FNB: You Can Help campaign is regrettable

FNB met with the leadership of the ANC, led by its secretary general Gwede Mantashe on Thursday. The bank apologised to the ANC on Friday.

"The CEO of FirstRand, Mr Sizwe Nxasana, agreed that the research clippings that were posted online were regrettable; he apologised for the posting of the research clippings online," the ANC said in a statement.

"He then assured the meeting that this regrettable incident will not be repeated."

The FNB campaign features a number of videos of children in school uniform reading their hopes for the country. Opposition parties and activist groups said the ANC's criticism of the campaign showed its intolerance.

During the meeting, the ANC pointed out that the video clips were a deliberate attack on the ANC.

The clips fed into the opposition narrative that sought to project the ANC and government in a negative manner, it said.

The ANC said the clips had a negative impact on business confidence and could undermine the promotion of investment into the country.

"The ANC indicated that its leadership and membership were strongly raising a question why the organisation should continue to bank with a bank that has adopted an oppositional (sic) stance to it."

Nxasa explained to the ruling party the objectives of their youth campaign and stressed that it was meant to inspire all South Africans to work together by helping one another.

FNB expressed its commitment to the National Development Plan in addressing the areas of poverty, inequality and unemployment, the ANC said on Friday.

Source: Mail & Guardian

ANC KZN backs Jacob Zuma for ANC Presidency

ANC KZN NOMINATION CONFERENCE STATEMENT

25 November 2012

The African National Congress (ANC) in KwaZulu-Natal on Sunday concluded its successful two-day conference which was characterized by frankness, robustness and a comradely spirit that made all sessions to be enjoyable and enlightening.

The conference was convened to consolidate KwaZulu-Natal's policy positions and to combine the province's nominations for preferred leadership to be elected in the National Conference of the ANC to be held in Mangaung in December 2012.

The ANC in KwaZulu-Natal is happy that the conference was characterized by very productive debates on policy issues. Debates spanned from various and diverse views and individual expressions, scientific theory of our revolution to the experience gained through our daily involvement in our community struggles and serving within state institutions and platforms of service delivery.

Our province is once again leading the way by forsaking the foreign tendencies of coming to conferences for the sole purpose of voting for positions. The conference made history by dedicating more focus on policy matters in order to shape the transformation agenda and usher in a better life for all our people.

The ANC in KwaZulu-Natal strongly believes that the difference in the paths and direction the ANC will take post Mangaung depends on the thoroughness of the discussions and preparations to resolve issues that plague our country not on the face of the leadership cadres elected.

"Today (Sunday) we are concluding what has been a very democratic process. Our branches nominated their preferred candidates freely. The fact that more than one name per position were nominated was a clear indication ANC is a democratic organization," said ANC provincial Secretary, Sihle Zikalala.

After a very vigorous nomination process, ANC branches in KwaZulu-Natal nominated the following cadres:

President: Cde President Cde Jacob Zuma [unanimous]

Deputy President: Cde Cyril Ramaphosa [841 votes]

National Chairperson: Cde Baleka Mbethe [863 votes]

Secretary General: Cde Gwede Mantashe, [unanimous]

Deputy Secretary General: Cde Jessie Duarte [834 votes]

Treasure General: Cde Zweli Mkhize. [833 votes]

The conference emphasized the importance of discipline, unity and political maturity to ensure that the ANC will remain united after the Mangaung conference.

Statement issued by the ANC KwaZulu-Natal provincial secretary Sihle Zikalala November 26 2012

Source: Politicsweb

In the wake of Marikana, ANC pushing a self-destruct button

As police raided the hostels of Lonmin miners it looked like the ANC had once again chosen force over discussion. It’s nothing new, but this specific raid will be what we remember as the beginning of the party’s decline. By GREG NICOLSON.

This weekend’s crackdown on the settlement of Nkaneng should come as no surprise. In the last few years, as service delivery protests have engulfed townships and informal settlements across the country, the ANC government has stood behind the state-sponsored violence and intervened only when absolutely necessary.

The tale feels like a cliché. Something triggers a store of long-held grievances and the community fortifies its thoroughfares with burning tyres. After the police arrive they eventually decide the protest cannot continue and attack the toyi-toying group. In their nyalas, the cops first teargas the community in a drive-by and then conduct a series of arbitrary arrests that follow a hail of rubber bullets.

The smell of teargas, stab of rubber bullets and the humiliation of violent raids further enrages the angry mob. The stakes are raised and the more violent and disaffected members of the community remain, seeking ever more destruction.

Between police and protestors lies a dark silence. The cops don’t care why people are on the streets, burning the little they have access to while government officials are too scared or don’t care enough to mediate promptly. When they finally arrive and offer the slightest semblance that they give a damn about the community’s concerns, the protest often subsides.

It seems obvious that a leader should immediately attempt to listen. But in the silence of a community on fire, before government officials are forced to react, lies a deafening reality of the disconnect between our most marginalised and their elected leaders, usually from the ANC.

These protests, similar in root cause to the ongoing Lonmin strike, regularly occur because of poverty, corruption and unmet expectations. People are tired of living without adequate shelter. They know it’s unfair they can’t access decent health services. They want electricity and water plumbed into their homes and they want an effective and transparent billing system. They are tired of the forced humiliation that latches onto poverty. Worst of all, they’re disheartened seeing their children grow up to live in exactly the same desperate conditions.

Law and order needs to prevail in Marikana and no more deaths can be added to the toll. But this weekend’s move by the police and army into Nkaneng is all too reminiscent of the response to service delivery protests over the years. All too often the ANC has let police shoot first before even asking why protests are occurring, let alone engaging in meaningful discussion (however long, risky or arduous it need be).

It’s symbolic of a larger problem. The ANC aims to “end Apartheid in all its forms” and “fight for social justice and eliminate the vast inequalities created by Apartheid”, but too many examples show that it’s no longer the party of the people. A litany of betrayals and failures stain the party’s successes (which primarily include a massive service delivery rollout and making a dent into transforming the system of racial exclusion) while its internal power plays and the venality of members erode the foundations established by some of the most inspiring leaders of the 20th century.

The ANC’s June policy conference proved the party knows what’s hurting South Africans – poverty, inequality, unemployment and the ills flowing from the combination. We’re sure its members also care deeply – who wouldn’t when the stories of many South Africans are tragedies?

But the party is too distant from those we expect it to represent. President Jacob Zuma’s insulting and incredulous comments about visiting a township and realising there are poor people struggling to survive is testament to the disconnect. ANC MP Rose Sonto confirmed this last week when he disagreed with opposition parties in the Parliamentary Portfolio Committee on Mineral Resources, saying, “We can’t go and talk to a crowd with suicidal tendencies.”

Dangerous, yes, but strikes and protests are messages sent when other avenues of communication fail. Instead of provoking miners with further police antagonism, the ANC needed to work with union leaders and mine management to increase engagement until leaders trusted them. Zuma has sent an inter-ministerial force, made a visit and established a judicial inquiry, but it’s not enough. ANC leaders aren’t giving Marikana the attention it deserves. Simply, they have failed to lead when the country was wailing, desperate and distraught, for leaders.

The problem the party faces, however, is that even if it had the resolve to provide leadership it’s so removed from disaffected communities it would have struggled to get a platform. The miners have been too hostile, and like many others across the country seem to believe the party has broken too many promises, its members too corrupt to trust.

Instead of proving them wrong, the party has distanced itself from the workers and failed to show it understands their concerns (at the same time it has lambasted the capitalist miners it has been so happy to accommodate all these years).

So in an attempt to control the situation the ANC offered the same response it has to service delivery protests: it sent in the police. That response is nothing new, but while the party hides, the Marikana massacre will go down in history as the moment everybody knew the ANC was no longer a party of the poor, no longer a party of the working class and no longer a party that could claim to represent the majority of South Africans.

The National Executive Committee has discussed Marikana at length, said Secretary General Gwede Mantashe. It’s looking at ways to address the causes of the disaster and may come up with creative solutions involving partnering with mining companies to improve the living conditions of workers.

One can only hope the party can, but one has to fear it has once again stoked unrest and it might be too late. The ANC may still be in power. It may still have the votes, but things change. They always do. And it’s moments like these the historians will remember.

Source: Daily Maverick

'We've failed to rebuild economy'

ANC secretary-general Gwede Mantashe admitted that the party had failed to negotiate a better deal when the party ascended to power in 1994.

He was speaking at a meeting at the University of Johannesburg (Soweto campus) attended by academics, businesspeople and civil society to discuss the outcomes of the ANC policy conference that was held in June.

He said the economic transformation backlog would be dealt with through the adoption of radical policies later this year.

"We don't think we were very strong on the economic aspect. We thought when we acquired power we would use it to change the economic terrain. We are in a continuation from apartheid to national democratic society. We need a radical shift in policy to realise economic transformation," Mantashe said.

