The police massacre of striking miners at Marikana is a watershed for post-apartheid South Africa and for the international class struggle.
It demonstrates in the starkest form imaginable that the perspective of “black empowerment” and the “National Democratic Revolution” providing the basis for overcoming economic and social oppression has failed utterly. The central lesson of Marikana is that the fundamental division within society is class, not race.
The African National Congress, having come to power in 1994 as a result of immense sacrifice and revolutionary struggle by millions of workers, has revealed itself to be every bit as ruthless as its white predecessors in enforcing the most brutal exploitation on behalf of the major global corporations.
The ANC sent in the police to shoot, kill and maim striking workers whose sole crime was to fight for the right to live as human beings and not beasts of burden. Now, after the police have killed 36 and wounded another 78, some 270 imprisoned strikers are being charged with the murder and attempted murder of their colleagues under Apartheid-era “common purpose” laws designed to blame the victims for “provoking” police violence.
The Marikana miners are paid less than $500 a month for living in squalid communal huts and working in hazardous, back-breaking conditions for the UK-based Lonmin, extracting platinum that sells for over $1,400 an ounce. Their fate, worse still, is shared by millions in what has now become the most unequal country in the entire world.
Meanwhile the ANC has spawned a grasping layer of black bourgeois, with a reputation for unparalleled corruption and repression. It is synonymous with terms like Black Economically Empowered (BEE) companies and “tenderpreneurs”—those who have enriched themselves by acting as front-men for the transnational corporations or who have used their control of the state apparatus to secure a direct role in exploiting the working class.
Even as charges were being brought against the arrested miners, South African Minister of Mining Susan Shabangu was reassuring “our investors, incumbent and prospective” at a gathering of mining executives in Perth, Australia, that President Jacob Zuma is “determined to isolate bad elements in our society.”
The ANC in turn relies upon its partners in the Tripartite Alliance—the South African Communist Party and the COSATU trade union federation—to impose the dictatorship of global capital and the South African bourgeoisie upon an increasingly restive population.
The Stalinist SACP insisted throughout the struggle against apartheid that black majority rule of a capitalist South Africa was a necessary stage in an eventual transition to socialism. It has portrayed COSATU as a bastion of working class power within government that would guarantee this transformation.
Events have proceeded in an entirely opposite direction. For services rendered, SACP leaders were granted key roles in the post-apartheid regime and a share in the spoils of office. COSATU and its affiliated unions have functioned as an industrial police force and a mechanism for the self-enrichment of the bureaucracy.
Philip Hirschsohn, Professor School of Business and Finance at the University of the Western Cape, pointed out last year how the trade unions have taken on “oligarchic characteristics.”
The position of shop steward has become a mechanism for securing management positions, as part of the “emergence of entrepreneurial and career unionists,” with SACP membership a favoured “stepping stone” for “access opportunities in managerial ranks or in government.”
Former NUM leader and high-ranking ANC politician, Cyril Ramaphosa is now the 34th richest man in the whole of Africa, with a net worth of $275 million. One of his many companies has a contract to supply labour at Marikana in a form of indentured slavery. He is paid R12 000 ($1500) per worker per month by Lonmin, but only pays his workers R4000 ($500) per month.
Its role as an adjunct of management has meant that NUM membership has declined to less than 50 percent of employees in many mines; most of these are skilled white collar and surface workers. The strikers at Marikana are either members of the breakaway Association of Mineworkers and Construction Union (AMCU) or not unionized at all.
The NUM, COSATU and the SACP have all called for police to clamp down on the strikers, defending the massacre and urging the suppression of the AMCU. NUM General Secretary Frans Baleni said of the Marikana massacre that, “The police were patient, but these people were extremely armed with dangerous weapons.”
This has not prevented the pseudo-left groups internationally from opposing the necessary break from COSATU and its affiliated unions, without which any struggle against the ANC is impossible.
The South African affiliates of the Committee for a Workers International, the Democratic Socialist Movement, instead urge “workers in both unions to demand united solidarity action, beginning with a local general strike” and ending in a “national general strike”—all presumably led by the NUM and COSATU.
The Socialist Workers Party in the UK is more despicable still, writing on August 17, “Whatever its intentions, AMCU has sometimes been used to introduce disunity at a time when workers face big challenges. It would have been better for the workers who formed the rival union to fight among the NUM rank and file and shift its policies from below.”
Support for the NUM and COSATU is support for the ANC and the Tripartite Alliance government. It is support for the continuation of capitalism and imperialist oppression.
The theory of Permanent Revolution provides the political basis for the workers and youth of South Africa to conduct the life-and-death struggles that lie ahead. The evolution of the ANC is a graphic confirmation of Leon Trotsky’s insistence that bourgeois nationalist movements, tied as they are to capitalism and organically opposed to ending the brutal exploitation of the workers and poor farmers, are incapable of carrying through the struggle for democracy and liberation from imperialist domination.
The working class, mobilising all the oppressed rural and urban layers, must break with the ANC and its defenders in the SACP and the trade union apparatus and build their own socialist party.
A workers government must be established to take the entire economy into social ownership and utilise the vast natural wealth presently monopolised by the super-rich to meet the needs of all for decent jobs, housing, education and health provision. This revolutionary struggle must be extended throughout Africa and internationally through the construction of a section of the International Committee of the Fourth International, the world party of socialist revolution.
Chris Marsden
Source: World Wide Socialist Web Site
Showing posts with label Susan Shabangu. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Susan Shabangu. Show all posts
Saturday, September 1, 2012
Wednesday, August 22, 2012
Marikana: Avoidable, unconstitutional… and entirely predictable
The Marikana massacre has been called an ‘avoidable’ tragedy. But given the total misunderstanding of Constitutional obligations by senior politicians and police leaders, it seems nothing short of inevitable. Looking at the way police obligations have been understood in the country over the past four years, it’s hardly surprising that we’ve come to this kind of brutality.
Many South Africans are either confused or uninformed about the Constitutional and legal duties placed on the South African Police Service to protect, rather than kill, the citizens of South Africa. Many members of the “law and order” crowd, including a large number of (white) South Africans who usually demonstrate a fierce hatred of the ANC and the government it leads, have emerged as staunch defenders of the actions of the police during the Marikana massacre and, by implication, is demonstrating support for Police Minister Nathi Mthethwa, whose resignation has been called for by opposition parties.
In support of their contention that the killing of 34 miners by members of the SAPS was justified, they argue that the miners were taking part in an illegal strike and an illegal gathering, that the police were scared because some police officers had been killed in the run-up to the massacre and some miners were brandishing traditional weapons, and that one of the miners had shot at the police and that the police were therefore merely defending themselves.
Entirely absent from these kinds of wrongheaded arguments is an understanding of the Constitutional and legal framework within which the police are required to operate in a Constitutional state like our own.
Section 199(5) of the Constitution states that the Police “must act, and must teach and require their members to act, in accordance with the Constitution and the law”. The Constitution protects the right to life of everyone – including every criminal suspect and every miner who took part in the events at Marikana last Thursday. The strikers did not forfeit their right to life because two police officers were killed by unidentified individuals in the week leading up to the massacre. Nor did they forfeit their right to life because they were involved in an unlawful strike and/or protest march or because one of the striking miners allegedly shot at the police.
This principle is underscored by section 13 of the Police Services Act, which states that members of the SAPS must act subject to the Constitution and with due regard to the fundamental rights of every person. The section continues to state that where a police officer is authorised to use force (for example, to defend him- or herself or to help apprehend a dangerous criminal suspect), he or she may use only the minimum force which is reasonable in the circumstances.
