense Crowd’.⁴⁵

Certainly, when he became involved in the workers’ problems, Rubusana did not expect that there would be a massacre of his own people. They were the very ones whose rights he had fought for since he became involved in social activism, from his days as an ordained priest attached to Peelton Mission Station between 1883 and 1893, to the formation of the South African Native National Congress (SANNC) in 1912, later renamed the African National Congress (ANC).⁴⁶ His politics had been about delegations and negotiations, exemplified, for instance, when he, with A.K. Soga, his long-time friend and the editor of Izwi Labantu newspaper, requested and held a meeting with the Cape colonial prime minister, Sir Gordon Sprigg, on 4 December 1902 in East London to discuss issues affecting Africans, including education. They were joined in the meeting by other old friends, Rev. Brownlee and John Ross, who had a keen interest in the matters discussed and happened to be in the area when the meeting was held.⁴⁷

Rubusana’s decision to go to the police station after a severe beating by the crowd in Korsten, resulting in the arrest of Masabalala, had, unknowingly, backfired. Before this tragic event, the workers held Rubusana in high esteem as one of the leading black leaders in the society. His involvement in this furore spoilt all that.⁴⁸ ‘Ubiciko bake bumkhohlisile [his wisdom has failed him]’, reported The Black Man in November 1920.⁴⁹

Masabalala vented his anger against Rubusana, whose decision to get him arrested had resulted in dire consequences. He accused him of talking down to people. He had his own view on how things unfolded on that fateful night of 17 October 1920. Masabalala’s position on the matter is well captured in The Black Man:

Masabalala went further to say that:

However, this issue should not be viewed as though Rubusana was opposed to the demands of the workers for better wages. He himself had always questioned how Africans were expected to survive considering their meagre remuneration. After all, he was a social and political activist who had always championed the rights of Africans. What he did oppose was what he referred to as unscrupulous leaders who, it seemed to him, took advantage of the workers’ frustrations. He summed this up in a letter to the editor published in the Eastern Province Herald on 05 November 1920. He wrote:

Unfortunately for Rubusana, the workers viewed his involvement in the matters affecting them as an attack on their miserable situation and that of their leaders as well, a situation that went out of control.

A Commission of Inquiry was proposed to investigate the massacre. Abdullah Abdurahman, the respected coloured politician and leader of the African People’s Organisation (APO), insisted that he be appointed as one of the commissioners to investigate the matter.⁵³ He felt that he had sufficient insight into the Port Elizabeth workers’ politics and into the situation on the ground. On 9 December 1920, he raised his concerns with the Prime Minister regarding the arrest of Masabalala and the proposed deportation to his original home of Nyasaland of Clements Kadalie, the secretary of the Cape Town branch of the ICU. According to Abdurahman, in the eyes of black people, the arrest of the two men was a huge blunder and furthermore, an attempt to bring the ICWU to its knees. He argued that, having read the letter from the magistrate of Port Elizabeth to the secretary of justice on 21 October 1920, Masabalala’s arrest could only be seen as precisely and provocatively timed, taking place just when Africans and municipal workers in Port Elizabeth were planning to go on strike.

According to Abdurahman, Masabalala had been singled out by the magistrate as a dangerous man, inciting the workers to go on strike and involve themselves in violent activities. His letter goes on to say that if Masabalala had been moved out of Port Elizabeth for about six months, the strike would have been averted. Considering all this, he thought, Masabalala was arrested for a strike that was not even going to take place. Instead, the leaders of the union had contacted a certain M’simang from Bloemfontein to come to Port Elizabeth and dig them out of the hole they had created for themselves. Abdurahman was convinced that M’simang would have managed to settle the dispute with the employers before a strike occurred. Abdurahman also stressed that Masabalala and M’simang had even asked him if he could intercede on Masabalala’s behalf to the prime minister, seeing that their course had reached a dead end. He believed that even though there was an outcry over the matter, Masabalala could still be moved out of Port Elizabeth for a couple of months until the dust had settled. Abdurahman thought that prosecuting Masabalala would lead to a further deterioration of the already fragile situation.⁵⁴