Thirteen draft policy documents emanating from that conference will be discussed further and adopted in Mangaung in December.

Mantashe said the party regrets some flaws such as how the SA Reserve Bank had been made more independent than it was in 1994 and how the government had allowed private shareholding among other things.

"We must make a bold statement that we will attend to that backlog on economic transformation," he said, referring to the Strategy and Tactics document, which charts the way forward for achieving a "national democratic revolution".

The document was criticised as lacking depth by some analysts yesterday, who also felt there was a broad understanding of the term "revolution" and that this needed to be simplified.

Mantashe also hit out at the tender system, saying the state needed to have its own capacity to do basic things. He highlighted the unintended consequences of Black Economic Empowerment (BEE), which had so far failed to transform the economy. Such failures, including rampant poverty, inequality and unemployment, had prompted the debate on the new phase of the national democratic revolution.

Xolani Qubeka, CEO of the Black Business Forum, agreed with Mantashe, saying the BEE policy "lacked teeth". He further criticised many government interventions, saying they were more focused on compliance than driving economic transformation.

Another professional from the banking sector lamented that the term "BEE" had become a swearword used by people only when it suited them.

With just four months to go before Mangaung, Mantashe said the dynamics in the ruling party had changed, as it was currently marred by "negative tendencies".

"Today we must deal with the reality of corruption," he said, comparing the current situation with taking a mouse to a cheese factory. But he played down factionalism within the the party.

"I don't think the fact that people have different views means the organisation is stagnant," he said.

Source: Sowetan

Khoza’s new warning of ‘rogue state’ future for SA

NEDBANK chairman Reuel Khoza has once again criticised SA’s leaders, this time for lacking the ethics required to root out corruption and to create a prosperous nation. Mr Khoza was harshly rebuked and called to African National Congress (ANC) headquarters for a talking-to in April when he wrote in the bank’s annual report there was a "strange breed" of leaders who were undermining SA’s democratic institutions.

In an article published on Politicsweb.co.za this week, Mr Khoza gave notice he was not going to back down in the face of criticism and stepped up his censure — declaring SA was on the road to becoming a "rogue state". "Not only is corruption rife at the top of society, but convicted criminals with the right connections can get a sympathetic hearing from the powers-that-be," he wrote.

Mr Khoza said SA should heed the warnings of international leaders — such as US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and former Irish president Mary Robinson who recently visited the country. The two condemned planned media censorship, warned on rising corruption and suggested that the ANC was fast losing its moral authority.

"Warnings to South Africans to wake up and resist the spread of institutional crime seem to fall on deaf ears as the pace of misgovernance by misdeeds hots up," Mr Khoza said. "I have been severely criticised by the ANC for saying that a ‘strange breed’ of leaders is undermining our institutions.

"Although I never mentioned any particular authority figures or parties by name, those who identified themselves may once again be smarting from the whiplash remarks of Clinton and Robinson. What exactly is the problem we face here?

"In my opinion it is that political, business and others in leadership positions reflect short-term transitional and ethically weak transactional leadership styles."

He criticised the concept of a "second transition" — which was backed by President Jacob Zuma at the ANC’s policy conference in June, but rejected. Mr Khoza said speaking of a second transition when the first one was "not even halfway accomplished is an admission of failing transitional leadership status".

ANC secretary-general Gwede Mantashe, who was among the party leaders who had a face-to-face meeting with Mr Khoza in April and accused him of bad-mouthing SA and chasing investors away, said yesterday that the bank chairman was free to air his views in public. Mr Mantashe said Mr Khoza had "relegated" himself to being "a political commentator or intellectual" by publishing his opinions, and he saw no need for the ANC to respond.

Political analyst Ralph Mathekga said yesterday Mr Khoza was justified in criticising the country’s leadership. He said because of its hegemony, the ANC was setting the trends and its weaknesses encouraged mediocrity. Mr Khoza wrote that SA needed transformational leadership to "get us out of the mess we are getting into". Leaders would need to honour the institutions of democracy, the rule of law, the balance of powers, judicial independence, accountability in governance and a moral outlook.

"Ultimately it is when the leadership truly empathises with the plight of the poor and downtrodden, and seeks to build a better society on the basis of a historically rooted vision, predicated on an ethical value system, beckoned and guided by a compelling, wholesome sense of destiny, that people can truly walk proud and rise to the best in themselves," Mr Khoza said.

"There are no short cuts and those who try to achieve their own narrow purposes — be it the retention of power, profit at any cost, or simply adulation from the ill-informed — will destroy our constitution and with it the dream of a common, tolerant, caring and equitable SA."

Answering questions from Congress of the People MP Juli Kil ian in Parliament yesterday, Deputy President Kgalema Motlanthe said fighting corruption demanded "far more than just institutions and laws".

"Corruption happens when people who work inside and outside government manipulate the system for their own benefit. This happens despite the robustness of anticorruption institutions," Mr Motlanthe said.

A joint effort was required to strengthen institutions and programmes designed to get rid of corruption, he added.

"We must raise the bar in terms of accountability and monitoring of how public funds are used," Mr Motlanthe said.

The Special Investigating Unit, the agency to which the government assigns investigations of corruption in public institutions, reported to Parliament last month that it was probing cases involving R5bn in government funds.

Source: Business Day

ANC hails Wolmarans prosecution

The ANC has welcomed the prosecution of former Rustenburg mayor Matthews Wolmarans.

“The successful prosecution... is a demonstration once more that this country cannot afford crime in whatever form and irrespective of who commits it,” African National Congress spokesman Jackson Mthembu said on Friday. “The ANC... is disappointed that a senior member of the organisation... has been found guilty of the murder of a whistleblower and a fellow ANC councillor,” he said in a statement.

Wolmarans was jailed for 20 years on Tuesday for the murder of Moss Phakoe. The Rustenburg High Court also sentenced Wolmarans's former bodyguard Enoch Matshaba to life in prison. Matshaba was arrested on August 4, 2011, after a witness told the police in Bela Bela about the crime. He saw Matshaba holding a gun at Phakoe's home just after hearing two gunshots. Wolmarans was arrested on September 24, 2011, together with Amos Mataboge and Oupa Mphomane. Charges against Mataboge and Mphomane were dropped.

Phakoe was shot dead at his home in Rustenburg north in March 2009 after handing over a dossier detailing corruption in the municipality to high-ranking ANC officials, including secretary general Gwede Mantashe and President Jacob Zuma. Phakoe also gave the dossier to former co-operative governance minister Sicelo Shiceka, in the presence of Wolmarans.

Jackson said: “The ANC has never lived with nor tolerated political assassins and we therefore condemn in strongest terms the act of political murder instigated by the former mayor.” The ANC would refer the matter to its national disciplinary committee. “We are confident that our disciplinary structures will deal with matter expeditiously and arrive at a sanction that will be commensurate to the serious offence committed by these comrades,” said Mthembu.

Source: IoL

African National Congress Acts to Silence a Critic

Julius Malema, the polarizing leader of the African National Congress Youth League, was abruptly suspended from the party on Wednesday, effectively silencing him within South Africa’s main political body as he fights for his political life. The announcement came after a speech on Friday in which Mr. Malema accused President Jacob Zuma of becoming a dictator, and after a highly unusual news conference on Tuesday by the party’s top leadership to denounce divisive squabbles.

The decision to silence Mr. Malema, analysts say, is less about finishing off his waning political prospects than an effort by Mr. Zuma to quell serious speculation that one or more senior party members will seek to unseat him as president of the A.N.C. and the country at the party’s leadership conference in December. Mr. Zuma himself rose to the presidency by defeating his predecessor, Thabo Mbeki, in a leadership fight in 2007 in which Mr. Malema and the Youth League played a central role.

“It was beginning to look as if Zuma wasn’t in charge of his own organization,” said Steven Friedman, director of the Center for the Study of Democracy. “He needed to show who’s boss.”

The suspension is the latest and in some way the harshest punishment meted out against Mr. Malema, who was once one of Mr. Zuma’s most ardent supporters but has become a harsh critic.

Mr. Malema was convicted at the end of February in an internal disciplinary trial of sowing division within the party, and was sentenced to expulsion. The A.N.C., which prizes its reputation for fairness, allowed Mr. Malema to keep his membership while he appealed the expulsion, a process that will continue despite the latest decision. In the meantime, he had been using A.N.C. events and the support of some top party leaders to press his case with the rank and file, casting himself as the victim of a stultified elite wary of his radical ideas to help the poor. With his suspension, he has lost access to that platform. He also faces multiple investigations into his personal finances: he has become a wealthy man while leading the Youth League, and has been frequently accused of corruption.

Mr. Malema is no stranger to outrageous remarks. He revived the anti-apartheid struggle song “Shoot the Boer,” a term for white farmers, leading him to be convicted of using hate speech. He called a BBC reporter a “bloody agent.” Back when he was close to Mr. Zuma, he declared himself ready to die for the man. But on Friday, Mr. Malema apparently went too far when he attacked Mr. Zuma at a Youth League event to celebrate the A.N.C.’s centennial.