The police are not authorised to take the law into their own hands and to punish a group of miners by killing 34 of them because some of the miners might previously have been involved in the killing of a police officer. That would be nothing more than mob justice and would constitute cold-blooded murder. The fact that some of the police officers might have been scared because two of their fellow officers were killed earlier in the week would not, by itself, constitute a legal justification for the killing either. To hold otherwise would be to excuse every scared but trigger-happy police officer who goes on a shooting spree.
Neither would it normally be found to be reasonable to shoot and kill 34 protesters with automatic rifles because one of them had a gun or had shot at the police. It would also normally not be possible to claim that the police used minimum force when it killed 34 protestors with semi-automatic rifles. In the absence of other compelling evidence which demonstrates that the miners posed a grave threat to the lives of police officers, the shooting could not be considered either justifiable or legal. Evidence that such a grave threat existed might yet emerge, but so far no one has provided it, so arguments exonerating the police are not based on factual or legal considerations.
Those who are so quick to exonerate the police either do not value the lives of those who died, are defending the government and the minister of police for politically expedient reasons, or are animated by an irrational fear of everything that the miners represent.
Questions might well be asked about why so many police officers, as well as members of the public, seem to believe that the police have a right to shoot and kill anyone who threatens them or gets involved in illegal activities. Where is this idea coming from that our police do not have to respect the lives of fellow citizens when the citizens have allegedly broken the law?
The answer to this question is not blowing in the wind, but a Google search does yield some direction.
In 2008, then-deputy minister of safety and security, Susan Shabangu (who yesterday made the contradictory claim that she had negotiated with the parties involved in the dispute behind the scenes but that she had never heard of one of the unions involved in it) told an anti-crime rally in Pretoria that police shouldn’t hesitate to kill “criminals”. She did not mean that the police should not hesitate to shoot to kill those who have been convicted of a crime by our courts, but rather that the police should not hesitate to shoot and kill individuals who our Constitution presume to be innocent but whom the police officer might believe had committed a crime.
You must kill the bastards if they threaten you or the community… You must not worry about the regulations. That is my responsibility. Your responsibility is to serve and protect. I want to assure the police station commissioners, policemen and women that they have permission to kill these criminals. I want no warning shots. You have one shot and it must be a kill shot. If you miss, the criminals will go for the kill. They don’t miss. We can’t take this chance.
This is the same Shabangu who yesterday warned South Africans to “exercise restraint when it comes to rushing to judgments”, pending the outcome of the judicial inquiry which will be appointed to investigate the massacre.
In 2009, South Africa’s new top cop, Bheki Cele, pleaded for the law to be changed to allow police to “shoot to kill” so-called criminals (again, suspects who must be presumed innocent until proven guilty) without worrying about “what happens after that”. Speaking to a newspaper, Commissioner Cele said the police needed to match the firepower of criminals and use “deadly force”. Cele complained that criminals were armed with the best high-calibre firearms “to deal with whoever is standing in their way, so… they are ready to shoot”. On the other hand, police responding to an attack have to “arrest their minds, thinking is this right or is it wrong? Police must think about what is in front of them and do the job, or else they get killed.”
He received backing for these starling assertions from none other than Nathi Mthethwa, the country’s police minister. “We are tired of waving nice documents like the Constitution and the human rights charter in criminals’ faces,” Mthethwa said. “We are going to meet these thugs head on, and if it means we kill when we shoot, then so be it.”
It is the same Mthethwa who yesterday claimed that the loss of life at Marikana was tragic and regrettable, but that now was not the time for “cheap politicking”. He added that the incident should teach us “as a nation, as a whole, to work doubly hard to prevent the repeat of such events.” As if the nation as a whole had made or condoned inflammatory statements about the need for the police to “shoot the bastards”. As if the nation as whole had insisted that we should ignore the Constitution. As if the nation as a whole gave the order to shoot at protestors with automatic rifles. As if those who stoked the fires of violence and those who actually killed the 34 protestors had absolutely no part to play in this tragedy.
I might be wrong, but given the bloodthirsty and irresponsible statements made by some politicians and members of the police leadership over the past four years about the need for the police to shoot and kill people who have never been convicted of any crime and must – in terms of our Constitution – be presumed to be innocent, the massacre at Marikana appears not “avoidable and tragic”, not something we as a nation “must work doubly hard” to prevent from happening again, but rather entirely inevitable and predictable.
Source: Constitutionally Speaking
Many South Africans are either confused or uninformed about the Constitutional and legal duties placed on the South African Police Service to protect, rather than kill, the citizens of South Africa. Many members of the “law and order” crowd, including a large number of (white) South Africans who usually demonstrate a fierce hatred of the ANC and the government it leads, have emerged as staunch defenders of the actions of the police during the Marikana massacre and, by implication, is demonstrating support for Police Minister Nathi Mthethwa, whose resignation has been called for by opposition parties.
In support of their contention that the killing of 34 miners by members of the SAPS was justified, they argue that the miners were taking part in an illegal strike and an illegal gathering, that the police were scared because some police officers had been killed in the run-up to the massacre and some miners were brandishing traditional weapons, and that one of the miners had shot at the police and that the police were therefore merely defending themselves.
Entirely absent from these kinds of wrongheaded arguments is an understanding of the Constitutional and legal framework within which the police are required to operate in a Constitutional state like our own.
Section 199(5) of the Constitution states that the Police “must act, and must teach and require their members to act, in accordance with the Constitution and the law”. The Constitution protects the right to life of everyone – including every criminal suspect and every miner who took part in the events at Marikana last Thursday. The strikers did not forfeit their right to life because two police officers were killed by unidentified individuals in the week leading up to the massacre. Nor did they forfeit their right to life because they were involved in an unlawful strike and/or protest march or because one of the striking miners allegedly shot at the police.
This principle is underscored by section 13 of the Police Services Act, which states that members of the SAPS must act subject to the Constitution and with due regard to the fundamental rights of every person. The section continues to state that where a police officer is authorised to use force (for example, to defend him- or herself or to help apprehend a dangerous criminal suspect), he or she may use only the minimum force which is reasonable in the circumstances.
The police are not authorised to take the law into their own hands and to punish a group of miners by killing 34 of them because some of the miners might previously have been involved in the killing of a police officer. That would be nothing more than mob justice and would constitute cold-blooded murder. The fact that some of the police officers might have been scared because two of their fellow officers were killed earlier in the week would not, by itself, constitute a legal justification for the killing either. To hold otherwise would be to excuse every scared but trigger-happy police officer who goes on a shooting spree.
Neither would it normally be found to be reasonable to shoot and kill 34 protesters with automatic rifles because one of them had a gun or had shot at the police. It would also normally not be possible to claim that the police used minimum force when it killed 34 protestors with semi-automatic rifles. In the absence of other compelling evidence which demonstrates that the miners posed a grave threat to the lives of police officers, the shooting could not be considered either justifiable or legal. Evidence that such a grave threat existed might yet emerge, but so far no one has provided it, so arguments exonerating the police are not based on factual or legal considerations.
Those who are so quick to exonerate the police either do not value the lives of those who died, are defending the government and the minister of police for politically expedient reasons, or are animated by an irrational fear of everything that the miners represent.
Questions might well be asked about why so many police officers, as well as members of the public, seem to believe that the police have a right to shoot and kill anyone who threatens them or gets involved in illegal activities. Where is this idea coming from that our police do not have to respect the lives of fellow citizens when the citizens have allegedly broken the law?
The answer to this question is not blowing in the wind, but a Google search does yield some direction.
In 2008, then-deputy minister of safety and security, Susan Shabangu (who yesterday made the contradictory claim that she had negotiated with the parties involved in the dispute behind the scenes but that she had never heard of one of the unions involved in it) told an anti-crime rally in Pretoria that police shouldn’t hesitate to kill “criminals”. She did not mean that the police should not hesitate to shoot to kill those who have been convicted of a crime by our courts, but rather that the police should not hesitate to shoot and kill individuals who our Constitution presume to be innocent but whom the police officer might believe had committed a crime.
