For nine years our movement has boycotted elections. We have been clear that no political party represents the interests of the poor and that it was necessary for us to build our own power in order to present our own needs and demands to society. In these nine years we have won many victories but most of us remain in shacks. Twenty years of shack life is a disgrace in a democracy.
Corruption is also a disgrace. In Durban you get nothing without a membership card for the ANC. All development goes through the councillors and their ward committees and ANC branch executive committees. Development is there to make ANC leaders rich and to control the rest of us by only making it available to ANC members. Development is not for the people. This kind of corruption is a disgrace in a democracy.
But an even bigger disgrace is the repression that we have faced from the ANC, its members, its leaders and its assassins. They have banned our marches; attacked our marches; arrested us on trumped up charges; assaulted us in detention; used armed men to drive us from our homes with police support; used death threats, attacks in our homes and torture in police stations to intimidate people to manufacture evidence against us; detained us for months and months while we wait for a trial that gets thrown out of court because there is no evidence against us; used their anti-land invasion unit to evict us for political reasons and beaten and shot us in our communities. Senior members of the ANC and the Municipality have made public death threats against us. Two activists were assassinated in Cato Crest last year and another, an unarmed teenage girl, was executed by the police.
We cannot go on with this level of repression. As everyone knows we are not the only people who face this kind of repression. We all know about Andries Tatane and all the others murdered by the police on protests. We all know about the Marikana Massacre.
In Durban court orders are just ignored by the Municipality and so the courts cannot protect us. Mostly the media and civil society tend to agree that because we are poor and black we are automatically violent and criminal and too stupid to think our own politics and so we do not get that much protection from the media and civil society either. We have some valued comrades on the left among the middle classes but mostly this left just wants to bus us into its meetings so that it can look credible without having any interest at all in our struggles, our ideas or our safety. NUMSA asked us to support their march in Durban but they have not shown any concern to support us when we face repression. The EFF also asked us to support their march in Durban but, like NUMSA, they have not supported us when we face repression. So far our experience of both these organisations is that they are operating like the left NGOs – we are treated as if our only role is to provide the large numbers of people that they need to be bussed in to justify their politics.
Because we cannot carry on like this we took a decision to vote against the ANC. We did not want to split our vote. We decided to collectivise our vote in order to make it stronger. Our main priority was that the ANC must be removed from office. We knew that this will not happen in this election but we were still clear that if we can weaken the ANC then we must do that. Also we knew that if we collectivise our vote all the political parties will know that there is a large bloc of votes that will be available at the next election for the party that does the best job in opposing repression and takes the best position on shack settlements.
We decided that all political parties except the ANC would be invited to make a presentation to the movement. Some of our members did not want to invite the DA to make a presentation as they are known to represent the rich and, in Cape Town, they are no different to the ANC when it comes to illegal and violent evictions. However we debated this at length and decided to invite them to make a presentation on the grounds that the removal of the ANC was our first priority and the weakening of the ANC was our second priority.
The DA, EFF, NFP and WASP all accepted the invitation to make a presentation to our members at the Diakonia Centre on 25 April and they all came and made their presentations.
The delegates to that meeting then returned to their branches to discuss the presentations there. We met again on 2 May and held a general meeting. At this meeting the general leadership did not vote as their role was to facilitate the meeting. The rest of the delegates voted and the results were as follows:
2 - undecided
2 - WASP
16 - EFF
26 - NFP
146 – DA
The DA and the EFF returned to witness the voting. WASP did not return. The NFP arrived three hours late with lots of car, bodyguards and their senior people. But by that time we were already dispersing.
The whole meeting was recorded on video and this video can be made available. Even those who were very disappointed with the results agree that it was a highly democratic process. The collective discipline of a democratic organisation requires that we all accept this outcome. Of course this decision is only for this election and it does not bind our members in Cape Town. When the next election comes we will again decide whether or not to vote and, if so, which party to vote for.
The main reason why the majority of the delegates supported the DA was because they wanted to have the strongest possible opposition to the ANC to put the maximum pressure on the ANC and to prevent it from doing what it pleases – which includes murdering us. We negotiated a legal agreement with DA which commits them to support some of our more basic demands. We hope that they will stand up for these issues and that they, and all other parties, will realise that if they want the support of the shack dwellers they will have to support us rather than see us as a problem to be eradicated or forcibly removed from the cities and taken to the human dumping grounds.
We will vote, as one bloc, for the DA tomorrow. We will not take membership of the party, we do not endorse its policies and we will continue to insist that no one can hold a position as an elected leader in our movement if they join a political party. We do not love or trust the DA. Already they are telling lies about our choice and we are not surprised. We have made a purely tactical choice. We will certainly continue to organise against all and any attacks on the poor in Cape Town by the DA government there.
One of the lies that is being told is that the DA are saying that we have endorsed them for this election in the Western Cape. This is not true. Our Western Cape branch has endorsed our decision to make a tactical vote for the DA in KwaZulu-Natal. Our Western Cape branch has not decided to make any collective vote for any party in this election.
Over the last nine years we have protected our autonomy from NGOs very carefully even though we do work with some NGOs. Now that we feel that it is necessary for our safety and our ability to continue to organise to use our numbers to make deals with political parties we will protect our autonomy from political parties in the same way.
Our politics puts people first. We cannot do nothing but wait for socialism to come one day in the far distant future. Our children are dying from diarrhoea right now, our old people and disabled people are dying in shack fires right now, we are being evicted and disconnected right now and we are being beaten and shot during evictions and disconnections right now. We been repressed, and even murdered, right now. We have to act to do what we can to make our members’ lives better right now. We have to act to protect our ability to organise and to sustain our living politics right now. This does not mean that we have given up on our vision of a world where land, cities, wealth and power are shared fairly. We call this a living communism and we remain committed to it. But we also remain committed to the human beings that we are now and to our families, neighbours and comrades. We will make what deals we have to make to protect our politics and improve our members’ lives right now but we will not give up on our political vision. We represent thousands of people who live in shack settlements. Those people who sit in university offices and NGO offices only represent themselves. Their children are safe. Their lives are not at risk. They are free to put ideology before people because they are not accountable to oppressed people and because they are not themselves oppressed people. But the fact that we do not enjoy that freedom does not mean that we have given up our politics. It means that we are searching for a practical way forward in a difficult and dangerous struggle.
The new Abahlali electoral position has offered us a lot to learn about. There is a lot to learn about party politics and its dirty campaigning tactics. There is a lot to learn about the deeper politics of our time. And, yes, there is a lot to learn about who cares and doesn't care about the struggles of the poor and the working class.
Ideology and principle are vital but if they both fail to house the homeless and rescue the repressed and recognise the humanity of the inhumanized then the oppressed are not doing any harm to anyone in trying to emancipate ourselves by taking practical action now to keep people safe and to make their lives better while always keeping a bigger vision of freedom and justice in mind.
We share a sadness that we have had to make this decision. Very few people outside the movement have been witness to what we’ve been going through in the hands of the ANC. We do not have words to explain the pain many of us have gone through. We do not have words to explain our pain of twenty years of shack life and all the state repression that has come to us when we stood up for our humanity. Last year we came to the ceiling of hopelessness. It was clear that we are people that can be freely killed. The stress that this created led to some intense internal conflicts. We knew that we could not carry on with our old politics. Our new position has enabled us to rethink our struggle. It may not be the perfect way but it brought a robust discussion about us that was seriously trying to find ways of creating a new hope from no hope.
We are not surprised at the way some people on the so called left have reacted on our position. We are not surprised at the usual lies from the usual people on the internet. Many people and organisations on the left do not accept that we have the right to think our own struggle and to make our own decisions. They think that because they are on the left they have the right to tell us what to do. We do not accept this. These people see our decision as stupid and as a sell-out while they are nowhere to be seen in our times of great difficulty. It makes us to think that such people enjoy our suffering or even benefit from it. Why will people who claim to be in our support judge us instead of contacting us to first understand our decision? It may be a wrong decision but the reality is that we cannot deceive ourselves purposefully on our pain. Why should we be made to struggle in a way that is only designed to try and impress other people simple because they say that they are on the left? We will never do this. Our members must live in shacks and they must try and survive repression. Their organisation is theirs and it will be directed by their decisions. We have never compromised on this and for this we have always been attacked by the regressive left that only want us to take their money so that in exchange we can arrange for people to be bussed into their meetings. This is not emancipation. It is another kind of oppression.
Is the left doing enough to care about our struggle? Or do they see our struggles as projects from which they can prove and debate their findings and analysis rather than as a struggle to genuinely confront the forces of darkness? Our decision aims at trying to keep the space open for us to liberate ourselves by making a tactical move. We do not love the DA or agree with its policies. Why do people who failed to condemn the ANC attacks on us get so angry with us when we try to punish the ANC by making a tactical vote for its enemy? Maybe for these people it is better for us to be oppressed by the ANC than the DA. For us it is better not to be oppressed. Some of the left is just like some of the development NGOs and some of the state. They want to experiment on us, to use us for their own projects. We say no. On this there is no compromise. We continue to say ‘talk to us, not for us’ and ‘think with us not for us’.
Our position remains honouring those who have supported and who continue to support us. Since we all don't know the answers in this struggle to humanise the world we will keep hunting and trying. Sometimes we will make wrong decisions but at least we offer debate and learning for ourselves and all our friends and comrades.
The ANC are a serious threat to society and to right of the poor to organise freely in this society. They must be removed from office and until we can remove them we must do all that we can to weaken them.
For further information and comment please contact:
Mnikelo Ndabankulu on 081 263 3462
Zodwa Nsibande on 082 902 2960
Thembani Ngongoma on 084 613 9772
Nono Majola on 074 803 1986
Source: Abahlali baseMjondolo
Showing posts with label DA. Show all posts
Showing posts with label DA. Show all posts
Tuesday, May 6, 2014
Wednesday, January 23, 2013
Reaction to FNB advert like Lady Macbeth’s guilty rants
It is never a good sign when an organisation or individual completely overreacts to perceived criticism. As the simmering discontent of South Africa’s underclass boils over into open revolt and violence and as corrupt shoot-to-kill cops are increasingly deployed in places as far flung as Marikana, De Doorns and Sasolburg to protect the old and new elites from the wrath of the dispossessed, some politicians are increasingly resembling Lady Macbeth, driven by their guilt and shame to commit ever more heinous misdeeds. The hysterical and often undemocratic response of various ANC and SACP structures to the silly First National Bank (FNB) advertising campaign is a case in point.
In Shakespeare’s “Macbeth”, Lady Macbeth urges her husband to kill Duncan, the king, to allow Macbeth to satisfy his ambitions of becoming king. She overrides all of her husband’s objections by challenging his manhood and he relents and kills Duncan. Later Lady Macbeth becomes racked with guilt and sleepwalks through the palace, haunted by the murder of the former king. In this trance she tries to wash off imaginary bloodstains from her hands, shouting: “Out, damned spot! Out, I say!—One, two. Why, then, ’tis time to do ’t. Hell is murky!—Fie, my lord, fie! A soldier, and afeard? What need we fear who knows it, when none can call our power to account?—Yet who would have thought the old man to have had so much blood in him.”
The response of the ANC, the ANC Youth League and the SACP to the FNB campaign resembles the attempts of Lady Macbeth to clean imaginary bloodstains from her hands.
“What need we fear who knows it, when none can call our power to account?”
The FNB campaign includes videos of young South Africans apparently speaking their minds. In one of the videos a participant says: “Stop voting for the same government in hopes for change – instead, change your hopes to a government that has the same hopes as us.”
The ANC Youth League and SACP joined the ANC in slamming the campaign, with the league saying it was “deeply angered and disappointed” by the bank’s “treacherous” campaign. On Sunday, Youth League spokeswoman Khusela Sangoni-Khawe said FNB had failed in trying to “recreate an Arab Spring of some sort in South Africa” and said it “uses children to make unproven claims of a government rife with corruption. We call upon South Africans to close ranks against what is a treacherous attack on our country.”
ANC spokesperson Jackson Mthembu said the ANC (who is never directly mentioned in any of the videos) was “appalled” by the campaign in which the ANC, its leadership and government were “under attack” the campaign was an “undisguised political statement that makes random and untested accusations against our government in the name of discourse. While we believe that people are entitled to their views, we don’t accept that young kids should be used as proxies to articulate political views espoused, as in the case of the FNB advertisement.”
“Out, damned spot! Out, I say!”
These vehement reactions to what appear to be rather mild criticisms of the government and platitudes about one’s right to vote for the party of one’s choice (widely accepted in any functioning democracy) are curious for several reasons.
First, whatever one might think of FNB and its advertising campaign (and I am not a fan of the campaign or of the lily-livered manner in which the bank caved in to political thugs), the manner in which several ANC and SACP spokespersons conflated the ANC with the state and with the country is worrying. The ANC is not the state. Neither is it the sole representative of the South African people. South Africa, in the words of the Freedom Charter, belongs to all who live in it – it does not belong to the ANC. Like any political party, the ANC deserves to be praised when it does something well and deserves to be criticised when it abandons the poor that it professes to love and serve.
Second, the statement that the FNB campaign is treacherous and tries to recreate the Arab Spring, is anti-democratic and – I am sorry to have to use such an emotive term – proto-fascist. There is nothing wrong with telling people that they should refrain from voting for the governing party. Voting for whomever one pleases is at the heart of political freedom in a democratic state. Every democratic election is based on a fair and free contestation between political parties in which we are all allowed to express our preferences.
We are also all free to try and convince others to vote for the ANC, to vote for the DA, or to vote for the TP (Tender Party), for that matter. It is probably not a great business model for a Bank to get involved in an advertising campaign that might alienate the majority of voters, but if it does, there is nothing treacherous about it. If FNB had not pulled the adverts I might even have lauded the bank for putting its principles (which one may agree or disagree with) before naked profits.
The Arab Spring refers to various uprisings organised by oppressed populations in countries where citizens did not enjoy political rights and where democratic contestation and free and fair elections could not be held. To refer to an advertising campaign in which a teenager urges people in South Africa to vote for the party of their choice as an attempt to recreate an Arab Spring, suggests the ANC Youth league believes that South Africa is not a democracy, that its citizens are oppressed and do not enjoy political rights and that they will never be allowed to change the government by using their vote. Like Lady Macbeth wandering in a trance and trying to wash off imaginary bloodstains from her hands, the ANC Youth League is revealing rather more than it intended about its own undemocratic tendencies. Pity Jackson Mthembu will not display the same sense of outrage about this full-frontal attack on our democracy.
Whether one is a staunch ANC supporter or a supporter of the right wing Freedom Front Plus, if one supports democracy one will not be appalled by the fact that an institution has dared to criticise a political party. Only proto-fascists would be appalled by the fact that a bank has dared to broadcast statements criticising the government.
One might, of course, disagree with the sentiments expressed by the youngsters in the FNB produced videos, and the ANC has every right to express its disagreement with some of the statments made by the youngsters. But claiming that the sentiments are treacherous or that it is not legitimate to criticise the party displays the kind of undemocratic intolerance that cannot be associated with a party who supports democracy.
Personally I find that it is better to ignore attacks that are far-fetched or motivated by racism, hatred or a complete lack of information. That is what I do when I am criticised for something I have written. “Don’t feed the trolls,” I tell myself every time I read the unhinged invective of faceless loonies on my Blog. If the criticism is serious, one either responds to it by pointing out why and how it is wrong, or one takes it on board and changes one’s behaviour. Just a thought: use it, don’t use it.
One does not tell those who criticise that they are committing treason or that they are attacking the state merely because one happens (for the time being) to be the party of government.
I was reluctant even to enter this discussion, not because I am fearful of repercussions, but because what I have written here is so obvious and because all this fuss about a bank’s advertising campaign detracts attention from the far more important social and economic issues facing the country.
Maybe that is why the campaign has attracted such hysterical responses from the ANC and its partners. Like Lady Macbeth, whose paranoid dreams symbolises the fact that she is haunted by her guilt, the ANC reaction is perhaps a symptom of the fear and guilt that stalks the political class in South Africa. As Marikana, De Doorns and Sasolburg have shown, the poor, economically excluded and marginalised members of society have not benefited as handsomely from the end of apartheid as the members of the old (mostly white) and emerging (mostly black) middle classes.
While those in the chattering classes squabble about silly adverts made to promote the commercial interests of a big bank and argue whether these adds exploit children, many of those same children are dropping out of school or receiving a third rate education because of the cowardice of politicians who are too scared to take on a powerful union. While I write about the nature of democracy, members of social movement are harassed and tortured by the police. While Helen Zille spends her days on twitter, blaming the poor for the lack of services in their communities in Cape Town, millions of South Africans go to bed hungry, wondering whether this wonderful democracy will ever guarantee them a full stomach.