“It is under President Zuma we have seen a critical voice being suppressed,” Mr. Malema told a cheering crowd at the University of the Witwatersrand. “We have seen under President Zuma democracy being replaced with dictatorship.”

Also on stage was Mathews Phosa, the party treasurer and one of six members of the A.N.C.’s national executive committee. Mr. Phosa has been a supporter of Mr. Malema and a critic of Mr. Zuma. Mr. Malema has also courted Kgalema Motlanthe, a former president and now Mr. Zuma’s deputy, who appeared at another Youth League event where Mr. Zuma was harshly criticized. But both potential rivals appeared at Mr. Zuma’s side at a news conference on Tuesday, which was held by Gwede Mantashe, the party’s secretary general, in an effort to project a united front. The fact that members of the executive committee who seemed to be at odds with the president could be compelled to show up demonstrated that Mr. Zuma, despite deep divisions within the party, is likely to be re-elected, said Karema Brown, a veteran political analyst.

“It was an important show of force,” Ms. Brown said. “And of course it wasn’t a show of unity. It was a real demonstration of power. If he didn’t have that power, he wouldn’t have been able to get them to sit there.”

The A.N.C., like any big political party, has always struggled to keep its diverse membership and ambitious leadership under one big tent, though not always successfully. The most acrimonious and public infighting was that which led to the ouster of Mr. Mbeki, Nelson Mandela’s chosen successor, as party president in 2007. He was soon pushed out as president of the country as well, temporarily replaced by his deputy, Mr. Motlanthe, and eventually by the man he had previously fired as his deputy, Mr. Zuma. Every attempt to undercut the party’s power by splitting it has ended in failure. The most recent effort, the Congress of the People, founded by disgruntled supporters of Mr. Mbeki, has struggled to attract votes and has been riven by rivalries.

Source: New York Times

ANC infighting derails service delivery: Holomisa

Infighting within the ANC has derailed service delivery in favour of the struggle for power, United Democratic Movement president Bantu Holomisa said on Wednesday. “The attention of the electorate is constantly diverted away from assessing the real performance of government to discussing the ruling party’s endless succession debate,” Holomisa said in a statement. “While this happens, the looting of state resources unabatedly continues.”

He said the same thing happened in the run up to the African National Congress’s conference in Polokwane in 2007. “Service delivery was handicapped by the ruling party’s infighting. The [former president Thabo] Mbeki vs [President Jacob] Zuma saga played itself out in ways that incessantly whittled away the foundations of our democratic dispensation,” said Holomisa. Infighting in the ruling party had taken a turn for the worse.

Holomisa’s statement followed an ANC press briefing on Tuesday at which top officials said the party was united. Zuma, Deputy President Kgalema Motlanthe, ANC treasurer general Mathews Phosa, national chairwoman Baleka Mbete, secretary general Gwede Mantashe and deputy secretary general Thandi Modise addressed the media in Johannesburg as a collective. Holomisa said allowing one political party to be too powerful and dominant created an arrogant government.

“Bearing this in mind, has the time not come for the South African voters to consider putting their eggs in other baskets?” he asked.

Source: The Sowetan

On self-serving and untrue criticisms of the judiciary

When US President Barack Obama on Tuesday said that he was confident that the US Supreme Court would not overturn parts or all of his signature health care legislation, some South Africans who blindly repeat the self-serving but blatantly untrue claims of their preferred leaders, might have been tempted to shout: “We told you so.”

If Obama can implicitly criticise the judges of the US Supreme Court, why can’t President Zuma say that he wants to review the powers of the Constitutional Court? Why can’t Gwede Mantashe say that our judges threaten the stability of the country and act in their own self-interest because they are hostile to the ANC-led executive? Why can’t Ngoako Ramathlodi say that because of the Constitution “the black majority enjoys empty political power while forces against change reign supreme in the economy, judiciary, public opinion and civil society”? Why can’t he say that the courts in our judiciary “the forces against change still hold relative hegemony”?

They may be emboldened by this line of reasoning if they read the column by liberal New York Times columnist Maureen Dowd who lashed out at the five right wing judges who form a majority on the nine-member US Supreme Court in the following manner:

This court, cosseted behind white marble pillars, out of reach of TV, accountable to no one once they give the last word, is well on its way to becoming one of the most divisive in modern American history. It has squandered even the semi-illusion that it is the unbiased, honest guardian of the Constitution. It is run by hacks dressed up in black robes. All the fancy diplomas of the conservative majority cannot disguise the fact that its reasoning on the most important decisions affecting Americans seems shaped more by a political handbook than a legal brief.

But this possible shadenfreude by South African critics of the Constitutional Court would be unjustified and more than a tinge dishonest. Very few people argue that judges and the decisions they make should never be criticised – even in harsh terms. I myself have often criticised various judgments of the Constitutional Court as well as many judgments delivered by judges in other courts in South Africa. Criticism of judgments of the judiciary is not the issue. For example, a critical analysis of the Constitutional Court judgment which refused to hear the Hlophe appeal would be potentially valuable. I for one would engage vigorously with such a critical analysis and will try to demolish any kind of argument put up (which, I believe, would not be too difficult to do).

This kind of criticism of judicial decisions is par for the course for any academic.

What we object to is the conservative attacks on the judiciary masquerading as radical concern for transformation. Some of us take issue with Jacob Zuma, Gwede Mantashe, Ngoako Ramathlodi and others, not because they criticise court judgments or because they attack specific judges (based on the conservative or even reactionary judgments handed down by those judges). We take issue with these self-serving and undemocratic attacks, first, because the attacks on the judiciary (the Constitutional Court, in particular) and on specific judges are not based on fact at all and are mostly based on, (how shall I put this nicely), an adventurous and creative engagement with the truth.

It is not as if the Constitutional Court cannot and should not be criticised. But then it should be based on the judgments of that court and the reasoning employed in the specific judgements of that court by an individual judge. I have yet to see any critic of that court explaining which judgments exactly demonstrate that the Constitutional Court is hostile to the ANC or that it opposes transformation.

Can it be the judgment in which the court found that search warrants in the Zuma case were valid? No, that case dealt a blow to Jacob Zuma’s attempts to stay out of jail, but obviously had nothing to do with transformation. Can it be the judgment that declared invalid the law on which President Zuma relied when he extended the term of office of the former Chief Justice? No luck there either, as that judgment was based on a protection of the separation of powers and the independence of the judiciary (which the ANC says it will defend to the bitter end), so that judgment was actually pro-ANC. Was it the judgment which invalidated the government’s HIV mother to child transmission policy? No, that judgment promoted the well-being of poor and vulnerable women and their children. And what judgment exactly threatened the stability of the country? Not one judgment comes to mind or has ever been mentioned by the critics of the Constitutional Court.

But there is a second reason why most of these attacks on the judiciary and the Constitutional Court are not just wrong, but also dangerous. They often seem to come from a deeply reactionary and undemocratic place. What is being objected to is not the politics or ideology of a specific Constitutional Court judgment or whether the judgment is pro-transformation or anti-transformation (after all, if that was the issue, the current Chief Justice – the most conservative member on that court – would never have been appointed by President Zuma).

Instead, the aim of those who attack the Constitutional Court often seems to be to create a scapegoat for the governance failures of the government. Without ever being able to name one Constitutional Court judgment which has stopped textbooks from being delivered to a school, which has stopped the government from replacing mud schools with brick and mortar schools, which has stopped the government from taking back control of schools from the out of control labour unions, attackers claim that it is the fault of the Constitutional Court that for some people little has changed in South Africa since 1994.

But it was not the Constitutional Court that imposed the GEAR policy on the government; that imposed a willing-buyer willing-seller land reform policy on the government; that forced the government to buy R40 billion worth of arms; that forced the government Ministers to stay at the Mount Nelson and buy million Rand cars. No, that was our government who did this all by itself.

So, by all means, criticise the judgments of the Constitutional Court, but be honest when you do so. Do not hide behind vague and untrue claims about the evil courts to try and justify the failures of the government. Do not attack the supremacy of the Constitution – as if this supremacy is to blame for the many “challenges” of government. Be honest about your motives for criticising a judgment. For example, why not come right out and say that the decision by the Supreme Court of Appeal (SCA) nullifying the appointment of Menzi Simelane, has nothing to do with fears of stifling transformation and everything to do with fears that an independent person will be appointed as National Director of Public Prosecutions who will not block the prosecution of well-connected politicians.

Source: Constitutionally Speaking

A political solution that killed

Some of the most upsetting evidence heard by a South African court after the advent of democracy was ­delivered last week in the North West, largely unnoticed by the mainstream media. The testimony that ANC councillor Alfred Motsi gave under oath in the Mahikeng High Court should send shivers down the spines of all peace-loving South Africans. Motsi testified against former Rustenburg mayor Matthews Wolmarans and his bodyguard, Enoch Matshaba, who are accused of gunning down former councillor and trade unionist Moss Phakoe in his driveway after returning home from an ANC meeting in Rustenburg in March 2009.