You must kill the bastards if they threaten you or the community… You must not worry about the regulations. That is my responsibility. Your responsibility is to serve and protect. I want to assure the police station commissioners, policemen and women that they have permission to kill these criminals. I want no warning shots. You have one shot and it must be a kill shot. If you miss, the criminals will go for the kill. They don’t miss. We can’t take this chance.
This is the same Shabangu who yesterday warned South Africans to “exercise restraint when it comes to rushing to judgments”, pending the outcome of the judicial inquiry which will be appointed to investigate the massacre.
In 2009, South Africa’s new top cop, Bheki Cele, pleaded for the law to be changed to allow police to “shoot to kill” so-called criminals (again, suspects who must be presumed innocent until proven guilty) without worrying about “what happens after that”. Speaking to a newspaper, Commissioner Cele said the police needed to match the firepower of criminals and use “deadly force”. Cele complained that criminals were armed with the best high-calibre firearms “to deal with whoever is standing in their way, so… they are ready to shoot”. On the other hand, police responding to an attack have to “arrest their minds, thinking is this right or is it wrong? Police must think about what is in front of them and do the job, or else they get killed.”
He received backing for these starling assertions from none other than Nathi Mthethwa, the country’s police minister. “We are tired of waving nice documents like the Constitution and the human rights charter in criminals’ faces,” Mthethwa said. “We are going to meet these thugs head on, and if it means we kill when we shoot, then so be it.”
It is the same Mthethwa who yesterday claimed that the loss of life at Marikana was tragic and regrettable, but that now was not the time for “cheap politicking”. He added that the incident should teach us “as a nation, as a whole, to work doubly hard to prevent the repeat of such events.” As if the nation as a whole had made or condoned inflammatory statements about the need for the police to “shoot the bastards”. As if the nation as whole had insisted that we should ignore the Constitution. As if the nation as a whole gave the order to shoot at protestors with automatic rifles. As if those who stoked the fires of violence and those who actually killed the 34 protestors had absolutely no part to play in this tragedy.
I might be wrong, but given the bloodthirsty and irresponsible statements made by some politicians and members of the police leadership over the past four years about the need for the police to shoot and kill people who have never been convicted of any crime and must – in terms of our Constitution – be presumed to be innocent, the massacre at Marikana appears not “avoidable and tragic”, not something we as a nation “must work doubly hard” to prevent from happening again, but rather entirely inevitable and predictable.
Source: Constitutionally Speaking
Saturday, August 18, 2012
Marikana and the man with the green blanket
The women of a South African community are coming to terms with a week of bloodshed that culminated with the deaths of 34 workers shot by police on Thursday during a protest at the Lonmin platinum mine in Marikana.
A stick to being used to beat Zuma? Just a thought …
Marikana action is a strike by the poor
Marikana was a war zone: Burger
Marikana action is a strike by the poor
Marikana was a war zone: Burger
Tuesday, April 19, 2011
Arresting a Few Policemen will not Solve South Africa`s Violent Policing Problem
The brutal death of unarmed protestor and father of two, Andries Tatane, at the hands of the South African police in Ficksburg on 13 April would have gone largely unnoticed except that it was captured on film and shown as headline news on national television. South Africans and people around the world were rightly outraged at the senseless and disproportionate violence directed at Mr. Tatane by a mob of policemen. The harsh reality is that many police officials who watching the news would not have been shocked at seeing him beaten with batons and shot at from close range with rubber bullets. Because Tatane was fighting back at policemen attacking him, many police officials would have thought that he deserved the beating. The use of excessive violence as part of everyday policing has long been the norm in South Africa. What was different this time was not only that the victim died shortly thereafter, but that it was captured on film and broadcast on public television.
The warning signs that the police are becoming increasingly violent have been around for some time. The Independent Complaints Directorate (ICD) annually reports on police related deaths, assaults and other forms of serious misconduct to parliament. Statistics collected by the ICD reveal that the number of people shot dead by the police more than doubled (increasing by over 100%) between 2005/06 and 2008/09, when a record high of 568 people were killed. The number dropped slightly but remained high at 524 shot dead during 2009/10. Moreover, the ICD statistics reveal that complaints of police assault with intention to commit grievous bodily harm (GBH) increased from 825 incidents in 2008/10 to 920 in 2009/2010. Unfortunately however, these figures have not resulted in any recognition that there might be a fundamental problem in the SAPS and no steps have been taken by police leadership to obtain a better understanding as to the cause of the increase or to reduce the number of killings.
Given the national and international profile given to this incident however, the Minister of Police Nathi Mthethwa immediately released a media statement in which he expressed his “…full confidence that the Independent Complaints Directorate (ICD) will, without fear or favour investigate an alleged killing of a striking resident by police during a march in Ficksburg.” A few days later the Minister released another statement welcoming the arrest of six policemen implicated in the killing and highlighting that he has been consistent in his stance that, “those who break the law must be punished.” It is unusual for the ICD to act so quickly in response to complaints of police brutality, but given the widespread condemnation of this incident and the directive from the Minister, it is understandable.
Unfortunately however, this approach where incidents are referred to the ICD for investigation is not going to solve this deep and ongoing problem. The investigations may or may not reveal whether the police officials involved acted within the scope of the law and police regulations. If it is found that they broke the law then the ICD will give the docket to the National Prosecuting Authority who may decide to criminally prosecute the policemen. If SAPS regulations were broken then the ICD will make recommendations to the SAPS that disciplinary action is taken against the offending officials. The SAPS generally ignore these recommendations from the ICD but even when they do act on them, the only outcome will be that a few officials will be held accountable. This will not address the underlying management, structural and cultural problems that are contributing to this growing problem.
The ANC was correct to call for a commission of inquiry into Tatane’s death, as this is exactly what is needed at this time. Rather than only focusing on the individual officials as the ICD investigation will do, such an inquiry should look at the organisational context within which these police officials were operating. If it does so it is likely to find that inadequate command and control was generally exercised over the officials and that the SAPS standing operating procedures and the code of conduct were largely ignored. It is also likely to find that the training these officials received was sub-standard and that they were not properly assessed as to the extent to which they understand their role and responsibilities in handling public protests. Further still, such an inquiry could note that poor strategic decisions taken by SAPS leadership over the past decade resulted in the closure of specialised units including half of the Public Order Policing units, although these were belatedly re-established for the 2010 FIFA World Cup. Consequently, the SAPS does not possess adequate skills and capacity to professionally respond to a number of the challenges it faces including maintaining public order.
If such an inquiry correctly includes a focus on those who have the authority and responsibility to ensure that the police uphold the law, then the political context of this killing cannot be ignored. Since 2008 when Deputy Minister of Police, Susan Shabangu called for police to “shoot to kill”, the SAPS has been led down a dangerous path where political rhetoric urging police to “show no mercy” to whomever they choose to label as “criminals” has replaced a firm commitment to ensuring that the SAPS adheres to acceptable standards of police professionalism and the rule of law. The “police service” was rhetorically renamed a “police force”, military style ranks were introduced and a “war on crime” was announced. While the Minister of Police has implored the police to “…respect the principles of human dignity and rights” he also appears to justify police violence by warning civilians, “not to provoke or insult the police.” This suggests that at the most senior levels of government, police violence is not seen as a fundamental challenge that police leadership has a duty to contain as much as it is something that civilians should avoid in the way that they act towards police officials.
David Bruce from the Centre for the Study of Violence and Reconciliation who has been studying violence and policing in South Africa presented a paper at an ISS Conference on Crime and Crime Prevention in December 2010 in which he highlights the urgent need, “… for policing which is carried out fairly and respectfully.” He goes on to argue that, “There is some evidence ‘that the manner in which people are treated by agents of the criminal justice system contributes not only to respect for [the criminal] justice [system] but to respect for the law itself’. Essentially this means that people are more likely to voluntarily obey the law if they believe that agents of the criminal justice system will act towards them in a fair way.” This is an insight that the current leadership would do well to heed.
The Mail & Guardian recently quoted a government insider as stating that President Jacob Zuma had appointed General Cele to show South Africans that “police must be feared and respected”. However, fear does not necessarily bring respect. If one listens to the public outrage about this killing one would be hard pressed to find many people expressing respect for the police and far more likely to hear expressions of police disdain, even hate. However, state policing can be respected only if government changes its militant approach to policing and recognises it for the professional craft that it should be. Given that many of the problems currently facing the SAPS stem from decades of poor leadership and bad strategic decisions, effective change will need to be guided by an independent commission of inquiry that specifically focuses on the managerial, structural and cultural challenges that need to be addressed to professionalise the organisation. Until this happens, the tragic killing of Andries Tatane will not be the last such policing related incident to shock South Africa.
Source: Polity
The warning signs that the police are becoming increasingly violent have been around for some time. The Independent Complaints Directorate (ICD) annually reports on police related deaths, assaults and other forms of serious misconduct to parliament. Statistics collected by the ICD reveal that the number of people shot dead by the police more than doubled (increasing by over 100%) between 2005/06 and 2008/09, when a record high of 568 people were killed. The number dropped slightly but remained high at 524 shot dead during 2009/10. Moreover, the ICD statistics reveal that complaints of police assault with intention to commit grievous bodily harm (GBH) increased from 825 incidents in 2008/10 to 920 in 2009/2010. Unfortunately however, these figures have not resulted in any recognition that there might be a fundamental problem in the SAPS and no steps have been taken by police leadership to obtain a better understanding as to the cause of the increase or to reduce the number of killings.
Given the national and international profile given to this incident however, the Minister of Police Nathi Mthethwa immediately released a media statement in which he expressed his “…full confidence that the Independent Complaints Directorate (ICD) will, without fear or favour investigate an alleged killing of a striking resident by police during a march in Ficksburg.” A few days later the Minister released another statement welcoming the arrest of six policemen implicated in the killing and highlighting that he has been consistent in his stance that, “those who break the law must be punished.” It is unusual for the ICD to act so quickly in response to complaints of police brutality, but given the widespread condemnation of this incident and the directive from the Minister, it is understandable.
Unfortunately however, this approach where incidents are referred to the ICD for investigation is not going to solve this deep and ongoing problem. The investigations may or may not reveal whether the police officials involved acted within the scope of the law and police regulations. If it is found that they broke the law then the ICD will give the docket to the National Prosecuting Authority who may decide to criminally prosecute the policemen. If SAPS regulations were broken then the ICD will make recommendations to the SAPS that disciplinary action is taken against the offending officials. The SAPS generally ignore these recommendations from the ICD but even when they do act on them, the only outcome will be that a few officials will be held accountable. This will not address the underlying management, structural and cultural problems that are contributing to this growing problem.
The ANC was correct to call for a commission of inquiry into Tatane’s death, as this is exactly what is needed at this time. Rather than only focusing on the individual officials as the ICD investigation will do, such an inquiry should look at the organisational context within which these police officials were operating. If it does so it is likely to find that inadequate command and control was generally exercised over the officials and that the SAPS standing operating procedures and the code of conduct were largely ignored. It is also likely to find that the training these officials received was sub-standard and that they were not properly assessed as to the extent to which they understand their role and responsibilities in handling public protests. Further still, such an inquiry could note that poor strategic decisions taken by SAPS leadership over the past decade resulted in the closure of specialised units including half of the Public Order Policing units, although these were belatedly re-established for the 2010 FIFA World Cup. Consequently, the SAPS does not possess adequate skills and capacity to professionally respond to a number of the challenges it faces including maintaining public order.
If such an inquiry correctly includes a focus on those who have the authority and responsibility to ensure that the police uphold the law, then the political context of this killing cannot be ignored. Since 2008 when Deputy Minister of Police, Susan Shabangu called for police to “shoot to kill”, the SAPS has been led down a dangerous path where political rhetoric urging police to “show no mercy” to whomever they choose to label as “criminals” has replaced a firm commitment to ensuring that the SAPS adheres to acceptable standards of police professionalism and the rule of law. The “police service” was rhetorically renamed a “police force”, military style ranks were introduced and a “war on crime” was announced. While the Minister of Police has implored the police to “…respect the principles of human dignity and rights” he also appears to justify police violence by warning civilians, “not to provoke or insult the police.” This suggests that at the most senior levels of government, police violence is not seen as a fundamental challenge that police leadership has a duty to contain as much as it is something that civilians should avoid in the way that they act towards police officials.
David Bruce from the Centre for the Study of Violence and Reconciliation who has been studying violence and policing in South Africa presented a paper at an ISS Conference on Crime and Crime Prevention in December 2010 in which he highlights the urgent need, “… for policing which is carried out fairly and respectfully.” He goes on to argue that, “There is some evidence ‘that the manner in which people are treated by agents of the criminal justice system contributes not only to respect for [the criminal] justice [system] but to respect for the law itself’. Essentially this means that people are more likely to voluntarily obey the law if they believe that agents of the criminal justice system will act towards them in a fair way.” This is an insight that the current leadership would do well to heed.
The Mail & Guardian recently quoted a government insider as stating that President Jacob Zuma had appointed General Cele to show South Africans that “police must be feared and respected”. However, fear does not necessarily bring respect. If one listens to the public outrage about this killing one would be hard pressed to find many people expressing respect for the police and far more likely to hear expressions of police disdain, even hate. However, state policing can be respected only if government changes its militant approach to policing and recognises it for the professional craft that it should be. Given that many of the problems currently facing the SAPS stem from decades of poor leadership and bad strategic decisions, effective change will need to be guided by an independent commission of inquiry that specifically focuses on the managerial, structural and cultural challenges that need to be addressed to professionalise the organisation. Until this happens, the tragic killing of Andries Tatane will not be the last such policing related incident to shock South Africa.
Source: Polity
Thursday, August 26, 2010
Feeding Frenzy: its a BEE feast for Zuma cronies
The controversies surrounding the Sishen and Lonrho mineral rights have raised old questions about black economic empowerment (BEE), including the undeserved enrichment of elite individuals. But now, under the Jacob Zuma regime, there is growing concern about cronyism, patronage, and the role of government officials.
This time the appearance of patronage can be traced to the top. Some individuals, including the president’s son, Duduzane Zuma, could be greatly enriched by gaining ownership of mineral rights in a questionable process. Unease about the process has become more widespread.
The National Union of Metal Workers (Numsa) has commented scathingly on what it calls “the ArcelorMittal and Imperial Crown Trading looting scheme”. Minerals & resources minister Susan Shabangu’s decision last week to place a moratorium on new awards of mineral rights demonstrates that even government has concerns.
These events raise important questions: how are BEE policies working, what are the achievements and weaknesses — and are the effects in line with government’s intentions?
In more than 16 years, BEE has achieved many successes and some failures. It started in the early 1990s with companies such as Thebe Investments, launched by senior ANC officials, and Nthato Motlana’s Corporate Africa, which gained control of New Africa Investments (Nail). Thebe remains a successful enterprise, and there are other enduring black-controlled businesses. Some have grown through strong share price gains, buoyant markets and productive investment.
Among these are Patrice Motsepe’s African Rainbow Minerals, with a R34bn market cap, and MTN (R225bn market cap) which is run by CE Phuthuma Nhleko. One of the most successful is the unlisted Royal Bafokeng Holdings, a community-based investment company . It started with royalties from Impala platinum mining . Under chairman Kgosi Leruo Molotlegi and CE Niall Carroll, a former investment banker, it has diversified into mining, financial and industrial investments. At its financial year-end last December, it had a R30bn investment portfolio and minimal debt.
Nail started as a 20% shareholder in Sanlam’s Metlife, then attempted to become a conglomerate but collapsed . Mvela Group gathered stakes in companies such as Absa and Life Healthcare, but is now being dismantled . Having made his fortune, founder Tokyo Sexwale has returned to politics as human settlements minister.
Throughout these years, there has been debate about how BEE can best be achieved, and it has worked — but also created risks and unease on many fronts. In an institutional or legal sense, rules of the game were set through the Broad- based Empowerment Act of 2003 and the publication of industry codes and charters over the next few years. These changed the way companies and other stakeholders think about the process.
In the 1990s it was mainly about deals and ownership. The codes and charters have formalised a broader approach. They use a balanced scorecard, giving only a 20% weighting to ownership. Companies also gain credit in other areas including preferential procurement, employment equity, skills development and enterprise development (see table). Management control, where influence over a business is large, gets only 10%.
However, ownership of equity in companies and access to other assets such as mineral rights still play a big role in the process. This is where some old themes and questions are constantly at play. Since the charters and new regulations came into effect , most big companies have done deals over the past few years.
In each case, there are familiar questions: how can the deal be funded when the BEE investors have limited or no capital? Should key individuals benefit from the deal, or should the shareholders be entirely broad-based? If lead individual investors are involved, what value will they add to the business? Will they assist in running the business , adding new perspectives on the board — or provide influence among cronies in high places?
The Sishen/ArcelorMittal case has attracted special attention, partly because valuable mineral rights are involved and there are individuals who have direct links to senior politicians. (See next story). In other large BEE deals announced recently, companies have opted for broad-based empowerment shareholders. That includes the Sasol, SABMiller and MTN deals.
Government and other stakeholders have backed the broad-based empowerment principle, which usually seems intuitively more beneficial. But there is still leeway for companies when designing BEE deals and choosing their partners.
The benefits of broad-based empowerment deals are not always achieved as hoped. Funding arrangements linked to the share price can unravel when product prices or financial markets weaken, as occurred two years ago. Sasol’s R30bn Inzalo deal — which gave 10% of the group’s share capital to the black public, broad-based BEE groups, trade unions, employees and the Sasol Inzalo Foundation — was announced in May 2008, when the share price rose to R490. It’s now R284. Other companies, such as Barloworld, have restructured BEE deals for similar reasons.
Jenny Cargill, founder of BEE consulting company BusinessMap, gives several examples of communities that have been disadvantaged by BEE ventures or decisions made by government officials . The Richtersveld community in the Northern Cape is one. Cargill describes the potentially negative effects on communities as BEE’s “powder keg”.
In planning BEE deals, dilemmas on issues such as funding and the shareholding structure can arise. As the Sishen/ArcelorMittal case has shown, the actual or perceived ability to influence decisions on access to those rights through special relationships can be a valuable card for black investors . For some investors, the special relationships may be their only currency .
When they do play that card, and stand to be greatly enriched , investors and other stakeholders are quick to link the decisions — by government and companies — to a culture of corruption and cronyism, though weak laws, poor transparency and inept officials may be part of the problem. That’s a risk that government cannot afford .
WHAT IT MEANS
The empowerment field is not level
ArcelorMittal deal is just plain rotten
Source: Financial Mail
This time the appearance of patronage can be traced to the top. Some individuals, including the president’s son, Duduzane Zuma, could be greatly enriched by gaining ownership of mineral rights in a questionable process. Unease about the process has become more widespread.
The National Union of Metal Workers (Numsa) has commented scathingly on what it calls “the ArcelorMittal and Imperial Crown Trading looting scheme”. Minerals & resources minister Susan Shabangu’s decision last week to place a moratorium on new awards of mineral rights demonstrates that even government has concerns.
These events raise important questions: how are BEE policies working, what are the achievements and weaknesses — and are the effects in line with government’s intentions?
In more than 16 years, BEE has achieved many successes and some failures. It started in the early 1990s with companies such as Thebe Investments, launched by senior ANC officials, and Nthato Motlana’s Corporate Africa, which gained control of New Africa Investments (Nail). Thebe remains a successful enterprise, and there are other enduring black-controlled businesses. Some have grown through strong share price gains, buoyant markets and productive investment.
Among these are Patrice Motsepe’s African Rainbow Minerals, with a R34bn market cap, and MTN (R225bn market cap) which is run by CE Phuthuma Nhleko. One of the most successful is the unlisted Royal Bafokeng Holdings, a community-based investment company . It started with royalties from Impala platinum mining . Under chairman Kgosi Leruo Molotlegi and CE Niall Carroll, a former investment banker, it has diversified into mining, financial and industrial investments. At its financial year-end last December, it had a R30bn investment portfolio and minimal debt.
Nail started as a 20% shareholder in Sanlam’s Metlife, then attempted to become a conglomerate but collapsed . Mvela Group gathered stakes in companies such as Absa and Life Healthcare, but is now being dismantled . Having made his fortune, founder Tokyo Sexwale has returned to politics as human settlements minister.
Throughout these years, there has been debate about how BEE can best be achieved, and it has worked — but also created risks and unease on many fronts. In an institutional or legal sense, rules of the game were set through the Broad- based Empowerment Act of 2003 and the publication of industry codes and charters over the next few years. These changed the way companies and other stakeholders think about the process.
In the 1990s it was mainly about deals and ownership. The codes and charters have formalised a broader approach. They use a balanced scorecard, giving only a 20% weighting to ownership. Companies also gain credit in other areas including preferential procurement, employment equity, skills development and enterprise development (see table). Management control, where influence over a business is large, gets only 10%.
However, ownership of equity in companies and access to other assets such as mineral rights still play a big role in the process. This is where some old themes and questions are constantly at play. Since the charters and new regulations came into effect , most big companies have done deals over the past few years.
In each case, there are familiar questions: how can the deal be funded when the BEE investors have limited or no capital? Should key individuals benefit from the deal, or should the shareholders be entirely broad-based? If lead individual investors are involved, what value will they add to the business? Will they assist in running the business , adding new perspectives on the board — or provide influence among cronies in high places?
The Sishen/ArcelorMittal case has attracted special attention, partly because valuable mineral rights are involved and there are individuals who have direct links to senior politicians. (See next story). In other large BEE deals announced recently, companies have opted for broad-based empowerment shareholders. That includes the Sasol, SABMiller and MTN deals.
Government and other stakeholders have backed the broad-based empowerment principle, which usually seems intuitively more beneficial. But there is still leeway for companies when designing BEE deals and choosing their partners.
The benefits of broad-based empowerment deals are not always achieved as hoped. Funding arrangements linked to the share price can unravel when product prices or financial markets weaken, as occurred two years ago. Sasol’s R30bn Inzalo deal — which gave 10% of the group’s share capital to the black public, broad-based BEE groups, trade unions, employees and the Sasol Inzalo Foundation — was announced in May 2008, when the share price rose to R490. It’s now R284. Other companies, such as Barloworld, have restructured BEE deals for similar reasons.
Jenny Cargill, founder of BEE consulting company BusinessMap, gives several examples of communities that have been disadvantaged by BEE ventures or decisions made by government officials . The Richtersveld community in the Northern Cape is one. Cargill describes the potentially negative effects on communities as BEE’s “powder keg”.
In planning BEE deals, dilemmas on issues such as funding and the shareholding structure can arise. As the Sishen/ArcelorMittal case has shown, the actual or perceived ability to influence decisions on access to those rights through special relationships can be a valuable card for black investors . For some investors, the special relationships may be their only currency .
When they do play that card, and stand to be greatly enriched , investors and other stakeholders are quick to link the decisions — by government and companies — to a culture of corruption and cronyism, though weak laws, poor transparency and inept officials may be part of the problem. That’s a risk that government cannot afford .
WHAT IT MEANS
The empowerment field is not level
ArcelorMittal deal is just plain rotten
Source: Financial Mail
Friday, August 13, 2010
Mining shaky ground:"Shades of Zimbabwe"
South Africa might well have said goodbye to significant new foreign investment in its mining industry. Foreigners can be unforgiving when they see what they believe are attempts to grab their assets. Which is precisely what they believe is happening with the recent, though quickly rescinded, ban by the Department of Mineral Resources of normal by-product metals sales by London-registered platinum miner Lonmin.
Understandably, politically connected opportunists were seen as being actively helped by the department in their attempts to acquire mining assets cheaply and beyond the legal requirement that 25% ownership of mines be transferred to BEE interests by 2014.
"Shades of Zimbabwe," fund managers muttered. An earlier, similar stratagem directed at an Anglo American subsidiary, Kumba's Sishen Iron Ore, was initially largely overlooked as being an aberration. Now, the word "greenmail" is commonly heard in London. Kumba felt it had adhered strictly to the rules. When global steelmaker ArcelorMittal missed the April 2009 deadline to convert its prospecting rights - a preliminary to granting mining rights - over 21.4% of Sishen's Northern Cape mine, Kumba itself applied to the department for the rights.
Strangely, before it had considered Kumba's legitimate application, the department awarded the Sishen prospecting rights to the hitherto little-known Imperial Crown Trading - which is closely linked to the presidency and ANC top brass. That effectively sterilises part of Sishen, where mining goes back decades. Imperial has no mining skills, credentials or even visible cash - just political connections. Reportedly, it somehow got its hands on Kumba's application documentation and put in a later bid. The Department of Mineral Resources's first-come-first-served rule was ignored. When challenged earlier this year, mines minister Susan Shabangu blustered that she saw nothing sinister in granting rights to people with affiliations to the ruling party. That was just after she and Anglo CEO Cynthia Carroll had been cosying up to each other at a Cape Town mining conference at which all was sweetness and light. Shabangu was touting SA's mining investment merits and Carroll was making emollient statements about Anglo's commitment to South Africa.
Kumba is mounting a legal challenge to the Imperial award. But, in a new twist this past week, Imperial struck an R800-million deal to be taken over by ArcelorMittal, sweetened by a share in a R9-billion 26% stake in the steelmaker's South African mills - all provided that Imperial can deliver the Sishen rights to the steel company. Some favoured individuals are hoping to make quick fortunes, and they are not the ordinary South Africans BEE is supposed to benefit. Wheels within political wheels. If this deal goes through, a good part of the steel mill's stake will be owned by the Gupta Group, controlled by the Indian Gupta family, which finances the ANC and the party's new daily newspaper - set to hit the streets next month. Gupta has Jacob Zuma's son, Duduzane, on one of its boards. Neighbours say that Duduzane occupies a house provided by the Guptas in Saxonwold. How much closer can one get?
The Lonmin imbroglio was strikingly similar. The platinum miner's application to convert old-order to new-order mining rights has been grinding its way through the Department of Mineral Resources's sluggish approval process for months. But Lonmin had temporarily excluded from its application a tiny piece of ground over which rights were subject to negotiation. Prospecting rights on that area were rapidly granted by the department to the mysterious HolGoun group, controlled by Sivi Gounden. Gounden is reputedly a BEE-enriched individual believed to contribute anonymously to ANC coffers. He is, crucially, also a former director of Lonmin and a former director-general of public enterprises under the ANC government. In October, Gounden abruptly resigned his Lonmin directorship, citing pressure of other business. In Lonmin's last annual report he was dutifully praised by chairman Roger Phillimore for his insights. That sort of encomium is often par for the course, irrespective of the real reasons for a departure.
Lonmin is challenging the HolGoun claim. Lonmin might have preferred to keep the matter private while negotiating, but the department's ban would have had a potentially material effect on the company and it had to be disclosed in terms of stock exchange rules and corporate legislation. After one abortive start, Lonmin is now fully BEE-compliant, moored to Cyril Ramaphosa's unlisted Shanduka investment company, which holds indirect stakes in Lonmin's two mines and its smelter.
Why, fund managers ask, should there have been a total ban on established, normal by-product sales, particularly as HolGoun's prospecting claims cover only a tiny part of Lonmin's property? Was it "greenmail", or a crude attempt to induce Lonmin to transfer more to other BEE wannabes? Certainly, there is a lacuna in South Africa's current mining legislation. But Londoners, with Kumba in mind, believe the Lonmin ban represented another example of official processes being abused to enrich ruling-party stalwarts, or, at least, of incompetence in the Department of Mineral Resources. That might be insulting to the independence of our government departments but, unfortunately for us, the belief is a reality to fund managers, who are increasingly questioning this country's investment merits.
It is, perhaps, telling that the latest international investment climate rankings by Canada's authoritative Fraser Institute downgraded South Africa to a level below the Democratic Republic of the Congo. Miners must go where minerals - particularly the platinum mined by Lonmin and Anglo's Anglo Platinum - are found. Auto plants can be moved elsewhere, mines can't. Nonetheless, there are many new mining opportunities around the globe. It's all a deterrent to new investment crucial to the development of an emerging economy such as South Africa's. As one mining executive put it: "The ANC needs to wake up to reality."
Source: Times Live
Understandably, politically connected opportunists were seen as being actively helped by the department in their attempts to acquire mining assets cheaply and beyond the legal requirement that 25% ownership of mines be transferred to BEE interests by 2014.
"Shades of Zimbabwe," fund managers muttered. An earlier, similar stratagem directed at an Anglo American subsidiary, Kumba's Sishen Iron Ore, was initially largely overlooked as being an aberration. Now, the word "greenmail" is commonly heard in London. Kumba felt it had adhered strictly to the rules. When global steelmaker ArcelorMittal missed the April 2009 deadline to convert its prospecting rights - a preliminary to granting mining rights - over 21.4% of Sishen's Northern Cape mine, Kumba itself applied to the department for the rights.
Strangely, before it had considered Kumba's legitimate application, the department awarded the Sishen prospecting rights to the hitherto little-known Imperial Crown Trading - which is closely linked to the presidency and ANC top brass. That effectively sterilises part of Sishen, where mining goes back decades. Imperial has no mining skills, credentials or even visible cash - just political connections. Reportedly, it somehow got its hands on Kumba's application documentation and put in a later bid. The Department of Mineral Resources's first-come-first-served rule was ignored. When challenged earlier this year, mines minister Susan Shabangu blustered that she saw nothing sinister in granting rights to people with affiliations to the ruling party. That was just after she and Anglo CEO Cynthia Carroll had been cosying up to each other at a Cape Town mining conference at which all was sweetness and light. Shabangu was touting SA's mining investment merits and Carroll was making emollient statements about Anglo's commitment to South Africa.
Kumba is mounting a legal challenge to the Imperial award. But, in a new twist this past week, Imperial struck an R800-million deal to be taken over by ArcelorMittal, sweetened by a share in a R9-billion 26% stake in the steelmaker's South African mills - all provided that Imperial can deliver the Sishen rights to the steel company. Some favoured individuals are hoping to make quick fortunes, and they are not the ordinary South Africans BEE is supposed to benefit. Wheels within political wheels. If this deal goes through, a good part of the steel mill's stake will be owned by the Gupta Group, controlled by the Indian Gupta family, which finances the ANC and the party's new daily newspaper - set to hit the streets next month. Gupta has Jacob Zuma's son, Duduzane, on one of its boards. Neighbours say that Duduzane occupies a house provided by the Guptas in Saxonwold. How much closer can one get?
The Lonmin imbroglio was strikingly similar. The platinum miner's application to convert old-order to new-order mining rights has been grinding its way through the Department of Mineral Resources's sluggish approval process for months. But Lonmin had temporarily excluded from its application a tiny piece of ground over which rights were subject to negotiation. Prospecting rights on that area were rapidly granted by the department to the mysterious HolGoun group, controlled by Sivi Gounden. Gounden is reputedly a BEE-enriched individual believed to contribute anonymously to ANC coffers. He is, crucially, also a former director of Lonmin and a former director-general of public enterprises under the ANC government. In October, Gounden abruptly resigned his Lonmin directorship, citing pressure of other business. In Lonmin's last annual report he was dutifully praised by chairman Roger Phillimore for his insights. That sort of encomium is often par for the course, irrespective of the real reasons for a departure.
Lonmin is challenging the HolGoun claim. Lonmin might have preferred to keep the matter private while negotiating, but the department's ban would have had a potentially material effect on the company and it had to be disclosed in terms of stock exchange rules and corporate legislation. After one abortive start, Lonmin is now fully BEE-compliant, moored to Cyril Ramaphosa's unlisted Shanduka investment company, which holds indirect stakes in Lonmin's two mines and its smelter.
Why, fund managers ask, should there have been a total ban on established, normal by-product sales, particularly as HolGoun's prospecting claims cover only a tiny part of Lonmin's property? Was it "greenmail", or a crude attempt to induce Lonmin to transfer more to other BEE wannabes? Certainly, there is a lacuna in South Africa's current mining legislation. But Londoners, with Kumba in mind, believe the Lonmin ban represented another example of official processes being abused to enrich ruling-party stalwarts, or, at least, of incompetence in the Department of Mineral Resources. That might be insulting to the independence of our government departments but, unfortunately for us, the belief is a reality to fund managers, who are increasingly questioning this country's investment merits.
It is, perhaps, telling that the latest international investment climate rankings by Canada's authoritative Fraser Institute downgraded South Africa to a level below the Democratic Republic of the Congo. Miners must go where minerals - particularly the platinum mined by Lonmin and Anglo's Anglo Platinum - are found. Auto plants can be moved elsewhere, mines can't. Nonetheless, there are many new mining opportunities around the globe. It's all a deterrent to new investment crucial to the development of an emerging economy such as South Africa's. As one mining executive put it: "The ANC needs to wake up to reality."
Source: Times Live
Thursday, August 5, 2010
Mapungubwe Action Group take aim at mining firm
Environmentalists served an application to controversial mining house Coal of Africa, as well as the minister of mineral resources, Susan Shabangu, to stop activities at a proposed coalmine near Mapungubwe immediately. The application served on Limpopo Coal, the subsidiary of Coal of Africa, is an attempt by the environmentalists to limit what has already been described an irreversible environmental damage.
The Australian-owned company received a permit earlier this year for its Vele Colliery project next to the Mapungubwe National Park, where the world-famous 800-year-old gold rhino statuette was unearthed in 1933, raising concerns about the threat to a prime heritage spot and environmentally sensitive area. The Mapungubwe Action Group, an umbrella group consisting out of the Endangered Wildlife Trust, the Association of Southern African Professional Archaeologists, Peace Parks Foundation, WWF, Birdlife of South Africa and the Wilderness Foundation of South Africa, is driving the court action.
Coal of Africa chairperson Riaan van der Merwe was unavailable for comment while Shabangu's spokesperson did not return the M&G's calls. The action group has brought out the heavy batters in their fight against the mine. It has appointed legal advisors were from the Centre for Applied Legal Studies at Wits and has also secured top-notch advocate Wim Trengove's services. The action group has lodged internal appeals against both the decision to grant the mining right and the decision to approve the environmental management programme, "These appeals are pending and the applicants have at this stage not yet received any answering papers," said Nick Hilterman, Mapungubwe Action Group chairperson. "In the meantime, construction on the mine site is proceeding at pace and we are worried about the environmental damage. We have launched the interdict application in an attempt to prevent further destruction of the area while the legal disputes are pending,' he said. "The interdict application is thus an interim measure that seeks to prevent the mine from carrying on any mining or related operations at Vele." He said the interdict application also seeks to question the commencement of mining or related operations in the absence of a water use license and on private nature reserves. It is due to be heard in the next month in the North Gauteng High Court.
The interdict comes amid comments environment minister Buyelwa Sonjica made to Reuters this week. "We are concerned about the illegal activities that the company embarked on when this matter was still under discussion,” she said. In addition, the Department of Environmental Affairs has cracked the whip at the mine in the past month and is preparing for a major operation in law enforcement compliance. Sonjica has rallied behind the environmental department, while her other department, Department of Water Affairs, is also resisting the mine's application for a water licence.
In reaction to Sonjica's comments, Coal of Africa issued a statement that all its activities undertaken at the Vele Colliery have been carried out lawfully. "We have not undertaken any activities for which authorisation has not been given," said Simon Farrell, Coal's executive deputy chairperson from Australia. He said the company would oppose the application vigorously. The mining order rate, executed in March this year together with the approved environmental management, permit Coal to start development activities on site, Farrell argued. "The company is unaware of the alleged 'illegal activities' referred to and is therefore seeking an immediate meeting with the minister to identify and address any issues and concerns," said Farrell. He said Coal had been served with two pre-compliance notices from the environmental department alleging various matters, including that the Vele Colliery has proceeded with the construction of the access road and storage facilities. "But we have not undertaken any activities for which authority has not been granted," he said.
With the department's action, the interdict and the looming court battle of the Mapungubwe Action Group, the Australian mine group's argument will most certainly be tested in court. "Coal of Africa interprets the new mining order right as overriding national environmental management legislation and regulations," said Johan Verhoef, Peace Parks Foundation chief. "Therefore they believe that Department of Water Affairs cannot refuse them a water licence. This will all be tested in court and the Vele court case could very well be a watershed case for mining rights in sensitive areas."
Source: Mail & Guardian
The Australian-owned company received a permit earlier this year for its Vele Colliery project next to the Mapungubwe National Park, where the world-famous 800-year-old gold rhino statuette was unearthed in 1933, raising concerns about the threat to a prime heritage spot and environmentally sensitive area. The Mapungubwe Action Group, an umbrella group consisting out of the Endangered Wildlife Trust, the Association of Southern African Professional Archaeologists, Peace Parks Foundation, WWF, Birdlife of South Africa and the Wilderness Foundation of South Africa, is driving the court action.
Coal of Africa chairperson Riaan van der Merwe was unavailable for comment while Shabangu's spokesperson did not return the M&G's calls. The action group has brought out the heavy batters in their fight against the mine. It has appointed legal advisors were from the Centre for Applied Legal Studies at Wits and has also secured top-notch advocate Wim Trengove's services. The action group has lodged internal appeals against both the decision to grant the mining right and the decision to approve the environmental management programme, "These appeals are pending and the applicants have at this stage not yet received any answering papers," said Nick Hilterman, Mapungubwe Action Group chairperson. "In the meantime, construction on the mine site is proceeding at pace and we are worried about the environmental damage. We have launched the interdict application in an attempt to prevent further destruction of the area while the legal disputes are pending,' he said. "The interdict application is thus an interim measure that seeks to prevent the mine from carrying on any mining or related operations at Vele." He said the interdict application also seeks to question the commencement of mining or related operations in the absence of a water use license and on private nature reserves. It is due to be heard in the next month in the North Gauteng High Court.