Source: Constitutionally Speaking
In Shakespeare’s “Macbeth”, Lady Macbeth urges her husband to kill Duncan, the king, to allow Macbeth to satisfy his ambitions of becoming king. She overrides all of her husband’s objections by challenging his manhood and he relents and kills Duncan. Later Lady Macbeth becomes racked with guilt and sleepwalks through the palace, haunted by the murder of the former king. In this trance she tries to wash off imaginary bloodstains from her hands, shouting: “Out, damned spot! Out, I say!—One, two. Why, then, ’tis time to do ’t. Hell is murky!—Fie, my lord, fie! A soldier, and afeard? What need we fear who knows it, when none can call our power to account?—Yet who would have thought the old man to have had so much blood in him.”
The response of the ANC, the ANC Youth League and the SACP to the FNB campaign resembles the attempts of Lady Macbeth to clean imaginary bloodstains from her hands.
“What need we fear who knows it, when none can call our power to account?”
The FNB campaign includes videos of young South Africans apparently speaking their minds. In one of the videos a participant says: “Stop voting for the same government in hopes for change – instead, change your hopes to a government that has the same hopes as us.”
The ANC Youth League and SACP joined the ANC in slamming the campaign, with the league saying it was “deeply angered and disappointed” by the bank’s “treacherous” campaign. On Sunday, Youth League spokeswoman Khusela Sangoni-Khawe said FNB had failed in trying to “recreate an Arab Spring of some sort in South Africa” and said it “uses children to make unproven claims of a government rife with corruption. We call upon South Africans to close ranks against what is a treacherous attack on our country.”
ANC spokesperson Jackson Mthembu said the ANC (who is never directly mentioned in any of the videos) was “appalled” by the campaign in which the ANC, its leadership and government were “under attack” the campaign was an “undisguised political statement that makes random and untested accusations against our government in the name of discourse. While we believe that people are entitled to their views, we don’t accept that young kids should be used as proxies to articulate political views espoused, as in the case of the FNB advertisement.”
“Out, damned spot! Out, I say!”
These vehement reactions to what appear to be rather mild criticisms of the government and platitudes about one’s right to vote for the party of one’s choice (widely accepted in any functioning democracy) are curious for several reasons.
First, whatever one might think of FNB and its advertising campaign (and I am not a fan of the campaign or of the lily-livered manner in which the bank caved in to political thugs), the manner in which several ANC and SACP spokespersons conflated the ANC with the state and with the country is worrying. The ANC is not the state. Neither is it the sole representative of the South African people. South Africa, in the words of the Freedom Charter, belongs to all who live in it – it does not belong to the ANC. Like any political party, the ANC deserves to be praised when it does something well and deserves to be criticised when it abandons the poor that it professes to love and serve.
Second, the statement that the FNB campaign is treacherous and tries to recreate the Arab Spring, is anti-democratic and – I am sorry to have to use such an emotive term – proto-fascist. There is nothing wrong with telling people that they should refrain from voting for the governing party. Voting for whomever one pleases is at the heart of political freedom in a democratic state. Every democratic election is based on a fair and free contestation between political parties in which we are all allowed to express our preferences.
We are also all free to try and convince others to vote for the ANC, to vote for the DA, or to vote for the TP (Tender Party), for that matter. It is probably not a great business model for a Bank to get involved in an advertising campaign that might alienate the majority of voters, but if it does, there is nothing treacherous about it. If FNB had not pulled the adverts I might even have lauded the bank for putting its principles (which one may agree or disagree with) before naked profits.
The Arab Spring refers to various uprisings organised by oppressed populations in countries where citizens did not enjoy political rights and where democratic contestation and free and fair elections could not be held. To refer to an advertising campaign in which a teenager urges people in South Africa to vote for the party of their choice as an attempt to recreate an Arab Spring, suggests the ANC Youth league believes that South Africa is not a democracy, that its citizens are oppressed and do not enjoy political rights and that they will never be allowed to change the government by using their vote. Like Lady Macbeth wandering in a trance and trying to wash off imaginary bloodstains from her hands, the ANC Youth League is revealing rather more than it intended about its own undemocratic tendencies. Pity Jackson Mthembu will not display the same sense of outrage about this full-frontal attack on our democracy.
Whether one is a staunch ANC supporter or a supporter of the right wing Freedom Front Plus, if one supports democracy one will not be appalled by the fact that an institution has dared to criticise a political party. Only proto-fascists would be appalled by the fact that a bank has dared to broadcast statements criticising the government.
One might, of course, disagree with the sentiments expressed by the youngsters in the FNB produced videos, and the ANC has every right to express its disagreement with some of the statments made by the youngsters. But claiming that the sentiments are treacherous or that it is not legitimate to criticise the party displays the kind of undemocratic intolerance that cannot be associated with a party who supports democracy.
Personally I find that it is better to ignore attacks that are far-fetched or motivated by racism, hatred or a complete lack of information. That is what I do when I am criticised for something I have written. “Don’t feed the trolls,” I tell myself every time I read the unhinged invective of faceless loonies on my Blog. If the criticism is serious, one either responds to it by pointing out why and how it is wrong, or one takes it on board and changes one’s behaviour. Just a thought: use it, don’t use it.
One does not tell those who criticise that they are committing treason or that they are attacking the state merely because one happens (for the time being) to be the party of government.
I was reluctant even to enter this discussion, not because I am fearful of repercussions, but because what I have written here is so obvious and because all this fuss about a bank’s advertising campaign detracts attention from the far more important social and economic issues facing the country.
Maybe that is why the campaign has attracted such hysterical responses from the ANC and its partners. Like Lady Macbeth, whose paranoid dreams symbolises the fact that she is haunted by her guilt, the ANC reaction is perhaps a symptom of the fear and guilt that stalks the political class in South Africa. As Marikana, De Doorns and Sasolburg have shown, the poor, economically excluded and marginalised members of society have not benefited as handsomely from the end of apartheid as the members of the old (mostly white) and emerging (mostly black) middle classes.
While those in the chattering classes squabble about silly adverts made to promote the commercial interests of a big bank and argue whether these adds exploit children, many of those same children are dropping out of school or receiving a third rate education because of the cowardice of politicians who are too scared to take on a powerful union. While I write about the nature of democracy, members of social movement are harassed and tortured by the police. While Helen Zille spends her days on twitter, blaming the poor for the lack of services in their communities in Cape Town, millions of South Africans go to bed hungry, wondering whether this wonderful democracy will ever guarantee them a full stomach.
Source: Constitutionally Speaking
Tuesday, October 23, 2012
Failing to Protect the Poor against Crime
South Africa continues to be a hazardous place for the Black poor. You don’t have to be a Marikana mineworker to die a death that is undignified, if not brutal and terrifying. The daily security concerns of the majority have never been further from the minds of politicians, who are either gripped with Mangaung mania, or – in the case of the DA - feverishly plotting the jingles and publicity stunts that they think will win them another metro city in the 2014 elections. COPE’s only recent claim to fame is its elderly MP who tried to open an aeroplane door in mid-flight, later escaping with a slap on the wrist after successfully arguing (with the support of the DA) that the combination of one alcoholic drink and one sleeping tablet made him lose his senses.
You know you are living in the most unequal country in the world when the mayor of a major metropolitan city can issue a self-congratulatory press statement – as the DA’s Patricia de Lille did recently – about the installation of less than 30 high-mast lights to be spread across numerous unlit informal settlements.
It is well known that in Cape Town’s townships and informal settlements, street lighting is almost non-existent, and as a result, that crime is rife. The complaint has been raised by residents at nearly every community meeting for years, no matter who organized the meeting or what else the meeting was supposed to be about. The DA likes to claim that communities vandalise every street light that ever gets installed but the truth is that street lighting has hardly been installed in the informal settlements and light bulbs are never replaced in the townships street lights. In Cape Town’s white suburbs, on the other hand, the DA city administration will send technicians out at 10pm to fix a streetlight bulb that died the same evening.
It emerged in a recent City of Cape Town press statement that poor, Black areas are not set to receive proper street lighting anytime soon. The DA city is instead going to rely on national government’s urban settlement development grant to install four lights here and there over the next two years. While the cost of keeping the streetlights on in white suburbs is part of the city’s normal budget, lighting the Black areas depends on donations.
The DA has already claimed that it is powerless to protect poor people on the Cape Flats from being caught in the crossfire between warring gangs, and that only the army would be able to do this. But with the re-emergence of necklacing in Khayelitsha as a community response to crime, the recent killings of four Cape Town metro police in the townships and the increase in the number of young people involved in violent gangs, it is clear that the DA is powerless on many more fronts and that things are unravelling fast in the “mother city”.
The concentration of public funds on white suburbs means the different races live totally different lives. White Capetonians can expect to wake up on the weekend and buy some beers for the night without incident. But for the past two Christmases, Khayelitsha residents have reported that police of all the different forces set up ad-hoc roadblocks on the pavements and ask residents returning from the bottle stores to show receipts for the beer they have purchased. If the residents have failed to keep their slips, or never got one, they are knocked around a bit and their alcohol confiscated. This is nothing to do with drinking in public but happens to ordinary people walking home after shopping.
More disturbingly, Black township residents are increasingly being subjected to the sight of public group killings, which increase the fear and insecurity in those areas. Several Khayelitsha residents vented their shock on Facebook just this past weekend at seeing groups of 14 year old youths killing each other in Makhaza Park.
"The park is full...it's blood everywhere. These boys are carrying weapons I have never seen in (my) life. This is too painful to see. We have been calling the police over and over but they haven't come," wrote one person. She later posted an update that two police had arrived, watched for a while and then left. "These kids are continuing", her desperate update read. Less than two hours later, another update read: "Sad to say, we have lost two young boys and others are injured...am numb".
Such horrific practices would be unthinkable in one of Cape Town’s white suburban parks. But in the townships, the government has allowed these incidents to become part of "normal" life.
It was only last week that Cape Town’s largest shack area, the Enkanini informal settlement, was provided with 452 electricity points – for 11 000 homes. How 24 families are going to share one power point is a mystery. The DA says another 2000 electricity connections will be turned on before May 2013 but that the rest of the electricity will be installed in phases. It is still not clear whether every home will eventually have its own electricity point or not. This informal settlement is situated in a highly urbanised city, which recently won the title of “World Design Capital”, yet its high school only got electricity last week!
Townships in the rest of the country are equally under-developed and crime plagued. Rural areas are also experiencing a spike in crime. The situation will continue to worsen rapidly until the DA and ANC abandon their practice of maintaining the living areas set up by apartheid’s Group Areas Act.
Unfortunately, this is unlikely to happen. The parties are two sides of the same coin. The ANC’s outdated neo-liberal economic policies were drawn up by the same international economists who wrote the policies of the DA. Successive ministers of Finance have focussed for 18 years now on pumping billions in public funds into tax breaks and incentives for overseas investors to set up factories that have never materialised.
Former president Thabo Mbeki said last week in a speech at Fort Hare university that South Africa was progressing “towards a costly disaster”, and was in a “dangerous and unacceptable situation of directionless and unguided national drift”.
This is rich coming from someone who, when he was in power, oversaw the arms deal; withheld anti-retroviral treatment from thousands of women living with HIV; set up the practice of wasting hundreds of millions of rands in public funds on hiring useless consultants for local and national government, and started the now defunct practice of paying retention bonuses to parastatal managers.
After 18 years, the DA and ANC have missed all opportunities to end apartheid in South Africa and improve the lives of the Black majority. The rapidly worsening situation, where more and more Black people are living without water, electricity, houses and schools as if in 17th century England, won’t be alleviated by either the DA or ANC. Their time has past.
Majavu is a writer concentrating on the rights of workers, oppressed people, the environment, anti-militarism and what makes a better world. She is currently studying for a Masters Degree in New Zealand.
Source: by Anna Majavu: SACSIS
You know you are living in the most unequal country in the world when the mayor of a major metropolitan city can issue a self-congratulatory press statement – as the DA’s Patricia de Lille did recently – about the installation of less than 30 high-mast lights to be spread across numerous unlit informal settlements.
It is well known that in Cape Town’s townships and informal settlements, street lighting is almost non-existent, and as a result, that crime is rife. The complaint has been raised by residents at nearly every community meeting for years, no matter who organized the meeting or what else the meeting was supposed to be about. The DA likes to claim that communities vandalise every street light that ever gets installed but the truth is that street lighting has hardly been installed in the informal settlements and light bulbs are never replaced in the townships street lights. In Cape Town’s white suburbs, on the other hand, the DA city administration will send technicians out at 10pm to fix a streetlight bulb that died the same evening.
It emerged in a recent City of Cape Town press statement that poor, Black areas are not set to receive proper street lighting anytime soon. The DA city is instead going to rely on national government’s urban settlement development grant to install four lights here and there over the next two years. While the cost of keeping the streetlights on in white suburbs is part of the city’s normal budget, lighting the Black areas depends on donations.
The DA has already claimed that it is powerless to protect poor people on the Cape Flats from being caught in the crossfire between warring gangs, and that only the army would be able to do this. But with the re-emergence of necklacing in Khayelitsha as a community response to crime, the recent killings of four Cape Town metro police in the townships and the increase in the number of young people involved in violent gangs, it is clear that the DA is powerless on many more fronts and that things are unravelling fast in the “mother city”.
The concentration of public funds on white suburbs means the different races live totally different lives. White Capetonians can expect to wake up on the weekend and buy some beers for the night without incident. But for the past two Christmases, Khayelitsha residents have reported that police of all the different forces set up ad-hoc roadblocks on the pavements and ask residents returning from the bottle stores to show receipts for the beer they have purchased. If the residents have failed to keep their slips, or never got one, they are knocked around a bit and their alcohol confiscated. This is nothing to do with drinking in public but happens to ordinary people walking home after shopping.
More disturbingly, Black township residents are increasingly being subjected to the sight of public group killings, which increase the fear and insecurity in those areas. Several Khayelitsha residents vented their shock on Facebook just this past weekend at seeing groups of 14 year old youths killing each other in Makhaza Park.
"The park is full...it's blood everywhere. These boys are carrying weapons I have never seen in (my) life. This is too painful to see. We have been calling the police over and over but they haven't come," wrote one person. She later posted an update that two police had arrived, watched for a while and then left. "These kids are continuing", her desperate update read. Less than two hours later, another update read: "Sad to say, we have lost two young boys and others are injured...am numb".
Such horrific practices would be unthinkable in one of Cape Town’s white suburban parks. But in the townships, the government has allowed these incidents to become part of "normal" life.
It was only last week that Cape Town’s largest shack area, the Enkanini informal settlement, was provided with 452 electricity points – for 11 000 homes. How 24 families are going to share one power point is a mystery. The DA says another 2000 electricity connections will be turned on before May 2013 but that the rest of the electricity will be installed in phases. It is still not clear whether every home will eventually have its own electricity point or not. This informal settlement is situated in a highly urbanised city, which recently won the title of “World Design Capital”, yet its high school only got electricity last week!
Townships in the rest of the country are equally under-developed and crime plagued. Rural areas are also experiencing a spike in crime. The situation will continue to worsen rapidly until the DA and ANC abandon their practice of maintaining the living areas set up by apartheid’s Group Areas Act.
Unfortunately, this is unlikely to happen. The parties are two sides of the same coin. The ANC’s outdated neo-liberal economic policies were drawn up by the same international economists who wrote the policies of the DA. Successive ministers of Finance have focussed for 18 years now on pumping billions in public funds into tax breaks and incentives for overseas investors to set up factories that have never materialised.
Former president Thabo Mbeki said last week in a speech at Fort Hare university that South Africa was progressing “towards a costly disaster”, and was in a “dangerous and unacceptable situation of directionless and unguided national drift”.
This is rich coming from someone who, when he was in power, oversaw the arms deal; withheld anti-retroviral treatment from thousands of women living with HIV; set up the practice of wasting hundreds of millions of rands in public funds on hiring useless consultants for local and national government, and started the now defunct practice of paying retention bonuses to parastatal managers.
After 18 years, the DA and ANC have missed all opportunities to end apartheid in South Africa and improve the lives of the Black majority. The rapidly worsening situation, where more and more Black people are living without water, electricity, houses and schools as if in 17th century England, won’t be alleviated by either the DA or ANC. Their time has past.