Motsi’s evidence is yet to be challenged. The most chilling part of the case against Phakoe’s alleged killers is not the murder, but the events preceding his untimely death. Motsi’s version provided fascinating, yet frightening, insights into how the ANC under President Jacob Zuma is “dealing” with ­corruption.

In a nutshell, Phakoe stumbled upon ­evidence implicating Wolmarans – then the mayor of Rustenburg – in corruption. Motsi testified he and Phakoe compiled a dossier of the alleged corruption. As loyal cadres, they decided to first present their evidence to the ANC before going to the police. But nothing came of meetings with the ANC’s regional or North West leadership, or of a meeting with ANC heavyweights Billy Masetlha and Siphiwe Nyanda. They delivered their evidence to the offices of ANC secretary-general Gwede Mantashe and then president Kgalema Motlanthe, all to no avail, testified Motsi.

After five failed attempts to get the attention of the ANC, Phakoe and Motsi delivered documentation to Zuma’s Forest Town house. Zuma responded by inviting them to Nkandla over the 2008 Christmas period. At the time, Zuma himself was accused of corruption and debates about a “political solution” to make his legal problem evaporate were abound. After travelling the length and breadth of the country to get to Zuma’s homestead, the politicians spent “almost a whole night” with Zuma and presented their evidence to him.

A month later, Phakoe, Motsi and other ANC councillors met Zuma, Motlanthe, Mantashe and other ANC top brass in Potchefstroom. They again presented their dossier of corruption claims against Wolmarans and were told that then cooperative governance and traditional affairs minister Sicelo Shiceka would call a meeting “to solve the problem”. On the seventh attempt to have the issue addressed, Phakoe addressed a meeting chaired by Shiceka in March 2009, where he again presented his dossier. Curiously, ­Wolmarans, who Phakoe had implicated in serious corruption, was present. Before Phakoe addressed the meeting, Motsi testified, he looked Wolmarans in the eye and said: “Hate me, but don’t hurt me.”

Two days later, Phakoe was shot dead in a hit allegedly masterminded by Wolmarans and his bodyguard. If ever the ANC and Zuma needed a reason corruption should be dealt with by the criminal justice system – and not through some comradely political solution behind close doors – the dead body of Moss Phakoe is that reason. Here was a whistle-blower who put his life – literally – on the line to give effect to Zuma’s plea in his 2009 state of the nation address for citizens to “report crime and assist the police with information to catch ­wrongdoers”. Unfortunately, Moss Phakoe learned the hard way that Zuma maybe didn’t refer to corruption when he spoke of “crime” in his speech – especially when senior comrades are involved.

Taking into account the Phakoe case, ­Zuma’s own aborted corruption prosecution and recent turmoil in the criminal justice ­sector, the hard question that must be asked is whether the ANC is consciously undermining the rule of law in favour of “political solutions” for politically connected individuals.

Since Zuma’s election as ANC leader in 2007, corruption-fighting institutions have been weakened substantially. The Scorpions were closed down, which led to an outflow of skilled forensic investigators and analysts to the private sector.

The Hawks, which replaced the Scorpions, were in effect an amalgamation of the police’s serious and violent crimes unit and ­commercial branch.

The unit’s corruption successes, albeit laudable, are mostly limited to lower-level officials, cheque fraud or small-town crooks. Bigger cases, like the fraud trial against Czech mafioso Radovan Krejcir, seem to be falling apart.

At the same time, Public Protector Thuli Madonsela has become the face of corruption busting in the country, although she does not have the powers to prosecute.

Those fingered by her investigations are rapped over the knuckles, but seldom face the consequences of their deeds in court.

The corruption and money laundering ­investigation into expelled ANC Youth League leader Julius Malema will be an important test for the state’s will and ability to prosecute the connected and powerful.

Malema will have taken tips from ­Zuma’s manoeuvring to escape prosecution. We can be sure that he and his supporters will push for a “political solution” to make possible charges go away.

But this is not justice – as Moss Phakoe learned in such a brutal and undignified way.

Source: City Press

Malema verdict might not be something to celebrate

It is understandable that members of the chattering classes as well as other members of the public (including many rank and file members of the ANC yearning for a, perhaps mythical, simpler time when ANC Youth League members behaved properly and listened to their elders) on Saturday applauded the verdict of the ANC National Disciplinary Committee of Appeal (NDCA) which confirmed the guilty verdict against Julius Malema.

It could not have hurt that the verdict was delivered by a confident and in charge Cyril Ramaphosa, who reminded us again why so many of us have regretted the fact that he lost out to Thabo Mbeki when Mandela’s ANC had to appoint a Deputy President and why some of us still wistfully wonder what might have been if he had become our President instead of either Thabo Mbeki or Jacob Zuma.

Although some newspaper editors might miss Malema (given the fact that he has the ability to make news and sell newspapers), most of us might feel slightly relieved that this hypocritical demagogue has been dealt with so effectively and seemingly so decisively by the ANC senior leadership.

Yet, there is something about the way in which Jacob Zuma and Gwede Mantashe managed to clip Malema’s wings that sits uneasy with me. If they could do it to him, I wonder, could they do it to anyone else – including every single one of us who are members of the chattering classes and sometimes mock or criticise our dancing and singing President and every single ANC member who fails to toe the party line or who speaks out against the abuse of power or incompetence by some members of the leadership?

Is there not just a whiff of Stalinism about the way in which Zuma and Matashe got rid of a political enemy? Can we expect the pictures to be airbrushed next so that Malema will disappear completely from official ANC history?

Recall that Malema was convicted on three charges, two of them having been confirmed by the NDCA. First, he was convicted of contravening Rule 25.5 (1) of the ANC Constitution “by behaving in such a way as to provoke serious divisions or a breakdown of unity in the organisation”. His sin was that he addressed a press conference on 31 July 2011 at the conclusion of an ANC Youth League NEC meeting where he said amongst other things “in the past we know President Mbeki used that agenda very well …. The African agenda is no longer a priority and we think that there is a temptation by the coloniser and the imperialist to want to recolonise Africa in a different but sophisticated way and President Mbeki stood directly opposed to that type of conduct.”

The NDC found that through his utterances Malema sought to portray the ANC government and its leadership under President Zuma in a negative light which therefore had the potential to sow division and disunity in the ANC. The NDCA confirmed the reasoning of the NDC. The implications of this verdict are rather stark. Any ANC member who now suggests that an out of favour former President may have done some good and that he might have been better than an incumbent leader can now be kicked out of the Party for contravening Rule 25.5(1). If this principle had been applied consistently in the past, Mbeki would have been able to get rid of Zuma and most of his opponents long before the votes were counted at Polokwane. To his credit, he never used such tactics against them.

The verdict comes perilously close to suggesting that no ANC member will henceforth be allowed ever to criticise the incumbent ANC leadership in public. This is a rather handy precedent to set if one intends to stand for a second (or third) term in office or if one wishes to “manage” future leadership elections. To my mind the ruling on this point seems profoundly undemocratic and deeply dangerous and both ANC members and other members of the public should feel more than a bit worried about this move. One should not confuse approval for the outcome of this case (silencing Malema) with what is good for the ANC and South Africa and if one does, one underestimates the possible ruthlessness of the current bunch of ANC leaders aiming to secure a second term for themselves at Mangaung.

Malema was also convicted of contravening Rule 25.5 (c) of the Constitution of the ANC by behaving in such a way as to bring the organisation into disrepute. This was done for ostensibly slightly more plausible reasons, namely because he addressed a press conference on 31 July 2011 by making announcements amongst others:

* That the Botswana leadership of government poses a serious threat to Africa so we need a progressive government in Botswana;
* We are not going to sit with neighbours that conduct themselves like that. Botswana is in full co-operation with imperialists and the government is undermining the African agenda;
* The ANC Youth League would establish a Botswana Command Team which would work towards uniting all opposition forces in Botswana to oppose the puppet regime of Botswana led by the Botswana Democratic Party.

Now, imagine, for a moment that the statement did not relate to Botswana but to Zimbabwe and that Zwelenzima Vavi had made it and not Malema. Imagine Vavi had said that Robert Mugabe and his Zanu-PF had ruined Zimbabwe and that Cosatu would mobilise ANC members to oppose the murderous regime in Zimbabwe and to unite opposition forces in that country to try and oust Mugabe. If the Zuma and Mantashe had then proceeded to discipline Vavi and if he was then suspended from the ANC, would we all be cheering this on as we are doing with the Malema case?

Surely ordinary ANC members (yes, also those who helped to get rid of Thabo Mbeki at Polokwane, ostensibly because of his dictatorial tendencies) should feel more than a bit uncomfortable by the manner in which Malema had been dealt with? I ask again: will there be other casualties and will the same principles be used to get rid of other opponents who do not shut up? Will they go after Matthews Phosa? Will they go after Kgalema Motlanthe if he ever grew a backbone and actually indicated that he was interested in presidency of the ANC? Will they go after our charming, but arch-opportunist, Tokyo Sexwale, for showing rather too much ambition?

And should this not all be read against the background of the pending suspension of a senior NPA prosecutor, reportedly because she refused to drop charges against crime intelligence boss Richard Mdluli who is said to enjoy protection from “right at the top”? Remember that last year a secret report prepared by Mduli was leaked to the newspaper and that this report claimed that various ANC leaders met in January 2010 in Estcourt, KwaZulu-Natal to plot the ouster of Jacob Zuma. (Why crime intelligence was involved in such a story is unclear as it is perfectly legal in a democracy for political contenders within a party to plot against each other – as long as they use only legal means.)

Key members of the group that is said to have met are KwaZulu-Natal provincial premier Zweli Mkhize and Human Settlements Minister Tokyo Sexwale.

Remember also that the Secrecy Bill has just as much if not more to do with attempts by the intelligence agencies (firmly under the control of Zuma and Mantashe) to protect their agents and to prevent any exposure of their – legal or illegal – activities which we now know (thanks to Mduli) also focus on the succession race inside the ANC.

It might be that Malema is a special case and that the extraordinary precedent set by this disciplinary case against Malema will not be used against other critics of the current ANC leadership or against anyone who dares to show any ambition to take over the job of President or Secretary General of the ANC. But do not count on it.

Source: Constitutionally Speaking

Nationalism, not nationalisation

If I were a betting person, which I'm not, I would say that the centrepiece of the ANC's approach to managing the mineral resources of the country will be a resource rent tax (RRT). A research committee investigating the role of the state in the management of the country's mineral resources has completed its study but, according to ANC secretary general Gwede Mantashe, the report has been sent back to the authors to ensure that it is written in accessible language.

The research is in response to calls for the nationalisation of the mines by ANC Youth League revolutionary-turned-cattle-farmer Julius Malema. The committee has studied best practice in 13 countries. Its report has yet to be made public but the outlines of its content have begun to emerge.

At the least, it will seek a more activist role for the state in the management of the country's $2.5-trillion of unmined resources. This continues to be cast as nationalisation but, more accurately, can be thought of as nationalism: the question is how the state can ensure that the country extracts the maximum benefit from its resource base.

Two of the heaviest hitters in the commodities market, Ivan Glasenberg of Glencore and Tom Albanese of Rio Tinto, with combined annual global revenues of $240-billion last year, have in recent months singled out resource nationalism as a key potential risk to their businesses.

My understanding is that a key finding by the ANC's research team is that state intervention in the minerals sector internationally is the norm rather than the exception. This will no doubt challenge conventional market-based theory that holds that the state should limit its role to providing infrastructure and good governance such as in the issuing of mining licences.

You have to note that the ANC-run government has not covered itself in glory on this point. It reformed the old system in which "big mining" grabbed as many of these rights as possible and then, in some cases, sat on them as though they were a God-given right. But the new system has suffered from a lack of transparency and has, apparently, such as is the case in the Kumba/ArcelorMittal deal, been used to take a nice chunk of the Sishen iron-ore mine and transfer it to the first family and its cronies.

The RRT is best known as a controversial tax that former Australian prime minister Kevin Rudd wanted to introduce. It led to his undoing, but his successor, Julia Gillard, has recently passed the tax into law, albeit at a much lower tax rate than that envisaged by Rudd. The Australians intend using the RRT's proceeds, about R88-billion over four years, to build new infrastructure and cut taxes on higher value-added, job-creating secondary industries.

The idea is that this will help to combat the continuing deindustralisation of the Australian economy and help prepare the economy for the days when natural resources have been depleted. The fact that BHP Billiton earlier this year posted a record profit of $24-billion on revenue of $71-billion and taxes of $7-billion no doubt helped the passage of the bill. The RRT is an additional tax imposed on profit over and above all other taxes. As such, it is a kind of a windfall tax. These are much better known. The United Kingdom, for instance, has had such a tax on the North Sea gasfields. Many oil-producing countries have similar taxes, the authorities sometimes taking the lion's share of profit in taxes. Ghana this week announced a windfall tax on minerals, saying it was part of a move to equalise taxes on mining and oil companies. The tax, which Bloomberg reported is supported by the International Monetary Fund, will be set at 10% of profit after company tax, which has recently been raised from 25% to 35%.

"Ghana, Africa's second-biggest gold producer, will set up a publicly traded company to manage the country's revenue from the precious metal, including profit from a planned windfall tax and higher corporate tariffs," Bloomberg reported. "The Ghana Gold company will be majority owned by the West African nation's government and will list shares on the Ghana Stock Exchange," Newman Kusi, an adviser to Finance Minister Kwabena Duffuor, told Bloomberg.

It is understood that the International Monetary Fund is supportive of resource taxes if they are well designed and do not operate as a disincentive to investment. It supported Australian initiatives to implement its resource tax and is likely to take an interest in moves by South Africa to introduce such a tax here. A high-profile supporter of resource taxes is Nobel laureate Joseph Stiglitz, who last year said Australian miners had been too influential in shaping the debate about resource taxes.'"The natural resources belong to the people,'' he said. "You need to have a well-designed competitive auction to have different companies compete so that companies get the necessary returns to do the investment, but the surplus goes to the Australian people," Stiglitz said, as reported by The Age.

Documents published on the ANC's website, including that by Paul Jordaan, a researcher on the panel investigating economic options for the state, have suggested that resource taxes can realise most if not all of the outcomes listed by pro-nationalisation pundits, including increased revenue for the fiscus and greater equity from the proceeds of scarce resources, without exposing the economy to the great risks nationalisation would bring. Also apparently mooted in the yet-to-be-released ANC's economic policy documents are export taxes on some minerals, which could be used to incentivise the local beneficiation of minerals. The idea would be to attract industries to source their inputs domestically at the lower local price.

Word is that the ANC's research indicates that as much as R40-billion could be realised annually from a RRT, that is about 40% of the current R104-billion budget deficit. There is debate about whether local miners would be able to pass on higher taxes to end users, but some of our smartest economists see this in simple terms: we give away our minerals too cheaply, exchanging a declining resource for oil and other imports that we use to fuel our lifestyles. In an ideal world, we would earn more for our resources, at least while the commodity boom fuelled by the rapid growth of China and India continues, perhaps even sufficient to run a trade surplus rather than a deficit. In this scenario, we could move from being a debtor nation to a creditor one, with cheaper money as there would be less need to keep rates high to attract foreign money.

The counter argument, though, is that, should the state get its intervention wrong and mess up key prices, it could put the economy at significant risk. The fact that our parastatals have been poor performers adds weight to this argument. If you cannot run utilities in transport, energy and tele-communications, are you really up for interventionist strategies to raise mineral prices?

Another argument against resource taxes is that the state can get used to the windfalls and will not spend these revenues wisely and sustainably. The counter argument to this, as noted by the Australians, is that the benefits should accrue not to the fiscus but to a stabilisation fund, which then smooths out the dividend flow to the state.

It is understood that the ANC proposals favour establishing a sovereign fund from some of the proceeds, the idea being that these funds are invested offshore to help keep the currency competitive. One of the economic risks is that the state has been unwilling to bring in the private sector to help develop infrastructure. We are yet to hear how the proceeds of possible windfall taxes will be used but, if it means a bigger state with more money to spend rather than lower taxes on jobcreating businesses, we could end up back at square one.

Source: Mail & Guardian

ANC's resource nationalism

The ANC will push for a new interventionist economic nationalism, rather than a simplistic nationalisation of the country's $2.5-trillion in resources not yet mined, which was what ANC Youth League leader Julius Malema had wanted.

The Mail & Guardian has learned from various sources that central to this plan is to force competitive input prices through taxes and other penalties and for state institutions to take bigger stakes in companies that hold key strategic infrastructure minerals. Every producer or miner of critical feeder stocks that are used in manufacturing -- from steel, fertiliser, coal, platinum, polymers and copper to cement will be targeted for these types of intervention.

The radical proposals are contained in three discussion reports that the researchers handed to ANC secretary general Gwede Mantashe and the head of the ANC economic transformation committee, Enoch Godongwana, two weeks ago. The documents are still to be debated and vetted by the ANC national executive committee before the party can showcase it at its policy conference in June next year.

The first discussion document deals with economic policy and globalisation; the second discusses how state-owned enterprises and development finance institutions can partner with savings industry funds for new infrastructure; and the third investigates nationalisation as an option for ways the state can intervene to benefit from mineral wealth.

Although resource nationalism is seen by some economists as a killer of investment, the ANC's research team that looked at the option indicates that state intervention in the minerals sector internationally is the norm rather than the exception. The team visited 13 countries around the globe as part of their research. Its idea is to use South Africa's resources sector to spur the creation of a thriving manufacturing industry that can drive growth and create jobs.

An option mooted is for state institutions and unions collectively to increase their shareholding in companies such as petrochemicals giant Sasol and steel conglomerate ArcelorMittal South Africa. The view is that these companies, which were once state entities, have strategic input assets that are used in manufacturing, but they are now engaging in predatory pricing and monopolistic activity that stifles competition and growth. "It's more about the alternatives to nationalisation and greater state intervention," Godongwana told the M&G this week. "The state needs to get a better share of these very high prices being charged."

The Public Investment Corporation, which has R1-trillion in assets, and the Industrial Development Corporation together own 26% of Sasol. The proposal is that union investment funds should be used to increase this stake to 51%. As controlling shareholders the state-cum-union would then be able to fix Sasol's prices at rates more beneficial to the economy.

To nationalise, on the other hand, would be highly expensive. Sasol, for example, could cost the state more than R50-billion and ArcelorMittal about R8-billion.

Some of the other options on the table in terms of state interventions on mineral assets are:

* An exports tax on raw minerals as an incentive for companies to beneficiate in South Africa and grow the country's manufacturing capacity. It is a more protectionist approach, one which many other countries have followed, especially in these uncertain economic conditions. But the export tax is exactly the same as the royalties tax, which is based on revenues. The suggestion then is for the royalties tax to be either adjusted or scrapped.

* A resources rent tax, similar to the Australian model, which is based on profits.

* All strategic minerals will have pricing conditions. There is a recommendation to amend the Minerals and Petroleum Resources Development Act to give the minister power to attach conditions to existing and new licences that will force companies such as Sasol to charge a lower export parity-related price than downstream producers would pay in China, for example. These price conditions would have to be imposed by Sasol on their buyers to which they on-sell.

* Strengthen the Competition Act further to allow for stiffer penalties.

* Increase competition in sectors by bringing in an Asian competitor, for example, that will be partly funded by state institutions, such as the Industrial Development Corporation, to challenge monopolies. The same price conditions, however, will apply to the new player.

* Use electricity, rail and port tariffs to force monopolies to lower prices. One recommendation is that Eskom introduce a surcharge on electricity tariffs for Sasol, for example, as a way of disciplining the petrochemicals giant in terms of its higher prices.

* Instead of nationalising Kumba Iron Ore, a proposal is to introduce a user-pay concession on the rail link from its main Sishen mine in the Northern Cape to allow it to export more iron ore. Kumba could build and operate the line for about 15 years and then transfer it to Transnet.

* In the copper industry there are reserves for only another eight years. The state, through the Industrial Development Corporation, is already bidding to buy Rio Tinto's Phalaborwa Mining Company -- South Africa's only refined-copper producer -- which it could merge with state-owned Foskor.


Many of the proposals tie in with the government's broader goals to stimulate the country's industrial base as a way to meet the national growth path's target of five million jobs by 2020. But last weekend Mantashe sent the report on state interventions back to the drawing board, saying it needed to be rewritten in simpler language and case studies of other countries included.

Said Godongwana: "The report must capture the experiences of the 13 countries that were visited and reflect what is good and bad so that we can decide which lessons are useful for our own conditions. We need the best possible recommendations on how we can restructure the economy [to] make us more competitive."

But a number of ANC insiders led the M&G to believe that the report was sent back because it was too strongly against nationalisation and should eventually go down the "nationalisation-lite" route.

Peter Attard Montalto from research firm Nomura International said such interventions created only more investor uncertainty. "It has long been our view that the ANC would take a line of greater state control rather than nationalisation, but in the very long run it will lead us to the same place with the same cost as nationalisation."

Source: Mail & Guardian

ANC's China visit falls on back of Dalai Lama debacle

High-ranking officials of the African National Congress (ANC) visited China this week, local media reported on Sunday, in what could be seen as the party's unreserved support for Beijing. ANC officials were not immediately available to confirm reports in two newspapers -- the City Press and Sunday Independent -- that party representatives went to China.

The visit came after South Africa delayed a visa application for the Dalai Lama, who was to visit the country to celebrate Nobel Peace Prize winner Desmond Tutu's birthday. ANC supporters, leading newspapers and Tutu said the move was symbolic of the failings of the party that helped end apartheid but was now failing to live up to the ideals of the liberation movement it had once been.

China has labelled the Dalai Lama a dangerous separatist and analysts said Pretoria bowed to pressure from its largest trading partner to bar the Tibetan spiritual leader from visiting, damaging its reputation in the process. Two weeks ago, China pledged to invest $2.5-billion in South Africa during a visit to Beijing by Deputy President Kgalema Motlanthe. The City Press said ANC Secretary-General Gwede Mantashe, high-ranking official Jessie Duarte, deputy economic development minister Enoch Godongwana and other party officials had spent the week in China on an exchange programme with the Chinese Communist Party. ANC Gauteng Chairperson Paul Mashatile was quoted in the City Press as saying the Chinese governing party had offered to "teach the ANC about politics".

In a video link with Cape Town, the Dalai Lama on Saturday said China's officials were hypocrites whose regime was built on lies.

Source: Mail & Guardian

South Africans Protest Over Hearing for Zuma Rival

The police in South Africa on Tuesday confronted crowds of angry demonstrators supporting Julius Malema, the firebrand leader of the governing party’s influential youth league, as he attended a disciplinary hearing that could sway both his own political career and that of President Jacob Zuma before party elections next year.

Under attack by Malema supporters burning the party flag and throwing rocks and bottles, the police fired stun grenades and water cannons outside the Johannesburg headquarters of the African National Congress, in power since the first post-apartheid elections in 1994.  Protesters chanting “Zuma must go!” also burned T-shirts and posters bearing the president’s portrait, according to Internet postings by South African news services in Johannesburg. The police erected razor wire barricades while a police helicopter hovered. At least one officer was wounded by a flying brick, a police spokesman said, and a South African news channel said one of its television crews was attacked near the party headquarters, Luthuli House.

The hearing on Tuesday came days after an elite South African police unit known as the Hawks said it was investigating Mr. Malema’s lucrative financial dealings, South African news reports said.  It was not immediately clear when the internal disciplinary panel conducting the hearing would announce its findings. But the A.N.C.’s secretary general, Gwede Mantashe, announced later in the day that it was moving the panel to an unspecified location outside Johannesburg because of the violence. The panel is to resume deliberations on Wednesday.

In a statement on its Web site, the A.N.C. also condemned the mayhem and blamed it on the leadership of the youth league. “It is our view that those who have taken the responsibility to mobilize the crowds to gather outside Luthuli House — the leadership of the A.N.C. Youth League — should also take full responsibility for the violence, criminality and ill discipline that has accompanied these crowds,” the statement said.

Mr. Malema, 30, and other members of the youth league were appearing before the panel to determine whether they should be expelled or suspended for bringing the party’s name into disrepute after calling for the overthrow of the government in neighboring Botswana and criticizing the party leadership. If Mr. Malema is exonerated, South African analysts said, he may feel emboldened to challenge Mr. Zuma, to whom he brought decisive support in a leadership battle in 2007. But if Mr. Malema is sidelined, the party may be able to pack the youth league leadership with loyalists likely to throw their weight behind Mr. Zuma, ensuring his re-election as A.N.C. leader.

Under party rules, its leader is also its presidential candidate, so, the analysts said, the fight with Mr. Malema could determine the country’s future leadership. Mr. Zuma is currently visiting Norway.
The dispute between the two men reaches deep into South Africa’s post-apartheid society. With calls to nationalize mines and banks and to seize white-owned farmland, Mr. Malema has caught the imagination of the country’s disaffected youth, telling them that they are missing out on the economic fruits of political freedom. Referring to Mr. Malema’s travails with his party, Reuters quoted him as saying on Monday: “If the A.N.C. defines your future as expulsion, we are ready for that. This does not delay our economic struggle,” he said. “We see this as a setback for the revolution we are pursuing. We will continue to push for economic freedom in our lifetime.”

The hearing on Tuesday was the second involving Mr. Malema this year. In May, he was fined and ordered to apologize for sowing discord within the party and undermining its leader’s authority.  On July 31, he publicly urged the ouster of President Seretse Khama Ian Khama of neighboring Botswana.

The episode was only one of many that have made Mr. Malema an irritant to the authorities as much as a champion among his more radical followers. While his statements have solidified his support, they have often troubled potential foreign investors and members of the country’s sizable white minority.
When he supported Mr. Zuma for the leadership of the party, Mr. Malema said he was ready to kill for him. He has called Helen Zille, the main opposition leader, a cockroach. While the South African government has professed neutrality in efforts to resolve the political and economic crises in neighboring Zimbabwe, Mr. Malema openly supported President Robert G. Mugabe. He once expelled a BBC correspondent from a news conference, saying he had “white tendencies.” Only months ago, Mr. Malema also stirred heated debate about the limits of freedom of expression and the definition of hate speech by singing a song from South Africa’s liberation struggle — “Shoot the Boer.” The word Boer is usually translated from Afrikaans as meaning white farmer but is sometimes used to refer to any white South African.

The party has shown increasing exasperation with him. Some of his statements last year prompted it to order him to attend anger-management classes. But party leaders rallied to Mr. Malema over his choice of songs, supporting his assertion that the “Shoot the Boer” refrain referred to the anti-apartheid struggle and did not represent a call for murder.

Source: New York Times

Give power back to the branch – Mantashe

African National Congress (ANC) branches must be allowed to think for themselves and leadership choices must not be dictated by a "well-resourced, narrow circle" of party members, ANC secretary general Gwede Mantashe said on Tuesday. "Branches must be allowed to say 'that comrade did not do the work that he or she was given to do. Change that comrade'. And we are saying that culture must continue," he said at a media conference in Johannesburg.

The conference followed a four-day meeting of the ANC's national executive committee, which ended on Monday night. "But if we do what is called succession, you are actually killing the branches of the ANC. Branches of the ANC must be allowed to think and not be given a list of slates developed by a narrow, well-resourced circle in the ANC... That is a leadership responsibility; to liberate these branches from the vice of groupings that are intelligent, have the monopoly of wisdom, have resources, have a lot of cash-flow around elections... We must liberate the ANC from that."

He said nationalisation of the mines could not be used as a tool for punting leaders ahead of the next year's elective conference. "We must sustain nationalisation as a policy debate. You can't use a policy debate as a lobbying tool," he said.

The NEC met as the party's national officials – the top six leaders – brought disciplinary charges against ANC Youth League president Julius Malema and league spokesperson Floyd Shivambu. The charges related to comments critical of the Botswana government and about helping to strengthen opposition in that country.

Malema had said the league would support leaders, when the ANC went to its elective conference next year, who supported the league's economic programme including nationalisation of the mines and land reform without compensation.

Mantashe said the issues raised in the debate around nationalisation were pertinent, it was a "correct debate". "You can't use it as some mischievous tool of lobbying," he said. The debate had to be "anchored" in the content. The NEC re-affirmed its position on the so-called "succession debate" – that it was not yet opened for discussion. The ANC holds its next elective conference in December next year. The ANCYL and the Gauteng chapter of the party called for the opening of the debate on identifying the leadership to be elected at the conference in Mangaung.

Even some within the NEC wanted the leadership debate to be opened – Gauteng provincial chairperson, Paul Mashatile, made the call earlier this year. Malema, an ex-officio member of the NEC, also agitated for the opening of the debate at the league's own elective conference in June. "The fact that we had to remind the NEC of all the procedures, traditions and how these issues are handled in the ANC was informed by the observation that there was temptation in many structures of the ANC to jump the gun and start the nomination process today," Mantashe said.

He likened the ANC to an elephant – very slow, but very decisive when it started moving. "We reminded ourselves that we did take this decision and as members of the NEC there is an expectation that we must be loyal to our own decisions. That is part of that slow movement of an old organisation." The run-up to the Polokwane elective conference, during which President Jacob Zuma ousted former president Thabo Mbeki after a divisive leadership battle, was a "disaster", Mantashe said.

He said there would be no "silencing anybody" ahead of the 2012 conference. Lobbying should be done with respect. He was responding to questions on the disciplinary action taken against Malema. "So there is nothing political or silencing anybody. "Once you appreciate that election in 2012 is not a life and death issue for individuals, then you appreciate that there is a responsibility on this leadership to enforce discipline whether you are elected or not. "Whether you are liked or hated it doesn't matter, the organisation must not be allowed to collapse because you want to be popular and you want to be re-elected. It can't be allowed to happen... there is a term of five years, it ends in the 53rd national conference [2012]. "When we are told to stand off the stage, that is the end of our term. Before that any thing that happens, we are responsible. "Otherwise lobbying can be an open season of ill discipline, it cannot be allowed."

Mantashe described the meeting – which largely focused on discipline – as "candid and open". "That's why it took four days. It ended at 9 on Monday, day four. "We left that meeting understanding each other better."

Source: Polity

'We can't be seen to be weak': Mantashe takes aim at Malema

ANC secretary-general Gwede Mantashe launched a veiled attack on Julius Malema on Tuesday ahead of the ANC Youth League president's appearance before a disciplinary committee next week. At a press briefing at Luthuli House in Johannesburg following the ANC's special national executive committee (NEC) meeting at the weekend, Mantashe denounced the discipline problems besetting the party. "The NEC decried the crumbling of discipline in the ANC and it has emerged as a serious concern. Our failure to act on these issues will lose us the respect we enjoy in South Africa, the continent and the world," Mantashe said.

Malema, along with his spokesperson Floyd Shivambu, is due to appear before a party disciplinary hearing next week after being charged with misconduct last Friday for comments made on working towards regime change in Botswana. If found guilty, Malema faces being suspended from the party for up to five years, as he already has a suspended sentence against him following sanction last year. Mantashe's comments should come as no surprise as the youth league has been pushing for his ouster -- along with President Jacob Zuma -- at the ANC's next elective conference in Mangaung at the end of 2012.

Mantashe revealed that the NEC decided in its meeting to tackle unlawful business dealings within the ANC, saying it is part of their mandate as the ruling party to stamp out corruption. "It is our revolutionary duty to act against corruption and deal with it decisively -- we can't be seen to be weak," Mantashe said. This has been interpreted as a further stab at Malema, who is facing a flurry of investigations into his business dealings, with specific reference to the Ratanang trust registered in his name. The youth leader claims the trust is used to raise funds for charitable causes but is currently being probed by Public Protector Thuli Madonsela as well as the Hawks on allegations that he receives money through the trust for securing tenders in Limpopo.

Mantashe also attempted once more to quash the debate over who should lead the ANC after Mangaung, saying the discussion would commence at branch level once party leaders have given the process the green light. "The branches will have the opportunity to nominate their preferred candidates at an appropriate time [which] will be decided in due course," Mantashe said.

While not confirming disciplinary action would be taken against anybody discussing succession before the ANC officially declares it is safe to do so, Mantashe said debating the issue is a violation of the party's constitution. "The fact [that] we have to remind everyone is [due to] the temptation for members to jump the gun. We won't discuss leadership issues now and it would be deviant to do so," he said. This is a further swipe at Malema, who has been not only calling for Mantashe's head, but also began rallying support for Zuma to be replaced by Deputy President Kgalema Motlanthe in Mangaung next year.

When quizzed by journalists about the specifics of the charges against Malema and the forthcoming disciplinary committee hearing, Mantashe would not be drawn into commenting, saying that doing so would prejudice the case. "The ANC will not comment on disciplinary procedures, so don't try to trick us into doing so," he said. Indications are that Malema will face a tough time in staving off disciplinary action, after the Mail & Guardian heard from party insiders that the youth league leader's support within the ANC is waning. The youth league is seeking a meeting with their mother body ahead of the scheduled hearing against their leader in the hopes that a political solution might be found to the situation.

If this does not result in a positive outcome from the league, ordinary youth league members confirmed to the M&G that a march is planned to ANC headquarters on the day of the hearing in a show of support of Malema. Mantashe confirmed the request of a meeting but would not comment on the possibility of it leading to the situation being defused before the hearing. "The process must be allowed to unfold and we will deal with any adventurous actions should they happen," he said.

Source: Mail & Guardian

Deadly dangerous Judgment Day

Many South Africans were stunned this week by President Jacob Zuma's nomination of Constitutional Court Justice Mogoeng Mogoeng to succeed Sandile Ngcobo as chief justice.

It would appear a wholly inadequate appointment and from informal settlements in Durban to law offices in Johannesburg, the initial stupefaction gave way to conversation. Talk was not merely about the number of years Mogoeng has spent in judicial robes, as the presidency would have us believe judging by a spurious statement it released on Wednesday which set out to address the "disappointing inaccuracies and distortions in the responses and commentary on [Zuma's] nomination". South Africans are more sophisticated than that.

From shack dwellers who have successfully approached the court to fend off legislation allowing arbitrary eviction from their homes to middle-class human rights activists buoyed by the prospect of a more humane society after the repeal of the death sentence, we have been analysing the probity, jurisprudence, independent-mindedness and integrity of the man Zuma has chosen to lead the highest court in the land.

It matters to us. Our fundamental human rights, as enshrined in the Constitution, are essential, as is the attainment of a more egalitarian society. The judicial guardians of the Constitution are vital to these rights and aspirations. Yet, instead of selecting a stellar defender of the Constitution Zuma appears to have made a political appointment, choosing someone with a lack of constitutional experience, who, by virtue of his unlikely appointment over the heads of more suitable colleagues, is indebted to the executive.