The prime minister acceded to the demand and appointed him to the proposed Commission of Inquiry. Abdurahman informed the Prime Minister that union leaders were delighted that he had included him in the Commission of Inquiry.⁵⁵ This was a three-man commission consisting of himself, Alex Roberts, and C. Schweitzer, the chair of the inquiry. This body was charged with looking into the causes of the riots of 17 October 1920 and what had transpired. In addition, it had to examine the general economic conditions affecting Coloured people and African people.

The Commission of Inquiry concluded its work more quickly than was perhaps expected. On 11 January 1921, it released its findings. Surely, all the stakeholders concerned, including Rubusana, must have held their breath in anticipation. The Commission reported that Africans were justified in demanding better wages, considering the high cost of living at the time. In particular, the conditions of African women working in factories left much to be desired. While unskilled workers were receiving very low wages, at least the position of skilled Africans and Coloureds was good.⁵⁶ Though the Commission of Inquiry did not touch on East London, Rubusana’s hometown, the fact is that unskilled African and Coloured workers in that city were also short-changed. Despite there being ample of work for them in 1920, wages were not in line with the cost of living.⁵⁷ That on its own was a disaster waiting to happen.

The Commission of Inquiry concluded that, considering the situation, it came as no surprise that Coloured and African workers supported Masabalala when he stepped forward with promises to rescue them. It argued that it was understandable that the workers were aroused when their leader was thrown behind bars. It is believed that an offer of 4s.6d per diem, up from 4s, would be reasonable. It also pointed a finger at the Police Inspector, stating that his decision to arrest Masabalala on 23 October 1920 resulted in the tragedy. The Commission of Inquiry equally condemned the decision by the demonstrators to go to the police station with the hope of releasing Masabalala. It also considered the killing of the protesters an act of brutality as the majority were shot while running away. Fortunately for Rubusana, no blame was apportioned to him by the Commission of Inquiry.⁵⁸ Instead the government granted him £10 as compensation for injuries sustained as well as for the humiliation he had suffered during that fateful night.⁵⁹ However, haunted by the events he may have been, he might well have sighed with relief.

Masabalala subsequently apologised to Rubusana, attributing his beating at the meeting to drunks. Masabalala was willing to organise a sporting event to mark what he hoped would be a reconciliation and bring peace between him and Rubusana.⁶⁰ As for Masabalala, the Port Elizabeth debacle did not mark the end of his career. He later became a member of the African National Congress (ANC) executive and served as its secretary in the late 1920s, rubbing shoulders with the likes of Selope Thema, Josiah Gumede, Mweli Skota as well as with members of the ICU. The police who were spying on the ANC at the time remembered him as the man who once brought Port Elizabeth to a standstill.⁶¹

Being a distinguished gentleman, as Rubusana saw himself and as he was seen, comes with accolades including respect, preferential treatment and honour. This is the image that Rubusana was known for in different spheres from politics to literature to religion. It was indeed through this ideal that Rubusana was drawn into the brewing storm of worker militancy in Port Elizabeth, leading to the massacre of the workers and the tarnishing of his well-rounded image.

However, Rubusana might well have been grateful that the Commission of Inquiry, established to investigate the massacre and the events preceding it, did not find him guilty of any wrongdoing. Had it done so, his gentlemanly image and the reputation that he had worked hard to earn would have been permanently tarnished. He also must have been calmed by the fact that even his nemesis, Masabalala, offered him an olive branch, pleading with him to put the matter to rest. As for Rubusana harbouring a grudge against Masabalala: this would not have benefited him in any way, particularly considering his deserved reputation as a revered and God-fearing man.

An anonymous poem was published in Umteteli wa Bantu about Rubusana’s sad year of 1920⁶²: