[4] In 1934, Minister of Posts and Telegraph v. Rasool, held that the former could not a create greater right for one race versus another, in this case at a postal facility through segregation.

[4] And in 1950, an Indian taxi driver, challenged and won when his licence to drive white passengers was stripped from him, in Tayah v. Ermelo Local Transportation Board.

[4] The bill was brought to parliament in 1953, by C. R. Swart, Minister for Justice, with its main purpose to reduce contact between Whites and non-Whites in social settings.

[5]: 5  He was quoted in Hansard stating: If a European has to sit next to a non-European at school, if on a railway station they are to use the same waiting rooms, if they are continually to travel together on the trains and sleep in the same hotels, it is evident that eventually we would have racial admixture, with the result that on the one hand one would no longer find a purely European population and on the other hand a non-European population.

[5]: 5 He made it clear in a further statement before parliament that the governments legislation would end all further court action to apply equality of amenities to all the races in South Africa: It was never the intention of Parliament to say…that if you reserve something for one group, equal provision should be made in every respect for the other group.

[6]: 21  The Motor Transport Act, amended in 1955, required taxis and buses to have certificates stating what races could be conveyed.

[6]: 21  The State-Aided Institution Act, amended in 1957, granted boards of intuitions funded by the state, the right to determine the hours, conditions, and restrictions of their venues for use by non-whites, and covered libraries, museums, art galleries, public parks, and zoos.

Some of the changes were: Prior to 1979, public libraries were segregated but after that year, local authorities could open them to all races.

Temporary permits could be granted and Black domestic workers caring for white children were allowed on whites-only beaches.

de Klerk ordered that beaches be opened to all races and that local authorities amend their by-laws.

Botha instructed his President’s Council to investigate consolidating the Group Areas, Reservation of Sperate Amenities, Slums, and the Community Development Acts.

Botha announced before the House of Assembly that the President’s Council had recommended the repeal of the Separate Amenities Act.

[13] On 16 November 1989, President FW de Klerk announced that it was time to repeal the Separate Amenities Act and would do so after discussions about its implications and measures implemented.

[14] The proposed repeal and the opening of beaches were immediately condemned by the Conservative Party, with Koos van der Merwe, Chief Information Officer, calling the move a path to a mixed South Africa and a Black government.

[14] Mangosuthu Buthelezi, Inkatha Freedom Party, described it as an indication de Klerk wanted to bring about change and the repeal would be a point of no return.