A jurist who, considering the paucity of reported judgments and an inability to rouse himself in court to engage with legal arguments, appears patently wanting. There is also the no-small matter of his lack of judgment: Mogoeng has failed on more than one occasion to recuse himself from hearing matters in which his wife has acted as prosecutor.

He will be a chief justice cast very much in the image of the president: someone with dubious judgment, a social conservative, a traditionalist, with apparently homophobic tendencies and religious to boot -- they are both ordained pastors. This, while the message sent out to the judiciary is that subservience to the executive, not independent-mindedness, will get you promoted.

Mogoeng, if confirmed, may go on to prove his numerous detractors wrong. But there is a frightening lack of sophistication in both the president's and the ruling ANC's understanding of the expected tension among the three arms of government in a constitutional democracy.

In statements made this week ANC secretary general Gwede Mantashe suggested that, because of some of its rulings, the Constitutional Court was hostile to Parliament and the executive and that the judiciary as a whole sought to "arrest the functioning of government". What is, actually, the normal modus operandi of a constitutional democracy -- the constitutional testing of legislation -- appears to be a "problem" for Mantashe.

Mantashe's problem with the judiciary appears to be that it is unelected, unlike the ANC, which purports to represent the will of the masses. Zuma's gripes appear much more personal. Following various Constitutional Court judgments against him, including his most recent attempt to extend Ngcobo's term, the president seems driven by malice when engaging with that court. There is a profound lack of understanding by two of the most powerful men in the land about the role of the judiciary in a constitutional democracy. It is deadly dangerous.


 Source: Mail & Guardian

Analysis: Zuma vs Zapiro is possibly much more than just another court case

What does the SA prez possibly stand to gain from what seems like a case he is bound to lose? But looked at through the eyes of his supporters maybe – just maybe – it’s not about this specific case at all, but about the little media legislation they are so desperate to push through.

Even by our standards, in the third quarter of 2008 South Africa was another country. Thabo Mbeki was running things, technically, and merrily ignoring requests to attend ANC national executive committee meetings because he was meeting minor Chinese dignitaries. Julius Malema was too busy living to suggest killing for anyone, and Jacob Zuma was addressed as just plain mister. The main political action of the day had been a Mail & Guardian headline in which Gwede Mantashe had labelled some Constitutional Court judges as “counter-revolutionaries”. The political slogan was about “political solutions” to legal problems. Turns out those slogans were right in the end.

The reason we bring this up, is that this was all before the Nicolson Judgment. No legal person put their neck out and predicted Zuma would win that case, but the ANC was on a roll. They were going all out for Zuma. Heck, even Zwelinzima Vavi loved him at the time. In this context Zapiro published that cartoon. At the time, it seemed the ANC was literally ganging up against the judiciary. The wagons were being circled.

It was a pretty normal Sunday though when I first saw the cartoon. It literally took my breath away. It was so good, so funny, hit the nail on the head, and yes, it was offensive. In a way, that was probably the point. At the time, it seemed as if something offensive was imminent and Zapiro had found a way to capture that. But I couldn’t resist calling the ANC and asking what they felt. Jessie Duarte was their spokeswoman at the time. I remember the conversation clearly - she had seen it, she was a little angry about it, and hell yes, she’d say something about it, on tape. As always, she gave a good soundbite, and I filed it for the next morning’s Eyewitness News bulletins. It seemed a minor story.

The next morning, it ran on the 6am bulletin, and suddenly the world went into overdrive. Callers, outrage, laughter, anger, frustration, the usual stuff of talk radio, just at a much higher level. The fact is the cartoon had summed up the emotion of the time. It wouldn’t have been so powerful otherwise. It called a spade a spade and perhaps that’s why so many people were so angry.

Now it looks as if we’re going to have a nice big national argument about this cartoon again. And there are times when I wonder if I did the right thing in phoning Duarte. I’m not saying this cartoon wouldn’t have been a big thing otherwise. I just wonder if this is really an argument for which we as a country are ready.

You may think I’m being slightly alarmist. After all, the law is clearly on Zapiro’s side. We would be very surprised if any judge in the country saw things Zuma’s way. The Human Rights Commission (which has a few people on it who know their way around the ANC’s deployment committee) have already ruled in favour of Zapiro. There’s the defence of opinion, of satire and of course, freedom of speech. There’s even the old defence of “jest”, which makes us wonder if you’re allowed to be hugely insulting to a politician, so long as it’s funny. Which would mean to call Julius Malema ugly might be illegal, but to suggest he laughed like a stuffed hyena may not.

But all of this could be missing the point. The fact is this national argument about the limits of freedom of speech is not going to be won on the iPads of the chatterati. It’s not even about what they think. It’s a battle that will be fought in Esselen Park, at Luthuli House, and crucially, at ANC branch meetings. Those meetings are not occupied by people who worry too much about the legal definition of offense. They are more likely to be angered afresh by the cartoon.

We’ve argued for some time now that the media has not presented its case well on this score. That for many people in this country it could appear that newspapers and websites and radio stations simply offend because they can, that they really are controlled by people who want to offend the democratically elected leaders of this country. Imagine how you might feel if someone drew Nelson Mandela with something as rude as that showerhead. Now imagine being a Zuma supporter and seeing that piece of brass literally four times a week.

Now your leader is suing. He’s doing what he thinks he should. But then he loses. And, in your view, that means there’s a problem with the law. And possibly with the judges as well. How can it be that someone can be so rude, so deliberately offensive to the president? Surely you should respect the president of your country? So then it’s obvious that the way to fix this is to bring in the media appeals tribunal.

You may think we’re being a little paranoid. But this case has the potential to be far more damaging than a simple little legal skirmish. It’s easy to see it being used to whip up popular sentiment against the commercial media. We should all watch it very carefully indeed. Happy 2011.

Source: Daily Maverick

ANC Fires 'Renegade' Mpumalanga Mayor

The mayor of Mpumalanga's economic powerhouse, Emalahleni (Witbank), has been sacked for breaking party ranks and taking legal action against the ANC. Linah Malatjie is the first mayor to become a casualty of the party's resolution that members who challenge it in court be dismissed.

Last month, African National Congress (ANC) secretary-general Gwede Mantashe released a statement declaring that it was a dismissible offence in the ANC to take the party to court "when all the organisational processes have not been exhausted". The dismissal letter sent to Malatjie was personally drafted by Mantashe on August 30.

On Thursday, the ANC in Mpumalanga sent her the letter following her decision to challenge the ANC in court for an internal disciplinary hearing relating to a charge dating back to 2008. “We called her to a disciplinary hearing in 2008 for a number of charges, which included voting with the opposition (Democratic Alliance) in a motion that was raised by the ANC. As our deployee, she had a duty to vote in favour of motions raised by the ANC. Instead, on attending the disciplinary hearing, she challenged the ANC through a court interdict, where she also mentioned that the ANC was divided and had factions in the province,” said Paul Mbenyane, spokesman for the ANC in Mpumalanga. He said it had taken significant time to dismiss Malatjie because the ANC had ensured that all the necessary processes had to be completed. “There are so many processes to be followed before you dismiss a person. We did not want to be dragged through the labour courts for unfair dismissal. We had to follow procedures, which takes time,” he explained.

Mbenyane said Malatjie's ANC membership had also been revoked and that the provincial executive committee would convene an urgent meeting to find a replacement for her.

Emalahleni municipal spokesman Lebo Mofokeng said Malatjie received the dismissal letter on Thursday. “We are obviously shocked, as the municipality, to receive such news," he said. "We are not in a position to comment at the present moment. I can only say that we will wait for the ANC to give us a replacement mayor.” Malatjie was not immediately available for comment on Friday, as her cellphone was off.

DA councillor Koos Venter said Malatjie's sacking was a result of infighting. “Malatjie’s sacking has nothing to do with voting with the opposition or service delivery, but more to do with the fact that she finds herself outside the dominant faction within the ANC. Residents of Emalahleni must realise that the real contest is not a choice between rival factions within the ANC, but rather between a party at war with itself,” he said. He also blamed Malatjie for bringing the municipality to the brink of collapse. “Under her leadership, the community of Emalahleni is faced with ... critical problems on a continual basis," he said.

This, he said, included repeated power outages and chronic water shortages lasting up to five days at a time. The ANC appears to be clamping down on public litigation between its members following the acrimonious showdown between the former Limpopo chairperson of the ANC Youth League, Lehlogonolo Masoga, and the league's current leadership.

Masoga was hauled before the ANCYL's national disciplinary committee for violating its code of conduct after he complained that votes were rigged by league president Julius Malema in favour of Frans Moswane during its Limpopo conference in Louis Trichardt in April. Police had to intervene when violence broke out at the conference. Masoga was charged with insubordination and called to the disciplinary hearing. Instead, he took the matter to the courts, challenging the legitimacy of the hearing. Masoga withdrew the case on July 14 when the ANC intervened and, on July 19, he was expelled from the ANCYL.

Source: Capital