Majavu is a writer concentrating on the rights of workers, oppressed people, the environment, anti-militarism and what makes a better world. She is currently studying for a Masters Degree in New Zealand.
Source: by Anna Majavu: SACSIS
Sunday, September 2, 2012
NPA won't divulge report on decision to drop Nkonyeni charges - DA KZN
ACTING KZN Prosecutions Director Moipone Noko has officially refused to release the report on why the National Prosecuting Authority (NPA) dropped fraud and corruption charges against two high-profile KZN politicians.
Advocate Noko wrote to the DA late Wednesday stating that the reasons for not charging KZN Speaker Peggy Nkonyeni and provincial Finance MEC Mike Mabuyakhulu are "confidential" and cannot be released. The DA will today officially submit a Promotion of Access to Information Act (PAIA) request to the NPA to get this information. We believe that the NPA must make the record of decision public as it is in the public's interest to know whether the criminal justice system is free from political bias.
This is important given the massive network of politicians and officials in multiple provinces who are linked to dealings with controversial businessman Gaston Savoi. The DA has previously won a Supreme Court of Appeal case against the NPA for the release of the report on why corruption charges against President Zuma were dropped.
We believe that the precedent set by this decision should also apply to the KZN NPA's report on the so-called "Amigo's" case.
Source: Politicsweb
Advocate Noko wrote to the DA late Wednesday stating that the reasons for not charging KZN Speaker Peggy Nkonyeni and provincial Finance MEC Mike Mabuyakhulu are "confidential" and cannot be released. The DA will today officially submit a Promotion of Access to Information Act (PAIA) request to the NPA to get this information. We believe that the NPA must make the record of decision public as it is in the public's interest to know whether the criminal justice system is free from political bias.
This is important given the massive network of politicians and officials in multiple provinces who are linked to dealings with controversial businessman Gaston Savoi. The DA has previously won a Supreme Court of Appeal case against the NPA for the release of the report on why corruption charges against President Zuma were dropped.
We believe that the precedent set by this decision should also apply to the KZN NPA's report on the so-called "Amigo's" case.
Source: Politicsweb
Monday, August 20, 2012
Violence a relic from people’s war to make SA ungovernable
NUMEROUS types of chickens are coming home to roost in South Africa.
During their long campaign to win power by making the country
ungovernable via a no-holds-barred "people’s war", the ruling alliance
made up of the African National Congress (ANC), the South African
Communist Party and the Congress of South African Trade Unions (Cosatu),
injected into the bloodstream of the body politic a virus of violence
that they cannot now eradicate.
Whether to enforce strikes or bus or school boycotts, protest against "service delivery" failures, back some or other demand on campus, or complain against trains that are late, violence in South Africa has become routine, not unusual. Nonstrikers are murdered (60 of them in the security guards strike in 2006), city centres or university buildings trashed, roads blockaded or railway coaches set alight. People from other parts of Africa who undercut local traders are threatened or even murdered in so-called xenophobic violence.
It is a tragic and bitter irony that all this is happening in a country that is second to none in constitutionally guaranteed and judicially protected democratic rights. The bitterest irony of all is how the virus of violence has corrupted parts of the trade union movement. During apartheid, when union officials were banned or detained without trial, and black unions frequently barred from factories by hostile employers, the emerging black union movement won its legal rights by a struggle that was essentially nonviolent.
Now, with a privileged position, plus organisational and strike rights that are also second to none around the world, unions have become increasingly intolerant, as the Democratic Alliance experienced during its recent march on Cosatu House.
Killing people in the context of inter-union rivalry at Lonmin is also a manifestation of a principle that the ruling alliance introduced during its people’s war, which was to eliminate rival political organisations as far as possible. One of the chickens that is now coming home to roost is that some of the rival factions within the ANC are now using violence — possibly even assassinations — against one another.
Another of the chickens is the poor quality of the police. Their behaviour at Lonmin is but the most lethal manifestation of a wider lack of professional skill, including frequent inability to master the basics of crime scene investigation.
Any intelligent leadership in the police force would have long ago foreseen the risks arising from our violent political culture. Proper training and equipment would long since have been provided to avoid precisely what happened at Lonmin. But, of course, the ANC has ensured that there is no proper leadership at the top of the police force. Instead, the police have become the plaything of rival factions in the ruling party, not to mention the victims of affirmative action and cadre deployment policies.
So South Africa is in a catch-22. The people’s war was part of the strategy of the national democratic revolution to make the country ungovernable. Continued adherence to the strategy of the national democratic revolution in the form of cadre deployment in particular results in a police force that cannot handle the violence that continues as a hangover from the people’s war.
One consequence of the ineptitude of the police is their inability to handle situations such as that at Lonmin without making things infinitely worse. Another is their inability to put a stop to the violence that now characterises so many demonstrations across the country. A third is their inability to secure prosecutions and convictions of violent demonstrators.
Over all of this presides a president out of his depth as CE of the state. His ministers take unto themselves more and more power. Yet, apart from collecting taxes, his government fails increasingly to get the very basics right, top of which is providing law and order under the rule of law. His fondness for singing about his machine gun while the whole nation listens symbolises the very culture of violence that is helping to ruin this country.
• Kane-Berman is CE of the South African Institute of Race Relations.
Source: Business Day
Whether to enforce strikes or bus or school boycotts, protest against "service delivery" failures, back some or other demand on campus, or complain against trains that are late, violence in South Africa has become routine, not unusual. Nonstrikers are murdered (60 of them in the security guards strike in 2006), city centres or university buildings trashed, roads blockaded or railway coaches set alight. People from other parts of Africa who undercut local traders are threatened or even murdered in so-called xenophobic violence.
It is a tragic and bitter irony that all this is happening in a country that is second to none in constitutionally guaranteed and judicially protected democratic rights. The bitterest irony of all is how the virus of violence has corrupted parts of the trade union movement. During apartheid, when union officials were banned or detained without trial, and black unions frequently barred from factories by hostile employers, the emerging black union movement won its legal rights by a struggle that was essentially nonviolent.
Now, with a privileged position, plus organisational and strike rights that are also second to none around the world, unions have become increasingly intolerant, as the Democratic Alliance experienced during its recent march on Cosatu House.
Killing people in the context of inter-union rivalry at Lonmin is also a manifestation of a principle that the ruling alliance introduced during its people’s war, which was to eliminate rival political organisations as far as possible. One of the chickens that is now coming home to roost is that some of the rival factions within the ANC are now using violence — possibly even assassinations — against one another.
Another of the chickens is the poor quality of the police. Their behaviour at Lonmin is but the most lethal manifestation of a wider lack of professional skill, including frequent inability to master the basics of crime scene investigation.
Any intelligent leadership in the police force would have long ago foreseen the risks arising from our violent political culture. Proper training and equipment would long since have been provided to avoid precisely what happened at Lonmin. But, of course, the ANC has ensured that there is no proper leadership at the top of the police force. Instead, the police have become the plaything of rival factions in the ruling party, not to mention the victims of affirmative action and cadre deployment policies.
So South Africa is in a catch-22. The people’s war was part of the strategy of the national democratic revolution to make the country ungovernable. Continued adherence to the strategy of the national democratic revolution in the form of cadre deployment in particular results in a police force that cannot handle the violence that continues as a hangover from the people’s war.
One consequence of the ineptitude of the police is their inability to handle situations such as that at Lonmin without making things infinitely worse. Another is their inability to put a stop to the violence that now characterises so many demonstrations across the country. A third is their inability to secure prosecutions and convictions of violent demonstrators.
Over all of this presides a president out of his depth as CE of the state. His ministers take unto themselves more and more power. Yet, apart from collecting taxes, his government fails increasingly to get the very basics right, top of which is providing law and order under the rule of law. His fondness for singing about his machine gun while the whole nation listens symbolises the very culture of violence that is helping to ruin this country.
• Kane-Berman is CE of the South African Institute of Race Relations.
Source: Business Day
Friday, August 17, 2012
'Youth must not fight old battles'
The youth in South Africa need to stop fighting their leaders’ battles, DA national spokesman Mmusi Maimane said on Thursday. “We have a new South Africa led by old South Africans with old South African thinking,” Maimane said in Johannesburg. “We need to look at what are we mobilising the youth to do.”
He said it was concerning when young people stood up and said they would kill for their leaders, and called to make provinces ungovernable. Former ANCYL leader Julius Malema said in 2008 that he was prepared to “take up arms and kill for [President Jacob] Zuma”. The league recently said it intended making the Western Cape ungovernable.
Maimane was speaking at a debate, hosted by the Institute for Justice and Reconciliation, between the Democratic Alliance, the Young Communist League of SA, and the ANC Youth League, about youth participation and mobilisation.
YCLSA national chairman Yershen Pillay said the country’s youth needed bold and radical policy decisions. “We need less dependence on the State if we are going to drive change.” This was why the proposed youth wage subsidy would not work. “It doesn’t adequately respond to... the unemployment we face.” Pillay said the youth subsidy served the interest of business rather than the youth, and did not consider the education and skills gap. The YCLSA was proposing a medium-term, and a long-term plan for 2050. This included investment in co-operative development. “We need to give young people a chance,” said Pillay. “There needs to be a cultural change, make education fashionable.” He said the youth needed education and skills development, access to information, and entrepreneurship development. “You have a melting pot of interventions. A culture of service needs to replace a culture of entitlement,” said Pillay.
The ANCYL’s Vuyo Roji said there were people in South Africa who wanted the economic status quo to stay the same. “There are enemies,” he said. On the National Development Plan tabled in Parliament on Wednesday, Roji said the ANCYL did not believe a “political elite” could solve the problems. “We don’t think academics can sit in a corner and tell us what we need to do.” The ANCYL’s vision was to have an economy which eliminated poverty. He said the youth league still believed in nationalising strategic sectors of the economy, expropriation of land without compensation, and free education. Youth leaders needed to provide leadership. “They must be able to persuade and be persuaded,” he said.
Source: Sowetan
He said it was concerning when young people stood up and said they would kill for their leaders, and called to make provinces ungovernable. Former ANCYL leader Julius Malema said in 2008 that he was prepared to “take up arms and kill for [President Jacob] Zuma”. The league recently said it intended making the Western Cape ungovernable.
Maimane was speaking at a debate, hosted by the Institute for Justice and Reconciliation, between the Democratic Alliance, the Young Communist League of SA, and the ANC Youth League, about youth participation and mobilisation.
YCLSA national chairman Yershen Pillay said the country’s youth needed bold and radical policy decisions. “We need less dependence on the State if we are going to drive change.” This was why the proposed youth wage subsidy would not work. “It doesn’t adequately respond to... the unemployment we face.” Pillay said the youth subsidy served the interest of business rather than the youth, and did not consider the education and skills gap. The YCLSA was proposing a medium-term, and a long-term plan for 2050. This included investment in co-operative development. “We need to give young people a chance,” said Pillay. “There needs to be a cultural change, make education fashionable.” He said the youth needed education and skills development, access to information, and entrepreneurship development. “You have a melting pot of interventions. A culture of service needs to replace a culture of entitlement,” said Pillay.
The ANCYL’s Vuyo Roji said there were people in South Africa who wanted the economic status quo to stay the same. “There are enemies,” he said. On the National Development Plan tabled in Parliament on Wednesday, Roji said the ANCYL did not believe a “political elite” could solve the problems. “We don’t think academics can sit in a corner and tell us what we need to do.” The ANCYL’s vision was to have an economy which eliminated poverty. He said the youth league still believed in nationalising strategic sectors of the economy, expropriation of land without compensation, and free education. Youth leaders needed to provide leadership. “They must be able to persuade and be persuaded,” he said.
Source: Sowetan
Monday, August 6, 2012
Young Communist League - firing Angie Motshekga won't help
The cheapest political point for any youth formation to score at this time is to jump onto the bandwagon of hatred for Angie Motshekga. The minister of basic education, as the foremost educator in the government, is taking a lot of heat for the mess that is the Limpopo education department. Having failed to deliver textbooks for schools for Grades 1 – 3 and 10 for more than half a year, the department has become a mockery and even the intervention of a provincial task team and the national department has not cleared the mess up. This has become so big that alliance members of the ruling African National Congress have started to voice their concerns. Very loudly and publicly.
When it emerged that national treasury would have to fork out additional funds to support a catch-up programme and pay teachers overtime, the Congress of South African Students president Bongani Mani said, “We reiterate our call to Mama Angie to stop playing games and embarrassing the ANC-led government any further and resign immediately [to] spare President Jacob Zuma the pain of having to fire her… Minister Angie must not force the National Treasury to waste taxpayers’ money; rather she must take [it] from her salary and all those found responsible [should] pay for all that needs to be paid to remedy the crisis that has emerged on her watch.”
For its part, the ANC Youth League threatened action if Motshekga did not go. The deputy secretary general Kenetswe Mosenogi said, “Minister Motshekga is herself an obstacle to education; she cannot take responsibility for the most basic of challenges. She must resign within two weeks or we will mobilise our members and occupy the basic education department in Pretoria.”
Yet at the 91st birthday rally of the South African Communist Party on Sunday, the secretary of the Young Communist League Buti Manamela said that firing Motshekga may not be a smart move since the rot actually lies deep in her department.
In an interview with Daily Maverick, he said that he did not specifically call for the DoBE minister to be fired because this was really the prerogative of the president. “[Zuma] has commissioned a report on the matter and he will decide what action to take based on that report, whether it is a rap on the knuckles, or redeploying [Motshekga], or whatever,” Manamela said.
He continued: “Whether the president decides to fire her or not, there are people in the department who are responsible for this. Even if you fire her, you have to clear out these people as well. You can call for Angie’s head, but it won’t help the situation.”
The YCL secretary directed most of his ire at EduSolutions, the company that won the tender to deliver textbooks in Limpopo. He said, “The people who were given business by government – they should not have been working with the government in the first place if they cannot do something as simple as taking a textbook from A to B. This goes to the heart of the crisis in the system. It goes to our call to ban tenders in crucial services in government.”
At the birthday rally, communist party general secretary Blade Nzimande said that the government should not be outsourcing services in ‘priority services’ as identified by the ANC, like education and health, but the state should build capacity to deliver these services itself.
Manamela said that there were stories emerging that suggested the EduSolutions problem was not limited to Limpopo, but that the company was overcharging the government in other provinces, and delivering the wrong textbooks all over the country where it has tenders.
He said that they were not excluding the possibility that someone or some people in Limpopo were deliberately sabotaging this task so as to interfere with the Section 100 administrative action taken by the national government in several departments in Limpopo.
At the end of last year, the Cabinet took a decision to enact a provision of the Constitution which allows it to inject itself unilaterally into a provincial government. Since the same document is very strict about separation of powers between the different tiers of government, a lot has to go wrong before the uppermost echelon can take such an action. Unfortunately for the people of that province, premier Cassel Mathale and several of his key people chose to interpret this as a hostile political move (perhaps aimed at punishing Mathale for his longstanding support for Zuma’s enemy, Julius Malema).
Whether the textbook crisis could have been sparked deliberately is a question we may never be able to answer, but we do already know that several suspects in the department have tried to silence one of the key whistle-blowers.
Ironically, the YCL stance brings it in line with that of the opposition party Democratic Alliance, which has said that Motshekga is perhaps not the one person to blame in this.
Party leader Helen Zille wrote, “…we in the Western Cape have experienced Minister Angie Motshekga as one of the few – perhaps the only – education ministers since the dawn of democracy 18 years ago who genuinely understands the needs of the school system and is prepared to take some tough decisions to fix it. She stands virtually alone, in the wasteland of education's ‘shell state’, where many incompetent cadres masquerade as top officials with fancy titles, but have little understanding of and even less commitment to the needs of education.”
Despite this stance, the party has since called for her to resign.
Meanwhile, the outcomes of a report commissioned by Zuma, and another by the Limpopo premier, are still to be announced or released publicly. An independent auditor sent out by the DoBE found that many schools still hadn’t received textbooks despite a court order compelling the department to clear the mess up by June 27.
Perhaps calls for Motshekga to resign are not that misplaced. The buck ought to, after all, stop with her. Sipho Hlongwane
Source: Daily Maverick
When it emerged that national treasury would have to fork out additional funds to support a catch-up programme and pay teachers overtime, the Congress of South African Students president Bongani Mani said, “We reiterate our call to Mama Angie to stop playing games and embarrassing the ANC-led government any further and resign immediately [to] spare President Jacob Zuma the pain of having to fire her… Minister Angie must not force the National Treasury to waste taxpayers’ money; rather she must take [it] from her salary and all those found responsible [should] pay for all that needs to be paid to remedy the crisis that has emerged on her watch.”
For its part, the ANC Youth League threatened action if Motshekga did not go. The deputy secretary general Kenetswe Mosenogi said, “Minister Motshekga is herself an obstacle to education; she cannot take responsibility for the most basic of challenges. She must resign within two weeks or we will mobilise our members and occupy the basic education department in Pretoria.”
Yet at the 91st birthday rally of the South African Communist Party on Sunday, the secretary of the Young Communist League Buti Manamela said that firing Motshekga may not be a smart move since the rot actually lies deep in her department.
In an interview with Daily Maverick, he said that he did not specifically call for the DoBE minister to be fired because this was really the prerogative of the president. “[Zuma] has commissioned a report on the matter and he will decide what action to take based on that report, whether it is a rap on the knuckles, or redeploying [Motshekga], or whatever,” Manamela said.
He continued: “Whether the president decides to fire her or not, there are people in the department who are responsible for this. Even if you fire her, you have to clear out these people as well. You can call for Angie’s head, but it won’t help the situation.”
The YCL secretary directed most of his ire at EduSolutions, the company that won the tender to deliver textbooks in Limpopo. He said, “The people who were given business by government – they should not have been working with the government in the first place if they cannot do something as simple as taking a textbook from A to B. This goes to the heart of the crisis in the system. It goes to our call to ban tenders in crucial services in government.”
At the birthday rally, communist party general secretary Blade Nzimande said that the government should not be outsourcing services in ‘priority services’ as identified by the ANC, like education and health, but the state should build capacity to deliver these services itself.
Manamela said that there were stories emerging that suggested the EduSolutions problem was not limited to Limpopo, but that the company was overcharging the government in other provinces, and delivering the wrong textbooks all over the country where it has tenders.
He said that they were not excluding the possibility that someone or some people in Limpopo were deliberately sabotaging this task so as to interfere with the Section 100 administrative action taken by the national government in several departments in Limpopo.
At the end of last year, the Cabinet took a decision to enact a provision of the Constitution which allows it to inject itself unilaterally into a provincial government. Since the same document is very strict about separation of powers between the different tiers of government, a lot has to go wrong before the uppermost echelon can take such an action. Unfortunately for the people of that province, premier Cassel Mathale and several of his key people chose to interpret this as a hostile political move (perhaps aimed at punishing Mathale for his longstanding support for Zuma’s enemy, Julius Malema).
Whether the textbook crisis could have been sparked deliberately is a question we may never be able to answer, but we do already know that several suspects in the department have tried to silence one of the key whistle-blowers.
Ironically, the YCL stance brings it in line with that of the opposition party Democratic Alliance, which has said that Motshekga is perhaps not the one person to blame in this.
Party leader Helen Zille wrote, “…we in the Western Cape have experienced Minister Angie Motshekga as one of the few – perhaps the only – education ministers since the dawn of democracy 18 years ago who genuinely understands the needs of the school system and is prepared to take some tough decisions to fix it. She stands virtually alone, in the wasteland of education's ‘shell state’, where many incompetent cadres masquerade as top officials with fancy titles, but have little understanding of and even less commitment to the needs of education.”
Despite this stance, the party has since called for her to resign.
Meanwhile, the outcomes of a report commissioned by Zuma, and another by the Limpopo premier, are still to be announced or released publicly. An independent auditor sent out by the DoBE found that many schools still hadn’t received textbooks despite a court order compelling the department to clear the mess up by June 27.
Perhaps calls for Motshekga to resign are not that misplaced. The buck ought to, after all, stop with her. Sipho Hlongwane
Source: Daily Maverick
Monday, July 23, 2012
PAUL HOFFMAN: Good chance of success for DA review of Zuma decision
The corridor chatter in places legal is that the DA’s review of the NPA’s decision not to proceed with the prosecution of President Jacob Zuma should be successful.
THE "good guys" in the National Prosecuting Authority (NPA), and there are many of them, must be kicking themselves today because they did not charge Jacob Zuma and Schabir Shaik together in the same case. The latter was sentenced to 15 years for corrupting the former, who is now the president of SA. The benefit of hindsight, that 20/20 vision it invariably imparts, is not always so beneficial, as the contrasting fates of Zuma and Shaik show.
In the latest twist in the saga of the cases of these two senior African National Congress (ANC) members, the Democratic Alliance (DA), which launched a review of the NPA’s decision not to proceed with the prosecution of Zuma in 2009, has instructed its attorneys to institute contempt of court proceedings against the NPA. This unique step has been taken because it has failed to comply with the March 20 order of the Supreme Court of Appeal that it deliver, within 14 days, the record of all the documents, recordings, materials and evidence that were before it when it considered, and made, the fateful decision not to proceed with the 783 charges of corruption Zuma was facing in the run-up to the last general election in May 2009.
It needs to be borne in mind that when the acting national director of public prosecutions, Mokotedi Mpshe, announced the decision, he made it clear that the NPA was convinced it had a good case on the merits of the charges against Zuma.
In other words, the NPA was bullish about its prospects of proving beyond any reasonable doubt that Zuma was corrupt.
The reason proffered for withdrawing the charges was that political interference in the process had so tainted the case that it would not be possible to give Zuma a fair trial.
Unfortunately, the evidence upon which this conclusion was based is far from relevant or convincing. The controversial conversation between former colleagues Bulelani Ngcuka and Leonard M cCarthy, neither of whom had any say in the matter of the pressing and timing of charges, is best characterised as idle and irrelevant gossiping, not as a train smash for the proper administration of criminal justice.
The person who made the decisions, Mpshe himself, was not aware of the content of the clandestinely taped conversation at any material time, so how it could have influenced or interfered with his decision-making processes remains a mystery and gives the DA good grounds for taking him on review, as it has done.
The small matter of how the tape recording relied upon by Mpshe came to be in the possession of the attorney acting for then private citizen Zuma, when there is no legal way in which this can happen, is also a matter that will cast doubt upon the propriety of the decision to withdraw the charges that Zuma was facing. And then, to complete the potted prehistory of the current issue, there is the embarrassing detail that the Hong Kong legal precedent that the NPA dug up to justify its otherwise mystifying decision was overturned on appeal before Mpshe relied on it. In short, the DA’s review has good prospects of success, if its merits can ever be reached by overcoming the delaying and point-taking tactics of the respondents in the matter.
If this occurs before Mangaung hosts the ANC’s elective national conference in December, then the cat will truly be among the pigeons. Whether the DA would prefer a second Zuma presidential term or not, the old legal axiom applies: justice delayed is justice denied. Retired chief justice Pius Langa had occasion to admonish Zuma’s legal team to desist from endless preliminary technical point-taking in earlier litigation; but the habit of the Stalingrad strategy seems to die hard.
In the DA’s press release announcing the decision to deal with the NPA’s disregard for the court order, certainly a lamentable state of affairs, a few rhetorical questions are raised in an attempt to breathe outrage into the wholly predictable. Usually, rhetorical questions have obvious answers, but this is not necessarily so in this instance. Seriatim:
"Is the failure to produce the record an indication that there is no record to produce?" This is hardly likely. The phalanx of exhausted and miserable-looking senior staff who flanked Mpshe as he made the announcement on national TV could not have been doing sweet nothing in the process of compiling the announcement. The fact that the announcement itself included mention of the strength of the merits of the case, in the view of the NPA, is an indication that there were conflicting views behind the looks of disappointed disbelief on the faces in the background. It is likely that a flurry of memorandums and e-mails preceded the announcement. Finding the Hong Kong case took effort. The NPA’s problem today is that these documents most likely point up the flaws in the decision made, hence the tardiness, possibly aimed at kicking the case into touch until the post-Mangaung period.
"Is it possible that there was no rational basis on which this crucial decision was taken?" Here the DA is closer to the mark. The taped conversation upon which the decision hinged seems to be legally irrelevant and practically of no real consequence. Its provenance is highly questionable; courts do not have regard to illegally acquired evidence and neither should the NPA.
"Was the decision taken on political grounds?" This is hyperbole. The grounds for the decision were announced at the time, they were couched in legal, not political, terms and the decision has to stand or fall on the cogency of the legal reasons given, irrespective of the background hum from highly placed cadres of the ANC, both within and outside the NPA, who were all undoubtedly putting political pressure on the hapless and vulnerable Mpshe.
"Is the NPA party to placing someone above the law just because he holds high political office?" It is not clear whether this last DA question refers to the alleged contempt of court now, or the original decision back in 2009. Section nine of the bill of rights guarantees equality before the law to all. The NPA is bound to respect and protect this. It is also supposed to act independently and "without fear, favour or prejudice".
Zuma was a private citizen when the prosecution was stopped. He was also leader of the ANC, a party that is openly and unashamedly striving for hegemonic control of all the levers of power in society. Zuma deployed Menzi Simelane (not Mpshe, who went after Jackie Selebi despite political interference in that, ultimately successful, prosecution process) as his new national director of public prosecutions. At the time, this was described as an "insurance policy" against the risk of the DA succeeding in the review, the completion of which is now being thwarted by foot-dragging and obfuscation. As the whole game plan of the ANC is to put party above state, or at least so commingle them as to render the two indistinguishable, the answer must unfortunately be a disgraceful "yes" on the aspects back then of the ambiguous question, as well as those now.
As the courts have sent Simelane packing by resoundingly upholding the rule of law, the corridor chatter in places legal is that the DA’s review should be successful. This involves the reinstatement of the 783 corruption charges. Should this happen, it remains to be seen whether Zuma will follow Humphrey Mmemezi, a former Gauteng MEC and art lover, into resignation in accordance with the new guidelines for comrades under a corruption cloud.
• Hoffman SC is with the Institute for Accountability in Southern Africa
Source: Business Day
THE "good guys" in the National Prosecuting Authority (NPA), and there are many of them, must be kicking themselves today because they did not charge Jacob Zuma and Schabir Shaik together in the same case. The latter was sentenced to 15 years for corrupting the former, who is now the president of SA. The benefit of hindsight, that 20/20 vision it invariably imparts, is not always so beneficial, as the contrasting fates of Zuma and Shaik show.
In the latest twist in the saga of the cases of these two senior African National Congress (ANC) members, the Democratic Alliance (DA), which launched a review of the NPA’s decision not to proceed with the prosecution of Zuma in 2009, has instructed its attorneys to institute contempt of court proceedings against the NPA. This unique step has been taken because it has failed to comply with the March 20 order of the Supreme Court of Appeal that it deliver, within 14 days, the record of all the documents, recordings, materials and evidence that were before it when it considered, and made, the fateful decision not to proceed with the 783 charges of corruption Zuma was facing in the run-up to the last general election in May 2009.
It needs to be borne in mind that when the acting national director of public prosecutions, Mokotedi Mpshe, announced the decision, he made it clear that the NPA was convinced it had a good case on the merits of the charges against Zuma.
In other words, the NPA was bullish about its prospects of proving beyond any reasonable doubt that Zuma was corrupt.
The reason proffered for withdrawing the charges was that political interference in the process had so tainted the case that it would not be possible to give Zuma a fair trial.
Unfortunately, the evidence upon which this conclusion was based is far from relevant or convincing. The controversial conversation between former colleagues Bulelani Ngcuka and Leonard M cCarthy, neither of whom had any say in the matter of the pressing and timing of charges, is best characterised as idle and irrelevant gossiping, not as a train smash for the proper administration of criminal justice.
The person who made the decisions, Mpshe himself, was not aware of the content of the clandestinely taped conversation at any material time, so how it could have influenced or interfered with his decision-making processes remains a mystery and gives the DA good grounds for taking him on review, as it has done.
The small matter of how the tape recording relied upon by Mpshe came to be in the possession of the attorney acting for then private citizen Zuma, when there is no legal way in which this can happen, is also a matter that will cast doubt upon the propriety of the decision to withdraw the charges that Zuma was facing. And then, to complete the potted prehistory of the current issue, there is the embarrassing detail that the Hong Kong legal precedent that the NPA dug up to justify its otherwise mystifying decision was overturned on appeal before Mpshe relied on it. In short, the DA’s review has good prospects of success, if its merits can ever be reached by overcoming the delaying and point-taking tactics of the respondents in the matter.
If this occurs before Mangaung hosts the ANC’s elective national conference in December, then the cat will truly be among the pigeons. Whether the DA would prefer a second Zuma presidential term or not, the old legal axiom applies: justice delayed is justice denied. Retired chief justice Pius Langa had occasion to admonish Zuma’s legal team to desist from endless preliminary technical point-taking in earlier litigation; but the habit of the Stalingrad strategy seems to die hard.
In the DA’s press release announcing the decision to deal with the NPA’s disregard for the court order, certainly a lamentable state of affairs, a few rhetorical questions are raised in an attempt to breathe outrage into the wholly predictable. Usually, rhetorical questions have obvious answers, but this is not necessarily so in this instance. Seriatim:
"Is the failure to produce the record an indication that there is no record to produce?" This is hardly likely. The phalanx of exhausted and miserable-looking senior staff who flanked Mpshe as he made the announcement on national TV could not have been doing sweet nothing in the process of compiling the announcement. The fact that the announcement itself included mention of the strength of the merits of the case, in the view of the NPA, is an indication that there were conflicting views behind the looks of disappointed disbelief on the faces in the background. It is likely that a flurry of memorandums and e-mails preceded the announcement. Finding the Hong Kong case took effort. The NPA’s problem today is that these documents most likely point up the flaws in the decision made, hence the tardiness, possibly aimed at kicking the case into touch until the post-Mangaung period.
"Is it possible that there was no rational basis on which this crucial decision was taken?" Here the DA is closer to the mark. The taped conversation upon which the decision hinged seems to be legally irrelevant and practically of no real consequence. Its provenance is highly questionable; courts do not have regard to illegally acquired evidence and neither should the NPA.
"Was the decision taken on political grounds?" This is hyperbole. The grounds for the decision were announced at the time, they were couched in legal, not political, terms and the decision has to stand or fall on the cogency of the legal reasons given, irrespective of the background hum from highly placed cadres of the ANC, both within and outside the NPA, who were all undoubtedly putting political pressure on the hapless and vulnerable Mpshe.
"Is the NPA party to placing someone above the law just because he holds high political office?" It is not clear whether this last DA question refers to the alleged contempt of court now, or the original decision back in 2009. Section nine of the bill of rights guarantees equality before the law to all. The NPA is bound to respect and protect this. It is also supposed to act independently and "without fear, favour or prejudice".
Zuma was a private citizen when the prosecution was stopped. He was also leader of the ANC, a party that is openly and unashamedly striving for hegemonic control of all the levers of power in society. Zuma deployed Menzi Simelane (not Mpshe, who went after Jackie Selebi despite political interference in that, ultimately successful, prosecution process) as his new national director of public prosecutions. At the time, this was described as an "insurance policy" against the risk of the DA succeeding in the review, the completion of which is now being thwarted by foot-dragging and obfuscation. As the whole game plan of the ANC is to put party above state, or at least so commingle them as to render the two indistinguishable, the answer must unfortunately be a disgraceful "yes" on the aspects back then of the ambiguous question, as well as those now.
As the courts have sent Simelane packing by resoundingly upholding the rule of law, the corridor chatter in places legal is that the DA’s review should be successful. This involves the reinstatement of the 783 corruption charges. Should this happen, it remains to be seen whether Zuma will follow Humphrey Mmemezi, a former Gauteng MEC and art lover, into resignation in accordance with the new guidelines for comrades under a corruption cloud.
• Hoffman SC is with the Institute for Accountability in Southern Africa
Source: Business Day
Wednesday, July 18, 2012
And what is our government doing (about education)?
As thousands of pious (and often well-meaning) citizens across South Africa congratulate themselves for contributing 67 minutes of their time to a worthy cause on Nelson Mandela’s birthday today (perhaps unconsciously trying to absolve themselves from responsibility for redressing the inequality of opportunity in our country on the other 364 days, 22 hours and 53 minutes of the year) I wonder what our government is doing every day of the year to promote the vision of Nelson Mandela to achieve a just, fair and egalitarian society.
Surely, one of the most pressing priorities for any government in South Africa must be the improvement of the education system and the provision of better education to a far larger range of pupils to ensure that the life chances of all children are not largely determined by how much money their parents can spend on their education, but are rather determined by the talent, hard work and enthusiasm of the children themselves.
After 18 years we are still very far from this ideal and might, in fact, have gone backwards. A child who happens to have a Cabinet Minister, Member of Parliament, City Councillor, or tenderpreneur as a parent or whose parents happen to be relatively wealthy because they had benefited from the apartheid system, has every chance of receiving a relatively good education. But many children in South Africa will never flourish and will never achieve their full potential merely because of an accident of birth.
That is why I was rather surprised to hear that the Western Cape government is considering closing 27 schools in the province. It became even more perplexing to me when I read that Western Cape Education MEC Donald Grant had said at a media briefing that he had drawn up a rough estimate on what the cost savings to the department would be should all the schools be closed and “they were insignificant when one compares that with the (provincial) education department’s R14b budget”.
In a fact sheet, the Western Cape Education Department cited a rather surprising Department of Basic Education statistic that between 2006 and 2010 about 1000 schools were closed across the country. Our education system is in a crisis, yet more than a 1000 schools have been closed across South Africa, a fact that warrants further investigation, it seems to me. Mr Grant said it was not his idea to close the schools and that the national department recommended the closures.
Several reasons have been offered for the possible closure of schools. Some of the schools slated for closure in the Western Cape are situated on private land and the argument is that they need to be closed because government finance regulations prohibited any further investment in the facilities by the department.
Why these regulations could not be changed to facilitate investment in schools on private land, is not explained. Why the common law rules on property rights could not be developed to bring it in line with the spirit, purport and object of the Bill of Rights – which guarantees basic education for all – in order to address concerns about investing in school buildings on private property is also not explained. People, we are never going to solve the problems associated with the provision of education to pupils in deep rural areas, if we do not stop thinking like rule-bound bureaucrats and if we do not begin to think innovatively about problems and how to solve them.
Closing smaller schools, so it is argued, would also save cost in terms of services such as water and electricity. But to what extent such a move would effect access to schooling for especially children living in sparsely populated rural areas is not considered. Sometimes one must incur extra cost to ensure equal treatment of all children as far as access to schooling is concerned. The failure to do so would often discriminate against rural children who might not be able to attend school because they are unable to get to and from the school due to lack of transport or lack of funds to pay for the transport.
Some schools are said to face closure because many of their pupils do not live in the area in which the school is situated. But there might be many reasons why parents send their children to a school in an area in which they are not domiciled. The child may informally stay with a grandparent or another family member who lives close to the school, or the school might be closer to the place of work of the parent and it might be easier for the parent to get the child to the school close to his or her work. The school in the catchment area where the parents live might also be dysfunctional. Closing a school and in effect punishing children for not living in the area in which the school is situated (or living in an area where a school is dysfunctional) seems not to take into account the complexities of people’s lives and their needs as parents and pupils.
Other schools are said to face closure (or have been closed in other provinces) because they were identified as consistently having a high failure rate or a high failure rate in core subjects. While closing such schools will “solve” the immediate problem of the failing school (and is much easier to do than actually turning around the culture in the school and making it succeed), it once again seems to ignore the human element, the needs of parents and pupils and the possible complexities of their lives that led to the children being schooled at that particular school in the first place. Even when schools are therefore closed “for the benefit of the pupils”, it is often done using the cold-hearted logic of a bureaucrat and not focusing on the peculiar and often complex needs of children and their parents who attend that school.
There might well be cases where the only sensible thing to do would be to close a particular school, but surely the assumption must be that this is seldom the right thing to do. Where the National Education Department or Provincial Education Department proposes the closure of a school, the onus should be on them to provide cogent, convincing reasons not merely based on bureaucratic considerations about saving money or about problems with government regulations (which can always be changed). Neither the National Department nor the Western Cape Education Department has really provided cogent reasons, based on the actual needs of the children and their parents, of why these schools have to be closed. (I am not saying such reasons might not exist in individual cases, but if these reasons exist, they have not been properly communicated to the public.)
This, I think, is also what is required by our Constitution. Section 29(1) of the Constitution states that everyone has the right “to a basic education, including adult basic education”, and unlike many of the other social and economic rights in the Bill of Rights, this right is not qualified by the proviso that the state only had to take reasonable steps within its available resources progressively to realise the right. Last year in a judgment in the case of Governing Body of the Juma Musjid Primary School & Others v Essay N.O. and Others the Constitutional Court confirmed that this means that the right to basic education places an immediate obligation on the state to provide such education to all:
But even if this was not so, section 29(1) places a negative obligation on the state not to interfere with the existing enjoyment of the right to education. Where the Education Department proposes the closure of a school, it will have to demonstrate that this closure is not going to make it more difficult for the children at the school that is to be closed to access education. For children attending farm schools, for example, the closure of a school might well infringe on their right to education by making it more difficult if not impossible for them to attend another school that is far less accessible to the child. And where a child attends a school because it is closer to the place of work of the parent, the closure of that school might well infringe on that child’s right to education because it would become more difficult for the parent to get the child to school and will potentially limit that child’s access to schooling.
Has the Western Cape Department of Education considered the individual needs of the children attending the schools it now wishes to close? And did the National Department do likewise when it closed more than a 1000 schools over the past five years? I can’t imagine that they have, suggesting that there might well be a legal basis for challenging these decisions on school closures. In the absence of clear reasons, based on the actual situation and needs of the pupils and tehir parents, the closure of existing schools will be unconstitutional as it will infringe on the right of access to education.
Of course, this is a small matter compared to the larger, clearly catastrophic, failure of our education system to provide all children regardless of their race and financial circumstances with at least a basic quality education, a failure shockingly illustrated by the Limpopo textbook scandal. But news that so many schools have been closed and that more closures are to follow does seem to illustrate – in its small way – the rather cold-hearted and bureaucratic manner in which various spheres of our government deal with a pivotal issue around the improvement of our education system.
Instead of bending over backwards and working feverishly to provide more pupils with better access to higher quality education, our politicians and bureaucrats fold their hands and shrug their shoulders, pointing to technicalities and blaming others to evade responsibility for the improvement of education. Running up against government regulations, they throw their hands in the air and decide to close a school, rather than to do the obvious thing and change the regulation to allow for investment in schools on private land.
How can our cabinet – both collectively and individually in the form of the Minister of Basic Education – justify this state of affairs? Why are we – as parents, as citizens, as individuals with even a smidgen of humanity – allowing this to happen? Why did the SACP at its recent conference not produce a ten point plan for the improvement of our education system over the next five years and why did it not set an ultimatum for the ANC-led government to implement this plan or face a breakup of the alliance? Why did the ANC delegates at its recent policy conference not take a stand on the failures in education by refusing to leave the conference hall or to endorse any of the resolutions until the Minister of Education and other Cabinet Ministers had provided them with concrete plans for the immediate improvement of the education system (or had promised to resign)? Why did Cosatu not organise an indefinite strike to achieve the same goals?
Oh yes, I forgot, most of our leaders send their children to private schools or to the best government schools and are therefore not affected by the failure of so many of our schools. It’s “only” the poor, the very poor they profess to respect and serve, who are suffering.
Source: Constitutionally Speaking
Surely, one of the most pressing priorities for any government in South Africa must be the improvement of the education system and the provision of better education to a far larger range of pupils to ensure that the life chances of all children are not largely determined by how much money their parents can spend on their education, but are rather determined by the talent, hard work and enthusiasm of the children themselves.
After 18 years we are still very far from this ideal and might, in fact, have gone backwards. A child who happens to have a Cabinet Minister, Member of Parliament, City Councillor, or tenderpreneur as a parent or whose parents happen to be relatively wealthy because they had benefited from the apartheid system, has every chance of receiving a relatively good education. But many children in South Africa will never flourish and will never achieve their full potential merely because of an accident of birth.
That is why I was rather surprised to hear that the Western Cape government is considering closing 27 schools in the province. It became even more perplexing to me when I read that Western Cape Education MEC Donald Grant had said at a media briefing that he had drawn up a rough estimate on what the cost savings to the department would be should all the schools be closed and “they were insignificant when one compares that with the (provincial) education department’s R14b budget”.
In a fact sheet, the Western Cape Education Department cited a rather surprising Department of Basic Education statistic that between 2006 and 2010 about 1000 schools were closed across the country. Our education system is in a crisis, yet more than a 1000 schools have been closed across South Africa, a fact that warrants further investigation, it seems to me. Mr Grant said it was not his idea to close the schools and that the national department recommended the closures.
Several reasons have been offered for the possible closure of schools. Some of the schools slated for closure in the Western Cape are situated on private land and the argument is that they need to be closed because government finance regulations prohibited any further investment in the facilities by the department.
Why these regulations could not be changed to facilitate investment in schools on private land, is not explained. Why the common law rules on property rights could not be developed to bring it in line with the spirit, purport and object of the Bill of Rights – which guarantees basic education for all – in order to address concerns about investing in school buildings on private property is also not explained. People, we are never going to solve the problems associated with the provision of education to pupils in deep rural areas, if we do not stop thinking like rule-bound bureaucrats and if we do not begin to think innovatively about problems and how to solve them.
Closing smaller schools, so it is argued, would also save cost in terms of services such as water and electricity. But to what extent such a move would effect access to schooling for especially children living in sparsely populated rural areas is not considered. Sometimes one must incur extra cost to ensure equal treatment of all children as far as access to schooling is concerned. The failure to do so would often discriminate against rural children who might not be able to attend school because they are unable to get to and from the school due to lack of transport or lack of funds to pay for the transport.
Some schools are said to face closure because many of their pupils do not live in the area in which the school is situated. But there might be many reasons why parents send their children to a school in an area in which they are not domiciled. The child may informally stay with a grandparent or another family member who lives close to the school, or the school might be closer to the place of work of the parent and it might be easier for the parent to get the child to the school close to his or her work. The school in the catchment area where the parents live might also be dysfunctional. Closing a school and in effect punishing children for not living in the area in which the school is situated (or living in an area where a school is dysfunctional) seems not to take into account the complexities of people’s lives and their needs as parents and pupils.
Other schools are said to face closure (or have been closed in other provinces) because they were identified as consistently having a high failure rate or a high failure rate in core subjects. While closing such schools will “solve” the immediate problem of the failing school (and is much easier to do than actually turning around the culture in the school and making it succeed), it once again seems to ignore the human element, the needs of parents and pupils and the possible complexities of their lives that led to the children being schooled at that particular school in the first place. Even when schools are therefore closed “for the benefit of the pupils”, it is often done using the cold-hearted logic of a bureaucrat and not focusing on the peculiar and often complex needs of children and their parents who attend that school.
There might well be cases where the only sensible thing to do would be to close a particular school, but surely the assumption must be that this is seldom the right thing to do. Where the National Education Department or Provincial Education Department proposes the closure of a school, the onus should be on them to provide cogent, convincing reasons not merely based on bureaucratic considerations about saving money or about problems with government regulations (which can always be changed). Neither the National Department nor the Western Cape Education Department has really provided cogent reasons, based on the actual needs of the children and their parents, of why these schools have to be closed. (I am not saying such reasons might not exist in individual cases, but if these reasons exist, they have not been properly communicated to the public.)
This, I think, is also what is required by our Constitution. Section 29(1) of the Constitution states that everyone has the right “to a basic education, including adult basic education”, and unlike many of the other social and economic rights in the Bill of Rights, this right is not qualified by the proviso that the state only had to take reasonable steps within its available resources progressively to realise the right. Last year in a judgment in the case of Governing Body of the Juma Musjid Primary School & Others v Essay N.O. and Others the Constitutional Court confirmed that this means that the right to basic education places an immediate obligation on the state to provide such education to all:
Unlike some of the other socio-economic rights, this right is immediately realisable. There is no internal limitation requiring that the right be “progressively realised” within “available resources” subject to “reasonable legislative measures”. The right to a basic education in section 29(1)(a) may be limited only in terms of a law of general application which is “reasonable and justifiable in an open and democratic society based on human dignity, equality and freedom”.
But even if this was not so, section 29(1) places a negative obligation on the state not to interfere with the existing enjoyment of the right to education. Where the Education Department proposes the closure of a school, it will have to demonstrate that this closure is not going to make it more difficult for the children at the school that is to be closed to access education. For children attending farm schools, for example, the closure of a school might well infringe on their right to education by making it more difficult if not impossible for them to attend another school that is far less accessible to the child. And where a child attends a school because it is closer to the place of work of the parent, the closure of that school might well infringe on that child’s right to education because it would become more difficult for the parent to get the child to school and will potentially limit that child’s access to schooling.
Has the Western Cape Department of Education considered the individual needs of the children attending the schools it now wishes to close? And did the National Department do likewise when it closed more than a 1000 schools over the past five years? I can’t imagine that they have, suggesting that there might well be a legal basis for challenging these decisions on school closures. In the absence of clear reasons, based on the actual situation and needs of the pupils and tehir parents, the closure of existing schools will be unconstitutional as it will infringe on the right of access to education.
Of course, this is a small matter compared to the larger, clearly catastrophic, failure of our education system to provide all children regardless of their race and financial circumstances with at least a basic quality education, a failure shockingly illustrated by the Limpopo textbook scandal. But news that so many schools have been closed and that more closures are to follow does seem to illustrate – in its small way – the rather cold-hearted and bureaucratic manner in which various spheres of our government deal with a pivotal issue around the improvement of our education system.
Instead of bending over backwards and working feverishly to provide more pupils with better access to higher quality education, our politicians and bureaucrats fold their hands and shrug their shoulders, pointing to technicalities and blaming others to evade responsibility for the improvement of education. Running up against government regulations, they throw their hands in the air and decide to close a school, rather than to do the obvious thing and change the regulation to allow for investment in schools on private land.
How can our cabinet – both collectively and individually in the form of the Minister of Basic Education – justify this state of affairs? Why are we – as parents, as citizens, as individuals with even a smidgen of humanity – allowing this to happen? Why did the SACP at its recent conference not produce a ten point plan for the improvement of our education system over the next five years and why did it not set an ultimatum for the ANC-led government to implement this plan or face a breakup of the alliance? Why did the ANC delegates at its recent policy conference not take a stand on the failures in education by refusing to leave the conference hall or to endorse any of the resolutions until the Minister of Education and other Cabinet Ministers had provided them with concrete plans for the immediate improvement of the education system (or had promised to resign)? Why did Cosatu not organise an indefinite strike to achieve the same goals?
Oh yes, I forgot, most of our leaders send their children to private schools or to the best government schools and are therefore not affected by the failure of so many of our schools. It’s “only” the poor, the very poor they profess to respect and serve, who are suffering.
Source: Constitutionally Speaking
Friday, June 15, 2012
It's just a case of putting them in their place
Princess and the peeve
AS Vera was floating about at defence headquarters in Pretoria she came across a woman sobbing inconsolably. On closer inspection it turned out it was none other than Princess Nonceba Lindiwe Sisulu. People in the corridors were whispering that she had just been moved from the glamorous Defence Ministry to the gritty Public Service ministry. So she would now no longer be able to wear those sexy military uniforms to state events. She would no longer be saluted by generals and admirals. She would also no longer be in a position to refuse to answer questions for "security reasons". No longer will she be able to scream at the DA's David Maynier.
Aaagh shame, poor thing.
Wardrobe malfunction
Adding to the princess' misery is that she will now have to hang around Zwelinzima Vavi, Sadtu's Thobile Ntola, Nehawu's Fikile Majola and those guys from Solidarity. And instead of slapping striking soldiers with court-martials, she will have to accept memoranda from angry workers. Vera can't wait to see which fashion label she'll be wearing when she addresses workers from the back of a truck.
Blunt Blade cuts losses
Vera's favourite bourgeois communist put on his boxing gloves and went to Durban recently to put workers in their place. After angering the workers by chastising them for demanding that he leave his cushy government job and lose his flashy car, he then tried to charm them. He did many Phansi! slogans and got the enthusiastic Phansi! responses from the workers. But being a cabinet minister he could not bring himself to say Phansi !nge e-tolls Phansi!, prompting workers to shout him down.
The bourgeois communist, who had never been booed by unionists before, ended up in hospital recovering from the emotional breakdown. But as soon as he heard that some ANC leaders planned to take on President Jacob "I know what I'm doing" Zuma at the NEC meeting, he got out of his pyjamas and ran off to defend his paymaster.
Know where your bread is buttered...
Cop is being caught up
THE new top cop, Mangwashi Phiyega, started her career on a high note this week by feeding the media with nice sound-bites. Quizzed about her lack of policing experience, she simply said: "You do not need to be a drunkard to own a bottle store." She may as well have continued to say you do not need to be a drug addict to push drugs. Nice start, but Vera thinks she will need a lot of work to catch up to Bheki Cele, the master of great quotes.
Vera would like to share a little observation. When Maria Ramos arrived at Transnet in 2004, she and Phiyega were immediately at each others' throats. Phiyega jumped ship and went to Absa. Then Ramos left Transnet to head up Absa. Phiyega was forced to jump ship again to flee her nemesis. Based on this pattern, Vera predicts that Ramos' next job is minister of police.
Vera's Question of the Week: Will the new top cop be patrolling the streets of Hillbrow on New Year's eve?
Source: The Sowetan
AS Vera was floating about at defence headquarters in Pretoria she came across a woman sobbing inconsolably. On closer inspection it turned out it was none other than Princess Nonceba Lindiwe Sisulu. People in the corridors were whispering that she had just been moved from the glamorous Defence Ministry to the gritty Public Service ministry. So she would now no longer be able to wear those sexy military uniforms to state events. She would no longer be saluted by generals and admirals. She would also no longer be in a position to refuse to answer questions for "security reasons". No longer will she be able to scream at the DA's David Maynier.
Aaagh shame, poor thing.
Wardrobe malfunction
Adding to the princess' misery is that she will now have to hang around Zwelinzima Vavi, Sadtu's Thobile Ntola, Nehawu's Fikile Majola and those guys from Solidarity. And instead of slapping striking soldiers with court-martials, she will have to accept memoranda from angry workers. Vera can't wait to see which fashion label she'll be wearing when she addresses workers from the back of a truck.
Blunt Blade cuts losses
Vera's favourite bourgeois communist put on his boxing gloves and went to Durban recently to put workers in their place. After angering the workers by chastising them for demanding that he leave his cushy government job and lose his flashy car, he then tried to charm them. He did many Phansi! slogans and got the enthusiastic Phansi! responses from the workers. But being a cabinet minister he could not bring himself to say Phansi !nge e-tolls Phansi!, prompting workers to shout him down.
The bourgeois communist, who had never been booed by unionists before, ended up in hospital recovering from the emotional breakdown. But as soon as he heard that some ANC leaders planned to take on President Jacob "I know what I'm doing" Zuma at the NEC meeting, he got out of his pyjamas and ran off to defend his paymaster.
Know where your bread is buttered...
Cop is being caught up
THE new top cop, Mangwashi Phiyega, started her career on a high note this week by feeding the media with nice sound-bites. Quizzed about her lack of policing experience, she simply said: "You do not need to be a drunkard to own a bottle store." She may as well have continued to say you do not need to be a drug addict to push drugs. Nice start, but Vera thinks she will need a lot of work to catch up to Bheki Cele, the master of great quotes.
Vera would like to share a little observation. When Maria Ramos arrived at Transnet in 2004, she and Phiyega were immediately at each others' throats. Phiyega jumped ship and went to Absa. Then Ramos left Transnet to head up Absa. Phiyega was forced to jump ship again to flee her nemesis. Based on this pattern, Vera predicts that Ramos' next job is minister of police.
Vera's Question of the Week: Will the new top cop be patrolling the streets of Hillbrow on New Year's eve?
Source: The Sowetan
Tuesday, March 20, 2012
SCA orders NPA to hand over record of Zuma charges
The Supreme Court of Appeal upheld an attempt by the Democratic Alliance on Tuesday for access to the records that led to the suspension of criminal charges against President Jacob Zuma in 2009. The DA wanted a review of the decision, by then acting National Director of Public Prosecutions Mokotedi Mpshe, to drop charges against Zuma before he was elected president. The DA had called on the National Prosecuting Authority to produce the record of proceedings that led to the decision.
The court held that Mpshe's decision on April 6 2009, to discontinue the prosecution of Zuma on corruption charges, would be subject to review. The SCA ruled that Mpshe should hand over the record to the registrar of the Supreme Court of Appeal within 14 days. The record should, however, exclude written representations made on behalf of Zuma and any consequent memoranda or reports prepared in response, or oral representations, if their production would breach confidentiality agreements.
The SCA further held that the record should consist of the documents and material relevant to the review, including those before Mpshe when he made his decision. NPA spokesperson Mthunzi Mhaga said it would study the judgment to determine the next legal steps. "We wish to state that we still stand by advocate Mpshe's decision and remind all that these were preliminary issues with no direct impact on his decision not to prosecute."
In 2009, Mpshe halted Zuma's prosecution on fraud and corruption charges. At the time, the NPA said it was "neither possible nor desirable" to continue with the prosecution citing an "abuse of process". Mpshe pointed to telephone recordings between former NPA head Bulelani Ngcuka and former head of the Directorate of Special Operations Leonard McCarthy, discussing the timing of recharging Zuma. The conversations allegedly took place shortly before the ANC's historic Polokwane elective conference in December 2007, where Zuma defeated Thabo Mbeki in the race for the party's presidency. As such, the case against Zuma was deemed to be politically motivated. "It's not so much the prosecution itself but the legal process that is tainted," Mpshe said at the time.
However, the DA argued that the decision was unconstitutional and invalid and wants the charges to be revisited. When the matter went before the SCA, constitutional and legal expert Pierre de Vos told the Mail & Guardian that even if the SCA ruled in the DA's favour, it would be a long road for the opposition to follow if they decide to pursue the matter. "There is no law stating a person facing criminal charges can't become president, so Zuma's presidency can't immediately be threatened. It will also take a long time for before anything substantive comes of this as the SCA will send this back to the high court and the case could be delayed until it is no longer relevant," said De Vos.
However, the DA said at the time that its case was not only about challenging Zuma's fitness for office but also upholding the independence of the NPA and the judiciary as a whole.
Source: Mail & Guardian
The court held that Mpshe's decision on April 6 2009, to discontinue the prosecution of Zuma on corruption charges, would be subject to review. The SCA ruled that Mpshe should hand over the record to the registrar of the Supreme Court of Appeal within 14 days. The record should, however, exclude written representations made on behalf of Zuma and any consequent memoranda or reports prepared in response, or oral representations, if their production would breach confidentiality agreements.
The SCA further held that the record should consist of the documents and material relevant to the review, including those before Mpshe when he made his decision. NPA spokesperson Mthunzi Mhaga said it would study the judgment to determine the next legal steps. "We wish to state that we still stand by advocate Mpshe's decision and remind all that these were preliminary issues with no direct impact on his decision not to prosecute."
In 2009, Mpshe halted Zuma's prosecution on fraud and corruption charges. At the time, the NPA said it was "neither possible nor desirable" to continue with the prosecution citing an "abuse of process". Mpshe pointed to telephone recordings between former NPA head Bulelani Ngcuka and former head of the Directorate of Special Operations Leonard McCarthy, discussing the timing of recharging Zuma. The conversations allegedly took place shortly before the ANC's historic Polokwane elective conference in December 2007, where Zuma defeated Thabo Mbeki in the race for the party's presidency. As such, the case against Zuma was deemed to be politically motivated. "It's not so much the prosecution itself but the legal process that is tainted," Mpshe said at the time.
However, the DA argued that the decision was unconstitutional and invalid and wants the charges to be revisited. When the matter went before the SCA, constitutional and legal expert Pierre de Vos told the Mail & Guardian that even if the SCA ruled in the DA's favour, it would be a long road for the opposition to follow if they decide to pursue the matter. "There is no law stating a person facing criminal charges can't become president, so Zuma's presidency can't immediately be threatened. It will also take a long time for before anything substantive comes of this as the SCA will send this back to the high court and the case could be delayed until it is no longer relevant," said De Vos.
However, the DA said at the time that its case was not only about challenging Zuma's fitness for office but also upholding the independence of the NPA and the judiciary as a whole.
Source: Mail & Guardian
Saturday, February 18, 2012
Zuma 'disconnected from reality' on corruption: DA
President Jacob Zuma's remarks about corruption show he is "completely disconnected from reality", the Democratic Alliance says.In his reply on Thursday to debate on his state of the nation address, Zuma said "most of the corruption you read about in the media is exposed as a result of the work of government and its agencies", DA spokesman Dion George said. "These are the words of a president who is completely disconnected from reality."
South Africa's major corruption scandals had not been broken by government, but by the media, and the opposition. These included the arms deal, to which former president Thabo Mbeki, Zuma, and then defence minister Joe Modise were all linked, he said. Another was the so-called travelgate scandal, involving a number of high ranking ANC MPs misusing parliamentary travel vouchers. George said others included the so-called oilgate scandal, which traced the involvement of an ANC-linked company in diverting money from a state contract to the coffers of the ANC. There was also the SA Police Service lease scandal, in which former public works minister Gwen-Mahlangu Nkabinde and suspended national police commissioner Bheki Cele were involved. Another was the Chancellor House/Hitachi controversy, which saw the ANC's front company landing lucrative contracts with the state.
"Nowhere is the government's attitude towards exposing corruption more clear than in its determination to see the Protection of State Information Bill pushed through Parliament in its current form," George said. Should this law be passed, journalists and whistle-blowers who reported on what government deemed secret would face up to 25 years in prison. It would be illegal to expose corruption and serious crime and the poorest of the poor would continue to lose out as government resources were redirected away from service delivery. "Government is not the last line of defence against corruption. The media and the opposition are."
This was why the DA continued to fight against the bill as it currently stood, and would fight for a strengthened public interest override to ensure that ordinary citizens and the media retained the right to know, George said. On Thursday, Zuma told the National Assembly South Africa was the only country with a "programme" to fight corruption. Zuma said it was "important to emphasise that most of the corruption you read about in the media is exposed as a result of the work of government and its agencies".
Amid laughter from opposition benches, he continued: "What we should remember is that South Africa is the only country that has a programme to fight corruption. It's not being fought anywhere else."
Source: Times Live
South Africa's major corruption scandals had not been broken by government, but by the media, and the opposition. These included the arms deal, to which former president Thabo Mbeki, Zuma, and then defence minister Joe Modise were all linked, he said. Another was the so-called travelgate scandal, involving a number of high ranking ANC MPs misusing parliamentary travel vouchers. George said others included the so-called oilgate scandal, which traced the involvement of an ANC-linked company in diverting money from a state contract to the coffers of the ANC. There was also the SA Police Service lease scandal, in which former public works minister Gwen-Mahlangu Nkabinde and suspended national police commissioner Bheki Cele were involved. Another was the Chancellor House/Hitachi controversy, which saw the ANC's front company landing lucrative contracts with the state.
"Nowhere is the government's attitude towards exposing corruption more clear than in its determination to see the Protection of State Information Bill pushed through Parliament in its current form," George said. Should this law be passed, journalists and whistle-blowers who reported on what government deemed secret would face up to 25 years in prison. It would be illegal to expose corruption and serious crime and the poorest of the poor would continue to lose out as government resources were redirected away from service delivery. "Government is not the last line of defence against corruption. The media and the opposition are."
This was why the DA continued to fight against the bill as it currently stood, and would fight for a strengthened public interest override to ensure that ordinary citizens and the media retained the right to know, George said. On Thursday, Zuma told the National Assembly South Africa was the only country with a "programme" to fight corruption. Zuma said it was "important to emphasise that most of the corruption you read about in the media is exposed as a result of the work of government and its agencies".
Amid laughter from opposition benches, he continued: "What we should remember is that South Africa is the only country that has a programme to fight corruption. It's not being fought anywhere else."
Source: Times Live
Friday, February 3, 2012
For the common good: Old struggles in a new style
Most of the people who made their way to the Rondebosch Common in Cape Town last Friday to protest against issues such as unemployment and poverty hailed from working-class areas like Mitchells Plain and Manenburg. But 18-year-old Daniel Corder came from just up the road. Corder, who matriculated from Westerford High School last year, said he wanted to make the point that not all residents of the well-off suburb were necessarily unsympathetic to the issues that protestors were raising. "I don't suffer the problems they're experiencing. I live in the area that they are campaigning in and enjoy the privileges that they are disgusted by, but I still stand with them in solidarity," he said.
Corder's decision resulted in his spending almost 10 hours in jail after being arrested with 39 other protesters. Even so, he described the day as a "real learning experience" and said it inspired him to further his aspirations to become a lawyer. "I'd like to be someone like those who helped us at the prison on Friday night -- one who serves the public interest," Corder said. He said he felt particularly strongly about the actions of the policemen deployed to the common. "Some acted well, some actions were questionable, but many, far too many, acted reprehensibly. I was greatly angered and disturbed by their treatment of the protesters. "In the face of peaceful, non-destructive protest, many of them acted violently and cruelly. Arms were twisted to near breaking point purposefully, women were pushed to the ground by huge male officers clad in riot gear and many, including myself, were grabbed and pushed around by four or five officers. Many protesters suffered grievous bodily harm," Corder said.
Images and stories of Corder and other protesters being carried away, by police have featured prominently in the local media. But activist Mazibuko Jara, who is a Democratic Left Front national committee member, said questions about whether the incident was likely to have a positive mobilising effect on social movements in the country might be simplistic. "The killing of Andries Tatane has not necessarily galvanised people in the Free State into a mass protest movement. More important is the momentum of ordinary people's struggles. Are corruption, poor spending, failed promises, pro-capitalist policies and increasing attacks on constitutional rights giving a trigger and momentum to social protest and mobilisation? That's the crucial question," he said.
Lubna Nadvi, a professor in the school of politics at the University of KwaZulu-Natal, said the left appeared to be a "very fractured space" at present. "There is no real momentum to pose a challenge to the government and big business and workers' power, which usually was the form of mass mobilisation the left resorted to, does not seem to have the potency needed to bring about much-needed reform," Nadvi said.
According to Steven Friedman, director of the Centre for the Study of Democracy at the University of Johannesburg, organisational strategies constitute a fundamental problem. "One of the main problems that social movements in South Africa face is that poor people are very difficult to organise because they don't have resources, they don't have self-confidence and spend most of their time trying to survive. "One of the mistakes made by some social movements is that they suffer from naive organisational strategies, believing that if people are poor they'll automatically rally around them, which isn't true."
But activist Mario Wanza, one of the main organisers of the Rondebosch Common protest, said the majority of the 2000 people who signed up were "working-class coloureds". Wanza said organisations such as Proudly Manenburg -- which he chairs -- were driven by the values of the United Democratic Front. "We've turned to an old way of organising in memory of the UDF, whose values are driving all of us. We're using the same principles of uniting organisations, building a broad front and having a common programme of action."
Jara, however, said the UDF had operated within a specific context. "It was a specific organisation at a specific time in our history. We need many more UDFs and TACs [Treatment Action Campaign] relevant to our times -- on housing, water, retrenchments et cetera - in order to challenge anti-poor policies and also demonstrate what a pro-poor alternative could look like."
Friedman agreed that some of the tactics used by social movements in the post-apartheid era mirrored those adopted by the UDF, but pointed out that the present context was a significantly different one. "It's correct to say many of the tactics and even names, like the Soweto Electricity Crisis Committee, used by social movements in this phase are derived from the fight against apartheid. That is there, but it's a different context. To say that people needed to fight for dignity under apartheid is pretty self-evident, but once apartheid ended things became more complicated."
Nadvi argued that issues such as unemployment, homelessness, HIV/Aids and poverty constituted a common enemy around which social movements could unite. She was unsure, however, whether a South African version of the global Occupy movement, which had been inspired by the uprisings in the Middle East, would be the answer. "I don't think the Occupy movement has that kind of potential, because so far it seems to be largely driven by a middle-class group of activists who are politically conscientised," she said. "Other formations that have come before, such as the Anti-Privatisation Forum, Landless People's Movement, Treatment Action Campaign and Social Movements Indaba, have had more of a grassroots flavour and were more closely in line with what the UDF was trying to achieve. "I think that some of these movements have been working consistently to try to mobilise to address these issues. They have a history and a presence in the post-apartheid context that the Occupy movement doesn't have."
Perhaps this presence could be strengthened by newcomers to the movement like Corder, who uses the access he has to the internet to mobilise and inform people about protest action. "We must support the disadvantaged. We must campaign and seek equality for all, as opposed to sitting happily with the lucky lives we were born into -- a birth lottery of sorts. "But we must not take over the struggles and superimpose ourselves on the movements. We must support but not lead, not be poster boys et cetera, because then it takes away from the people, their struggles and feelings, their fight. We, as the privileged, have skills and resources that we can use to help. But we must lend support, not lead."
Source: Mail & Guardian
Corder's decision resulted in his spending almost 10 hours in jail after being arrested with 39 other protesters. Even so, he described the day as a "real learning experience" and said it inspired him to further his aspirations to become a lawyer. "I'd like to be someone like those who helped us at the prison on Friday night -- one who serves the public interest," Corder said. He said he felt particularly strongly about the actions of the policemen deployed to the common. "Some acted well, some actions were questionable, but many, far too many, acted reprehensibly. I was greatly angered and disturbed by their treatment of the protesters. "In the face of peaceful, non-destructive protest, many of them acted violently and cruelly. Arms were twisted to near breaking point purposefully, women were pushed to the ground by huge male officers clad in riot gear and many, including myself, were grabbed and pushed around by four or five officers. Many protesters suffered grievous bodily harm," Corder said.
Images and stories of Corder and other protesters being carried away, by police have featured prominently in the local media. But activist Mazibuko Jara, who is a Democratic Left Front national committee member, said questions about whether the incident was likely to have a positive mobilising effect on social movements in the country might be simplistic. "The killing of Andries Tatane has not necessarily galvanised people in the Free State into a mass protest movement. More important is the momentum of ordinary people's struggles. Are corruption, poor spending, failed promises, pro-capitalist policies and increasing attacks on constitutional rights giving a trigger and momentum to social protest and mobilisation? That's the crucial question," he said.
Lubna Nadvi, a professor in the school of politics at the University of KwaZulu-Natal, said the left appeared to be a "very fractured space" at present. "There is no real momentum to pose a challenge to the government and big business and workers' power, which usually was the form of mass mobilisation the left resorted to, does not seem to have the potency needed to bring about much-needed reform," Nadvi said.
According to Steven Friedman, director of the Centre for the Study of Democracy at the University of Johannesburg, organisational strategies constitute a fundamental problem. "One of the main problems that social movements in South Africa face is that poor people are very difficult to organise because they don't have resources, they don't have self-confidence and spend most of their time trying to survive. "One of the mistakes made by some social movements is that they suffer from naive organisational strategies, believing that if people are poor they'll automatically rally around them, which isn't true."
But activist Mario Wanza, one of the main organisers of the Rondebosch Common protest, said the majority of the 2000 people who signed up were "working-class coloureds". Wanza said organisations such as Proudly Manenburg -- which he chairs -- were driven by the values of the United Democratic Front. "We've turned to an old way of organising in memory of the UDF, whose values are driving all of us. We're using the same principles of uniting organisations, building a broad front and having a common programme of action."
Jara, however, said the UDF had operated within a specific context. "It was a specific organisation at a specific time in our history. We need many more UDFs and TACs [Treatment Action Campaign] relevant to our times -- on housing, water, retrenchments et cetera - in order to challenge anti-poor policies and also demonstrate what a pro-poor alternative could look like."
Friedman agreed that some of the tactics used by social movements in the post-apartheid era mirrored those adopted by the UDF, but pointed out that the present context was a significantly different one. "It's correct to say many of the tactics and even names, like the Soweto Electricity Crisis Committee, used by social movements in this phase are derived from the fight against apartheid. That is there, but it's a different context. To say that people needed to fight for dignity under apartheid is pretty self-evident, but once apartheid ended things became more complicated."
Nadvi argued that issues such as unemployment, homelessness, HIV/Aids and poverty constituted a common enemy around which social movements could unite. She was unsure, however, whether a South African version of the global Occupy movement, which had been inspired by the uprisings in the Middle East, would be the answer. "I don't think the Occupy movement has that kind of potential, because so far it seems to be largely driven by a middle-class group of activists who are politically conscientised," she said. "Other formations that have come before, such as the Anti-Privatisation Forum, Landless People's Movement, Treatment Action Campaign and Social Movements Indaba, have had more of a grassroots flavour and were more closely in line with what the UDF was trying to achieve. "I think that some of these movements have been working consistently to try to mobilise to address these issues. They have a history and a presence in the post-apartheid context that the Occupy movement doesn't have."
Perhaps this presence could be strengthened by newcomers to the movement like Corder, who uses the access he has to the internet to mobilise and inform people about protest action. "We must support the disadvantaged. We must campaign and seek equality for all, as opposed to sitting happily with the lucky lives we were born into -- a birth lottery of sorts. "But we must not take over the struggles and superimpose ourselves on the movements. We must support but not lead, not be poster boys et cetera, because then it takes away from the people, their struggles and feelings, their fight. We, as the privileged, have skills and resources that we can use to help. But we must lend support, not lead."
Source: Mail & Guardian
Thursday, December 1, 2011
SCA: Simelane's appointment as NPA boss 'invalid'
The Supreme Court of Appeal has ruled that Menzi Simelane's appointment by President Jacob Zuma as the director of public prosecutions at the National Prosecuting Authority (NPA), was invalid. The case was brought to the appeals court by the Democratic Alliance, after its bid to have Zuma's decision to appoint Simelane as the NPA boss set aside failed in the North Gauteng High Court in Pretoria last year.
On Thursday morning, Judge Mahomed Navsa ruled that Simelane's appointment was "inconsistent with the Constitution and invalid". The judgment set aside the findings of the North Gauteng High Court, and ordered the president, Justice Minister Jeff Radebe and Simelane to pay the DA's costs. In its application, the DA argued that Zuma "acted outside of his powers by appointing a person who is not fit and proper to hold the office of national director of public prosecutions".
Justice ministry spokesperson Tlali Tlali said the ruling would be challenged in the Constitutional Court. "Naturally, we are disappointed but respect the court's judgment in this matter," said Tlali on Thursday. "We will study the judgment in order to understand its implications as it unfolds further. The court's order must be referred to the Constitutional Court for confirmation as provided for in terms of section 172(2) of the Constitution. A final determination has yet to be made as to what our legal attitude to this matter at the Constitutional Court will be."
The DA's Dene Smuts told the Mail and Guardian on Thursday: "We are very delighted by the judgment. We had major problems with his appointment. We did not think he was fit and proper for the position. We felt it was cadre deployment and are now looking forward to the president putting someone in the position who is fit and proper for the job." The foundation of the DA's case against Simelane was the "misleading and untruthful evidence" he gave during the 2008 Ginwala Inquiry, when he was the director general in the department of justice and constitutional development.
The inquiry looked at the fitness for office of Simelane's predecessor, Vusi Pikoli. Ginwala severely criticised Simelane in her final report, calling him arrogant and condescending towards Pikoli. Ginwala labelled his evidence before the inquiry "contradictory and without basis in fact or in law" and blamed him for suppressing the disclosure of information. This specifically referred to a legal opinion advising Simelane that he did not have authority over the NPA, as he had claimed.
Simelane's conduct was "irregular" and Ginwala even suggested he might have contravened the NPA Act by drafting a letter to Pikoli that instructed him to abort the imminent arrest of former police boss Jackie Selebi.
Although a formal inquiry was set up to inquire into Simelane's conduct before Ginwala in February 2009, Justice Minister Jeff Radebe declined to take disciplinary proceedings against him. Instead he was appointed as deputy national director of prosecutions. The DA argued that Zuma made Simelane's appointment based solely on his CV, without taking into account his questionable behaviour during the enquiry.
Navsa found that Zuma was remiss in not taking the time to consider all the facts about Simelane, saying in his judgment: "I accept that the president must have a multitude of daily duties and is a very busy man. However when he is dealing with an office as important as that of the national director of public prosecutions, which is integral to the rule of law and to our success as a democracy, then time should be taken to get it right." He went on to say: "On the available evidence the president could in any event not have reached a conclusion favourable to Mr Simelane, as there were too many unresolved questions concerning his integrity and experience."
The judgment was careful to prove precedent for judicial scrutiny of the president's appointment of a public prosecutor. In recent months, Zuma and other members of the executive have made several statements taking issue with an "unelected" judiciary passing judgment on executive decisions. During a farewell to former chief justice Sandile Ngcobo earlier this year, Zuma said: "We must not get a sense that there are those who wish to co-govern the country through the courts, when they have not won the popular vote during elections." He added that the powers conferred on the courts could not be regarded as superior to the powers resulting from a mandate given by the people in a popular vote.
Source: Mail & Guardian
On Thursday morning, Judge Mahomed Navsa ruled that Simelane's appointment was "inconsistent with the Constitution and invalid". The judgment set aside the findings of the North Gauteng High Court, and ordered the president, Justice Minister Jeff Radebe and Simelane to pay the DA's costs. In its application, the DA argued that Zuma "acted outside of his powers by appointing a person who is not fit and proper to hold the office of national director of public prosecutions".
Justice ministry spokesperson Tlali Tlali said the ruling would be challenged in the Constitutional Court. "Naturally, we are disappointed but respect the court's judgment in this matter," said Tlali on Thursday. "We will study the judgment in order to understand its implications as it unfolds further. The court's order must be referred to the Constitutional Court for confirmation as provided for in terms of section 172(2) of the Constitution. A final determination has yet to be made as to what our legal attitude to this matter at the Constitutional Court will be."
The DA's Dene Smuts told the Mail and Guardian on Thursday: "We are very delighted by the judgment. We had major problems with his appointment. We did not think he was fit and proper for the position. We felt it was cadre deployment and are now looking forward to the president putting someone in the position who is fit and proper for the job." The foundation of the DA's case against Simelane was the "misleading and untruthful evidence" he gave during the 2008 Ginwala Inquiry, when he was the director general in the department of justice and constitutional development.
The inquiry looked at the fitness for office of Simelane's predecessor, Vusi Pikoli. Ginwala severely criticised Simelane in her final report, calling him arrogant and condescending towards Pikoli. Ginwala labelled his evidence before the inquiry "contradictory and without basis in fact or in law" and blamed him for suppressing the disclosure of information. This specifically referred to a legal opinion advising Simelane that he did not have authority over the NPA, as he had claimed.
Simelane's conduct was "irregular" and Ginwala even suggested he might have contravened the NPA Act by drafting a letter to Pikoli that instructed him to abort the imminent arrest of former police boss Jackie Selebi.
Although a formal inquiry was set up to inquire into Simelane's conduct before Ginwala in February 2009, Justice Minister Jeff Radebe declined to take disciplinary proceedings against him. Instead he was appointed as deputy national director of prosecutions. The DA argued that Zuma made Simelane's appointment based solely on his CV, without taking into account his questionable behaviour during the enquiry.
Navsa found that Zuma was remiss in not taking the time to consider all the facts about Simelane, saying in his judgment: "I accept that the president must have a multitude of daily duties and is a very busy man. However when he is dealing with an office as important as that of the national director of public prosecutions, which is integral to the rule of law and to our success as a democracy, then time should be taken to get it right." He went on to say: "On the available evidence the president could in any event not have reached a conclusion favourable to Mr Simelane, as there were too many unresolved questions concerning his integrity and experience."
The judgment was careful to prove precedent for judicial scrutiny of the president's appointment of a public prosecutor. In recent months, Zuma and other members of the executive have made several statements taking issue with an "unelected" judiciary passing judgment on executive decisions. During a farewell to former chief justice Sandile Ngcobo earlier this year, Zuma said: "We must not get a sense that there are those who wish to co-govern the country through the courts, when they have not won the popular vote during elections." He added that the powers conferred on the courts could not be regarded as superior to the powers resulting from a mandate given by the people in a popular vote.
Source: Mail & Guardian
Sunday, August 7, 2011
‘Outrageous’ handshake for Ithala boss
Sipho Shabalala, the man police say facilitated a R1 million “donation” for the ANC from a businessman who got a huge state tender, has been given an almost R2 million golden handshake to leave his government job.
The Sunday Independent this week saw documents which show that Shabalala, who headed state-funded development entity Ithala, was given the severance package on the eve of his court appearance on money laundering, corruption and racketeering charges.
Opposition political parties in the provincial legislature have expressed outrage at Ithala’s payment to Shabalala of R1 900 041, in cash, on July 31.
According to a 10-page document titled Settlement Agreement and Mutual Release, the payment represents R696 572 in respect of his salary that would have been paid during the unexpired period of employment. Then there is payment of R374 650 for leave that would have accrued, plus an R870 715 ex gratia payment.
Shabalala is key among the 25 accused in the Intaka case, along with the Speaker of Parliament Peggy Nkonyeni, Economic Development MEC Mike Mabuyakhulu and Gaston Savoi, owner of Intaka, a company that won a R42 million tender from the government and in the same month paid a R1m “donation” to the ANC in KZN, via Shabalala.
Shabalala’s contract with Ithala was due to end on October 31.
Last August he was suspended when he was charged, almost a year after our sister paper, the Sunday Tribune, exposed how he solicited the R1m from Savoi and allegedly had it paid into the trust account of Durban lawyer Sandile Khuboni, also charged.
IFP MPL and the party’s KZN shadow minister of finance, Roman Liptak, said: “The real test for those politicians who have shielded Shabalala for so long and smoothed his way from one plush government job to the next is whether he will be allowed to walk into another top management position within our civil service.”
The DA’s Johann Krog said the move was aimed at buying Shabalala’s silence. He said Shabalala had been rapped over the knuckles by co-accused Mabuyakhulu for a questionable R280m school project, which merited more serious sanction.
“The DA has consistently called on Scopa and the finance committee for disciplinary action on advice of all the law-enforcing agencies. The province could have saved his salary of more than R100 000 a month for the past year, and the R2m payout,” he said.
Krog insisted that had Ithala waited for his contract to expire in October, the cost to taxpayers to end the relationship would have been much less than a “shocking” R2 million.
ACDP MPL Jo-Anne Downs said: “It’s outrageous. If they wanted to get rid of him they could have instituted internal disciplinary action, but no, they had to pay him to leave,” said Downs.
Shabalala was this week furious that details of his package were leaked to the media.
He said, “I will not be surprised to learn that the intention of those who leaked this agreement to you is to vilify me in the court of public opinion as a greedy fat cat who ‘blackmailed’ the government to give me one final ride on the proverbial gravy train before setting off to enjoy his ‘ill-gotten gains’.”
He said he had signed a two-year contract with the Ithala board in October 2009 (this was after he had hastily been moved from Treasury to Ithala in January 2009). He said there was an understanding that he would have to apply for a full-term contract when the Ithala leadership position was eventually advertised, which happened two weeks ago and for which he was asked not to apply.
“Then came the suspension by the Ithala board in August 2010 with (MEC) Mabuyakhulu an- nouncing an intention to set up a task team that would monitor the developments relating to the criminal investigations and advise the board on the impact, if any, this had on his employment relationship with Ithala,” he said.
Shabalala said he hadn’t heard anything from Ithala or Mabuyakhulu about this matter until just a few weeks before we reported that Mabuyakhulu himself was set to join Shabalala as an accused in the Intaka matter.
He said the message from Ithala, at that time, was that the company wanted to summarily terminate his employment contract, pay him out for the remainder of his contract and obtain an assurance from him that he would not apply for the job of Ithala boss.
The Sunday Independent can reveal that Ithala agreed terms with Shabalala that they “fully and forever release each other from, and agree not to sue concerning any and all claims relating or arising from Shabalala’s employment relationship with Ithala and the termination of that relationship”.
Shabalala said he told them to “go fly a kite”.
“Then came the ‘sweetened’ offer of the agreement that has now been leaked to you. My initial decision was still that I would see out the rest of my contract and retain my right to apply for a job for which I received an excellent performance review at the time of my last employment assessment.”
Asked why he had acceded and accepted the board’s offer, Shabalala said his back was against the wall and he gave an array of reasons for this. He said following the attachment and freezing of all his assets it became impossible to successfully run his businesses.
By last week, he said, the bank had frozen his personal account with his Ithala salary in and was preparing to foreclose on his entire business portfolio to recover monies owed by his RJ’s restaurant in Hillcrest that went under at the beginning of this year.
He said his children were being threatened with expulsion from school because of unpaid fees.
Shabalala said the Ithala offer that he had so disdainfully spurned happened to be exactly what his bank was demanding to hold off from auctioning all of his assets, including his home.
“I decided to accept the revised offer,” he said.
Ithala board chairman Mandla Gantsho said an amicable agreement had been reached with Shabalala. - Nathi Olifant
Source: IoL
The Sunday Independent this week saw documents which show that Shabalala, who headed state-funded development entity Ithala, was given the severance package on the eve of his court appearance on money laundering, corruption and racketeering charges.
Opposition political parties in the provincial legislature have expressed outrage at Ithala’s payment to Shabalala of R1 900 041, in cash, on July 31.
According to a 10-page document titled Settlement Agreement and Mutual Release, the payment represents R696 572 in respect of his salary that would have been paid during the unexpired period of employment. Then there is payment of R374 650 for leave that would have accrued, plus an R870 715 ex gratia payment.
Shabalala is key among the 25 accused in the Intaka case, along with the Speaker of Parliament Peggy Nkonyeni, Economic Development MEC Mike Mabuyakhulu and Gaston Savoi, owner of Intaka, a company that won a R42 million tender from the government and in the same month paid a R1m “donation” to the ANC in KZN, via Shabalala.
Shabalala’s contract with Ithala was due to end on October 31.
Last August he was suspended when he was charged, almost a year after our sister paper, the Sunday Tribune, exposed how he solicited the R1m from Savoi and allegedly had it paid into the trust account of Durban lawyer Sandile Khuboni, also charged.
IFP MPL and the party’s KZN shadow minister of finance, Roman Liptak, said: “The real test for those politicians who have shielded Shabalala for so long and smoothed his way from one plush government job to the next is whether he will be allowed to walk into another top management position within our civil service.”
The DA’s Johann Krog said the move was aimed at buying Shabalala’s silence. He said Shabalala had been rapped over the knuckles by co-accused Mabuyakhulu for a questionable R280m school project, which merited more serious sanction.
“The DA has consistently called on Scopa and the finance committee for disciplinary action on advice of all the law-enforcing agencies. The province could have saved his salary of more than R100 000 a month for the past year, and the R2m payout,” he said.
Krog insisted that had Ithala waited for his contract to expire in October, the cost to taxpayers to end the relationship would have been much less than a “shocking” R2 million.
ACDP MPL Jo-Anne Downs said: “It’s outrageous. If they wanted to get rid of him they could have instituted internal disciplinary action, but no, they had to pay him to leave,” said Downs.
Shabalala was this week furious that details of his package were leaked to the media.
He said, “I will not be surprised to learn that the intention of those who leaked this agreement to you is to vilify me in the court of public opinion as a greedy fat cat who ‘blackmailed’ the government to give me one final ride on the proverbial gravy train before setting off to enjoy his ‘ill-gotten gains’.”
He said he had signed a two-year contract with the Ithala board in October 2009 (this was after he had hastily been moved from Treasury to Ithala in January 2009). He said there was an understanding that he would have to apply for a full-term contract when the Ithala leadership position was eventually advertised, which happened two weeks ago and for which he was asked not to apply.
“Then came the suspension by the Ithala board in August 2010 with (MEC) Mabuyakhulu an- nouncing an intention to set up a task team that would monitor the developments relating to the criminal investigations and advise the board on the impact, if any, this had on his employment relationship with Ithala,” he said.
Shabalala said he hadn’t heard anything from Ithala or Mabuyakhulu about this matter until just a few weeks before we reported that Mabuyakhulu himself was set to join Shabalala as an accused in the Intaka matter.
He said the message from Ithala, at that time, was that the company wanted to summarily terminate his employment contract, pay him out for the remainder of his contract and obtain an assurance from him that he would not apply for the job of Ithala boss.
The Sunday Independent can reveal that Ithala agreed terms with Shabalala that they “fully and forever release each other from, and agree not to sue concerning any and all claims relating or arising from Shabalala’s employment relationship with Ithala and the termination of that relationship”.
Shabalala said he told them to “go fly a kite”.
“Then came the ‘sweetened’ offer of the agreement that has now been leaked to you. My initial decision was still that I would see out the rest of my contract and retain my right to apply for a job for which I received an excellent performance review at the time of my last employment assessment.”
Asked why he had acceded and accepted the board’s offer, Shabalala said his back was against the wall and he gave an array of reasons for this. He said following the attachment and freezing of all his assets it became impossible to successfully run his businesses.
By last week, he said, the bank had frozen his personal account with his Ithala salary in and was preparing to foreclose on his entire business portfolio to recover monies owed by his RJ’s restaurant in Hillcrest that went under at the beginning of this year.
He said his children were being threatened with expulsion from school because of unpaid fees.
Shabalala said the Ithala offer that he had so disdainfully spurned happened to be exactly what his bank was demanding to hold off from auctioning all of his assets, including his home.
“I decided to accept the revised offer,” he said.
Ithala board chairman Mandla Gantsho said an amicable agreement had been reached with Shabalala. - Nathi Olifant
Source: IoL
Saturday, September 11, 2010
DA calls for investigation into awarding of surveillance tender
The Democratic Alliance (DA) in Tshwane has called for an independent investigation into the awarding of a surveillance tender to a company that was excluded from the bid. Massive tender irregularities have been revealed in court papers submitted by Omega Risk Solutions in the North Gauteng High court. It is alleged the Tshwane council’s bid adjudication committee ignored claims that recommendation documents had been tampered with.
Independent consultancy Techso found Morubisi did not meet the tender’s technical specifications and its quote was R20 million more expensive. Techso recommended the R100 million contract be awarded to Omega. But when the committee met in February, the recommendation had been altered to say Omega was excluded and Morubisi was the preferred bidder. Despite Techso raising this concern with the committee, it awarded the tender to Morubisi.
The DA’s Karen Meyer said, “It is clear from the evidence provided in court that the city’s functionaries attempted to obtain false information with which to disqualify Omega, as well as doctored documents.” Omega declined to comment and the Tshwane council and Morubisi have not responded to any questions.
Source: Eye Witness News
Independent consultancy Techso found Morubisi did not meet the tender’s technical specifications and its quote was R20 million more expensive. Techso recommended the R100 million contract be awarded to Omega. But when the committee met in February, the recommendation had been altered to say Omega was excluded and Morubisi was the preferred bidder. Despite Techso raising this concern with the committee, it awarded the tender to Morubisi.
The DA’s Karen Meyer said, “It is clear from the evidence provided in court that the city’s functionaries attempted to obtain false information with which to disqualify Omega, as well as doctored documents.” Omega declined to comment and the Tshwane council and Morubisi have not responded to any questions.
Source: Eye Witness News
Monday, August 16, 2010
DA accuses authorities of silencing whistleblowers
The Democratic Alliance has accused Gauteng authorities of trying to silence dissent by arresting people who speak out about housing corruption. Nineteen people were arrested on Sunday for demonstrating at the Lufhereng Housing Project in Soweto after raising concerns about corruption in the allocation of RDP houses. Construction on the massive project began over a year ago and the first phase will be officially launched on Tuesday.
The DA’s James Lorrimer said the people went to the different RDP housing developments "to investigate allegations of corrupt housing allocations" where they were arrested by police on charges of trespassing and public violence. The Housing Department’s Victor Moreriane said this was not the first time there has been trouble at the development site. "What has been happening in the past few weeks is that there were also attempts to illegally invade the houses,” he said.
Human Settlements Minister Tokyo Sexwale said he wanted to meet the arrested protesters to get to the bottom of the corruption allegations. The minister said the department relies on information from communities to crack down on dirty officials.
Source: Eye Witness News
The DA’s James Lorrimer said the people went to the different RDP housing developments "to investigate allegations of corrupt housing allocations" where they were arrested by police on charges of trespassing and public violence. The Housing Department’s Victor Moreriane said this was not the first time there has been trouble at the development site. "What has been happening in the past few weeks is that there were also attempts to illegally invade the houses,” he said.
Human Settlements Minister Tokyo Sexwale said he wanted to meet the arrested protesters to get to the bottom of the corruption allegations. The minister said the department relies on information from communities to crack down on dirty officials.
Source: Eye Witness News
Sunday, March 21, 2010
'Greed and cronyism erode our rights'
South Africans should honour the victims of the 1960 Sharpeville massacre by protecting everyone's human rights, deputy President Kgalema Motlanthe said on Sunday. Motlanthe was speaking at the 50th commemoration of the Sharpeville massacre during which about 300 demonstrators marching against pass laws were shot at by apartheid police in the township. The shooting resulted in 69 of the demonstrators being killed, while at least 180 other people were wounded during the march.
Motlanthe said South Africans had a responsibility to protect the Constitution and to honour those who gave their lives in the fight for freedom. "In effect, this means as public representatives, at local, provincial and national levels, we should always remember the dead because we are their living delegates as they have relinquished their rights to participate in this freedom we enjoy," he said.
He said this alluded to the government's obligations and responsibilities to improve the socio-economic conditions of South Africans in honour of the departed who paid the ultimate sacrifice for freedom. "To adequately commemorate the victims and survivors of the Sharpeville massacre and other bloodbaths, we must ensure the progressive realisation of the socio-economic rights as envisaged in the Bill of Rights. This means as government working with our social partners, we must strive to improve the quality of life of all our people by providing shelter, basic amenities, education, and security," he said. He also called on citizens to remain patient in the face of slow service delivery. "The freedom we enjoy today in South Africa means we must exercise our responsibilities diligently so that even those who are aggrieved by [the] slow pace of service delivery will not resort to burning public facilities, such as libraries and schools," Motlanthe said. "I believe freedom also obliges communities themselves to take ownership of protecting everyone's human rights and protecting the vulnerable members of our society," he said.
However, opposition parties and civil organisations said the ruling African National Congress was the main threat to human rights in the country. "Our constitutional rights are threatened by greed, cronyism, corruption and power abuse," said Democratic Alliance leader Helen Zille. "Our right to live free from fear is threatened by hate speech that incites violence and the government's hired thugs who think they are above the law," she said.
Zille said these threats were not from outside forces and they had nothing to do with the legacy of the past. "They are recent threats to our human rights. And they come from the ruling party itself," she said.
The civil rights group Afrikanerbond said the government treated the United Nations Committee for the Elimination of Racial Discrimination (CERD) with contempt by not complying to its regulations. Its chief secretary, Jan Bosman, pointed out that South Africa's report on racism and discrimination was submitted five years late and its second report, which was due on January 9, has still not been submitted. "In our celebration of Human Rights Day, we are extremely concerned about the South African government's own commitment to human rights," he said. "It is becoming more and more a government that blindly approve or condone abuses against the Constitution and the Bill of Rights by not acting against any abuse or breach," Bosman said.
United Democratic Movement (UDM) leader, Bantu Holomisa, said a radical economic transformation was needed to avert a "social explosion" that South Africa managed to avert with the Convention for a Democratic South Africa (Codesa) in the 1990's. "The creation of our economic egalitarian society cannot be left to the vagaries of the market forces only that are inherent in current economic policy," he said. "It is only then that we will be in a position to talk of the realisation of human rights in South Africa... when everyone reaps the fruits of the economy," Holomisa said.
Source: IoL
Motlanthe said South Africans had a responsibility to protect the Constitution and to honour those who gave their lives in the fight for freedom. "In effect, this means as public representatives, at local, provincial and national levels, we should always remember the dead because we are their living delegates as they have relinquished their rights to participate in this freedom we enjoy," he said.
He said this alluded to the government's obligations and responsibilities to improve the socio-economic conditions of South Africans in honour of the departed who paid the ultimate sacrifice for freedom. "To adequately commemorate the victims and survivors of the Sharpeville massacre and other bloodbaths, we must ensure the progressive realisation of the socio-economic rights as envisaged in the Bill of Rights. This means as government working with our social partners, we must strive to improve the quality of life of all our people by providing shelter, basic amenities, education, and security," he said. He also called on citizens to remain patient in the face of slow service delivery. "The freedom we enjoy today in South Africa means we must exercise our responsibilities diligently so that even those who are aggrieved by [the] slow pace of service delivery will not resort to burning public facilities, such as libraries and schools," Motlanthe said. "I believe freedom also obliges communities themselves to take ownership of protecting everyone's human rights and protecting the vulnerable members of our society," he said.
However, opposition parties and civil organisations said the ruling African National Congress was the main threat to human rights in the country. "Our constitutional rights are threatened by greed, cronyism, corruption and power abuse," said Democratic Alliance leader Helen Zille. "Our right to live free from fear is threatened by hate speech that incites violence and the government's hired thugs who think they are above the law," she said.
Zille said these threats were not from outside forces and they had nothing to do with the legacy of the past. "They are recent threats to our human rights. And they come from the ruling party itself," she said.
The civil rights group Afrikanerbond said the government treated the United Nations Committee for the Elimination of Racial Discrimination (CERD) with contempt by not complying to its regulations. Its chief secretary, Jan Bosman, pointed out that South Africa's report on racism and discrimination was submitted five years late and its second report, which was due on January 9, has still not been submitted. "In our celebration of Human Rights Day, we are extremely concerned about the South African government's own commitment to human rights," he said. "It is becoming more and more a government that blindly approve or condone abuses against the Constitution and the Bill of Rights by not acting against any abuse or breach," Bosman said.
United Democratic Movement (UDM) leader, Bantu Holomisa, said a radical economic transformation was needed to avert a "social explosion" that South Africa managed to avert with the Convention for a Democratic South Africa (Codesa) in the 1990's. "The creation of our economic egalitarian society cannot be left to the vagaries of the market forces only that are inherent in current economic policy," he said. "It is only then that we will be in a position to talk of the realisation of human rights in South Africa... when everyone reaps the fruits of the economy," Holomisa said.
Source: IoL
Monday, March 15, 2010
Malema blamed for farm attack
The accusations follow a farm attack in Colenso, Kwa-Zulu-Natal, on Sunday night during which a farmer was seriously wounded while his wife was shot dead. “Four men have been detained and they will be questioned by members of the Organised Crime Unit. They have not been charged,” said Superintendent Jay Naicker. The farmer, 70, was shot twice but he survived and was hospitalised, said Naicker. The farmer’s wife was shot dead. “The farmer was busy milking cows with his employees when they were approached by four armed men who demanded cash. The wife, 64, was shot dead and he was shot twice but he survived,” he said Naicker said the attackers did not take anything from the farmer and that the members of the Organised Crime Unit were investigating matter.
Malema sang the highly controversial “dubula ibhunu” (kill the boer) song while addressing students at the University of Johannesburg last week.
AfriForum Youth have lodged a complaint of hate speech against Malema in the Equality Court over the singing of the "kill the boer" song while the Freedom Front Plus has laid a criminal charge of intimidation and hate speech against Malema.
The Democratic Alliance (DA) in KwaZulu-Natal has commended the police for arresting the suspects. “It is our belief that this senseless attack was incited by the proliferation of hate speech that is the hall mark of ANCYL president Julius Malema,” said DA spokesman on safety, Sizwe Mchunu.
He said Malema’s song “dubula ibhunu” (kill the boer) translated directly to a call for white people to be killed. “There can be no place in our democratic country for provocative language of this kind,” he said. Mchunu said co-operation between the police and the members of Estcourt farmers’ association and local community members had led to the swift arrest. “That the suspects have been arrested, less than 24 hours after the crime, shows what can happen when a community forms a united front against crime.”
This is the third attack on farmers in one weekend. On Saturday night, a 46-year-old farmer was shot through his bedroom window while sleeping on his Rietfontein farm near Potchefstroom, the North West police said. The man was taken to Potchefstroom Provincial Hospital in a critical condition while police search for those involved. On Friday, 65-year-old Jan Wheeler was murdered outside Marble Hall in Limpopo. His killers gained access into the farmer's house by breaking the back door, Limpopo police said. They overpowered Wheeler in the bedroom and repeatedly stabbed him with a sharp object. The men took a few electrical household appliances and ran away.
The DA member of the KwaZulu-Natal legislature, Tom Stokes, said he believed the issue of farm killings was aggravated by [Malema’s] singing of struggle songs that advocated the killing of farmers. He was referring to Malema singing “kill the boer” song last week at a meeting while addressing students at the University of Johannesburg. This caused an uproar as some people viewed it as advocating the killing of farmers. “Malema’s actions, along with subsequent attempts by the ANC’s Gwede Mantashe to justify his conduct, stand in stark contrast to the pain and suffering being experienced by this family and the many others before them,” said Stokes.
Stokes' view was supported by Advocate Anton Alberts of the Freedom Front Plus who said, as an influential youth leader, Malema created an atmosphere in which “reckless thoughts and actions flourished”. “No deep thoughts are needed to realise that Malema’s comments are creating an atmosphere which is conducive for those who want to commit murder... he is an accessory to the wiping out of farmers in South Africa.”
The argument by the ANC that the song was merely a preservation of struggle literature, rang hollow in the face of a family that had lost a wife, mother and grandmother, said Stokes, referring to Sunday night’s farm murder in KwaZulu-Natal.
The Freedom Front Plus was in the meantime preparing a report on farm murders and Malema’s role in it. This will be given to the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights. “We will also investigate the possibility to lay charges against Malema at the International Criminal Court, or in the least make the court aware of a growing phenomenon of the victimisation of minorities and specifically the Afrikaner in South Africa,” said Alberts. This, he said, could escalate to international crimes.
Source: Times Live
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)