[4] Germany possessed German East Africa from 1885 to 1918, but after the First World War, Britain received a League of Nations mandate in 1922 over what was renamed Tanganyika Territory.
[5] Also in 1922, a referendum was held in Southern Rhodesia in which the white minority electorate chose responsible government as an internally self-governing colony, rather than entry into the Union of South Africa.
[6] These changes resulted in a continuous block of British-controlled territories from the Zambezi northwards in which, following the principles first set out in 1923 by the Duke of Devonshire, who was then Colonial Secretary, the interests of Africans would be treated as paramount.
However, the next Conservative Colonial Secretary, Leo Amery later attempted to qualify this principle, and gave tacit encouragement to the aspirations of non-native immigrant communities hoping to obtain a degree of self-government following the model of Southern Rhodesia.
[8] The East and Central Africa territories were individually rather small and economically underdeveloped, so some form of association could result in cost savings.
The terms of reference, in abbreviated form, were: (1) To make recommendations on whether federation or another form of closer union could lead to more effective co-operation between the different Central and Eastern African governments, in particular on developing transport and communications, customs tariffs and administration, scientific research and defence; (2) To consider which territories could now or in the future be brought within any closer union, considering the League of Nations Mandate over Tanganyika Territory; (3) To make recommendations on changes in the powers and composition of the Legislative Councils of these territories: (a) as the result of forming any Federal Council or other common authority; (b) to associate the immigrant communities more closely in government; and (c) to secure more direct representation of native interests; (4) To suggest how the Dual Policy recommended by the Conference of East African Governors could best be applied in the political as well as the economic sphere.
(5) To make recommendations on what improvements may be required in internal communications between the various territories to facilitate the working of federation or closer union.
[10] The Commission interpreted its instructions as raising two main questions: (1) Should there be either federation or a closer form of union between the territories of Eastern and Central Africa to secure more effective co-operation between them?
The commissioners considered that the first requirement was for indigenous communities to have sufficient land to maintain a reasonable living standard using traditional agriculture methods.
They proposed an initial period in which Kenya, Uganda and Tanganyika would co-operate, using the existing East African Governors' Conference (which had been formed in 1926) and its secretariat to advise the Central Authority.
For Kenya, it argued that there was no immediate possibility of the European minority ever achieving responsible government, but the issue of the political role of the immigrant communities had to be clarified.
Hilton Young, in a minority opinion, suggested that responsible government could be achieved with elected European members forming the largest group in the Kenya Legislative Council, with one-third of seats, but this was opposed by the other Commissioners.
Uganda presented no major problem and the commission reported that nothing in its proposals conflicted with the League of Nations mandate for Tanganyika, which specifically allowed for an administrative union or federation with neighbouring territories.
[16] The commission's final problem for East African was of the composition of the Legislative Council in Kenya and of the political claims made by the non-native inhabitants of this Colony.
It argued that, as the Legislative Council was the principal forum for the discussion of affairs and the place where laws were enacted, it must give to every race and interest a sense that their views were considered and safeguarded.
The Commission considered an Indian claim for a common electoral franchise in Kenya, based on level of civilisation rather than race or, failing that, an increased representation for the Asian community.
[17][18] The commission's terms of reference also covered the possibility of a closer association between Northern Rhodesia and Nyasaland and the territories of East Africa to the north.
[24] In Northern Rhodesia, the efforts of the Colonial Office to protect and promote African interests were frustrated by the resistance of settler groups.
His statement of colonial policy was an emphatic reassertion of the principle of paramountcy of African interests, and he dismissed settler aspirations of self-government in Kenya and Northern Rhodesia.