The interdict comes amid comments environment minister Buyelwa Sonjica made to Reuters this week. "We are concerned about the illegal activities that the company embarked on when this matter was still under discussion,” she said. In addition, the Department of Environmental Affairs has cracked the whip at the mine in the past month and is preparing for a major operation in law enforcement compliance. Sonjica has rallied behind the environmental department, while her other department, Department of Water Affairs, is also resisting the mine's application for a water licence.
In reaction to Sonjica's comments, Coal of Africa issued a statement that all its activities undertaken at the Vele Colliery have been carried out lawfully. "We have not undertaken any activities for which authorisation has not been given," said Simon Farrell, Coal's executive deputy chairperson from Australia. He said the company would oppose the application vigorously. The mining order rate, executed in March this year together with the approved environmental management, permit Coal to start development activities on site, Farrell argued. "The company is unaware of the alleged 'illegal activities' referred to and is therefore seeking an immediate meeting with the minister to identify and address any issues and concerns," said Farrell. He said Coal had been served with two pre-compliance notices from the environmental department alleging various matters, including that the Vele Colliery has proceeded with the construction of the access road and storage facilities. "But we have not undertaken any activities for which authority has not been granted," he said.
With the department's action, the interdict and the looming court battle of the Mapungubwe Action Group, the Australian mine group's argument will most certainly be tested in court. "Coal of Africa interprets the new mining order right as overriding national environmental management legislation and regulations," said Johan Verhoef, Peace Parks Foundation chief. "Therefore they believe that Department of Water Affairs cannot refuse them a water licence. This will all be tested in court and the Vele court case could very well be a watershed case for mining rights in sensitive areas."
Source: Mail & Guardian
Thursday, July 1, 2010
Environmental probe for dodgy mining rights
A special environmental government task team is to investigate mining in sensitive areas. This follows a swarm of controversial green lights given by the mining department for mining and prospecting rights in sensitive areas in the past couple of years.
The task team is the result of the long-anticipated meeting last week between Environmental Mminister Buyelwa Sonjica and Mining Minister Susan Shabangu. The two had met to discuss Sonjica’s concern over the controversial Vele colliery next to World Heritage Site Mapungubwe. "The minister is still deeply concerned about what is going at the mine," Sonjica’s spokesperson Sputnik Ratau said. But he said the minister believed the task team was a step in the right direction to resolve the environmental concerns. He described the meeting with Shabangu as fruitful.
Shabangu’s department issued mining rights to Coal of Africa at the beginning of this year, but Sonjica came out strongly against the Vele mine. She requested a formal meeting with Shabangu on the matter in February, but last week’s meeting was the first to result in significant reported progress between the two departments.
Last week the Mail & Guardian reported that the Green Scorpions had swooped down on Coal of Africa’s Vele mine in May. Two weeks ago the department of environmental affairs issued an order against the mine for environmental transgressions. Coal of Africa must now make representations to the environmental department on why it should not be prosecuted.
The M&G understands that the department is now conducting regular surveys to determine what exactly Vele had done. This week officials from both departments flew over the mining area as part of the ongoing investigation. "We need to determine whether the work Vele had done is within the scopes of permission it had been granted, and just how far they had gone beyond the legal framework," Ratau said.
Coal of Africa has maintained that all the work it has done so far, including the clearing of bush and building of new structures, falls in within the mining rights order it obtained. Last week Coal of Africa’s CEO Riaan van der Merwe insisted that the mine had acted within the law at all times.
Vele will not be the only mine investigated by the task team, though it is understood that much of its focus will be on Mapungubwe. "The task team is to look at the bigger picture, the ultimate impact of mining on sensitive areas," Ratau said. "And of course Vele will be one of the new focus areas, as it has been a contentious issue." The task team, which will have high-ranking officials from both the mining and environmental department on board, is also aimed at relieving tensions between the two departments and improving dialogue on environmental issues.
Other sensitive spots that have been in the news for mining activities include areas near Dullstroom, Chrissiesmeer and Wakkerstroom in Mpumalanga, Verlorenvlei near Piketberg in the Western Cape, as well as the Winelands. In many of these areas only strong environmental activism served as a warning to the impacts of mining on the local environment. But environmental activists say their job is getting more difficult with the avalanche of mining licenses the mining department has been awarding.
The two ministers will now draft a definition of what they see as sensitive areas, and the locations of these areas. On Thursday, Gareth Morgan, the DA’s spokesperson on water and environmental affairs, welcomed the task team but called for the two departments to extend this project by establishing a mining advisory forum with a specific focus on the effects of mining on the environment. "The discussion on what is a sensitive area should not be contained only in government," he said. "It should be thrown open to stakeholders from civil society, including farming and environmental organisations," Morgan said.
Source: Mail & Guardian
The task team is the result of the long-anticipated meeting last week between Environmental Mminister Buyelwa Sonjica and Mining Minister Susan Shabangu. The two had met to discuss Sonjica’s concern over the controversial Vele colliery next to World Heritage Site Mapungubwe. "The minister is still deeply concerned about what is going at the mine," Sonjica’s spokesperson Sputnik Ratau said. But he said the minister believed the task team was a step in the right direction to resolve the environmental concerns. He described the meeting with Shabangu as fruitful.
Shabangu’s department issued mining rights to Coal of Africa at the beginning of this year, but Sonjica came out strongly against the Vele mine. She requested a formal meeting with Shabangu on the matter in February, but last week’s meeting was the first to result in significant reported progress between the two departments.
Last week the Mail & Guardian reported that the Green Scorpions had swooped down on Coal of Africa’s Vele mine in May. Two weeks ago the department of environmental affairs issued an order against the mine for environmental transgressions. Coal of Africa must now make representations to the environmental department on why it should not be prosecuted.
The M&G understands that the department is now conducting regular surveys to determine what exactly Vele had done. This week officials from both departments flew over the mining area as part of the ongoing investigation. "We need to determine whether the work Vele had done is within the scopes of permission it had been granted, and just how far they had gone beyond the legal framework," Ratau said.
Coal of Africa has maintained that all the work it has done so far, including the clearing of bush and building of new structures, falls in within the mining rights order it obtained. Last week Coal of Africa’s CEO Riaan van der Merwe insisted that the mine had acted within the law at all times.
Vele will not be the only mine investigated by the task team, though it is understood that much of its focus will be on Mapungubwe. "The task team is to look at the bigger picture, the ultimate impact of mining on sensitive areas," Ratau said. "And of course Vele will be one of the new focus areas, as it has been a contentious issue." The task team, which will have high-ranking officials from both the mining and environmental department on board, is also aimed at relieving tensions between the two departments and improving dialogue on environmental issues.
Other sensitive spots that have been in the news for mining activities include areas near Dullstroom, Chrissiesmeer and Wakkerstroom in Mpumalanga, Verlorenvlei near Piketberg in the Western Cape, as well as the Winelands. In many of these areas only strong environmental activism served as a warning to the impacts of mining on the local environment. But environmental activists say their job is getting more difficult with the avalanche of mining licenses the mining department has been awarding.
The two ministers will now draft a definition of what they see as sensitive areas, and the locations of these areas. On Thursday, Gareth Morgan, the DA’s spokesperson on water and environmental affairs, welcomed the task team but called for the two departments to extend this project by establishing a mining advisory forum with a specific focus on the effects of mining on the environment. "The discussion on what is a sensitive area should not be contained only in government," he said. "It should be thrown open to stakeholders from civil society, including farming and environmental organisations," Morgan said.
Source: Mail & Guardian
Wednesday, December 9, 2009
Stop Blood Diamonds
Zimbabwe's armed forces, under the control of President Robert Mugabe, are engaging in forced labor of children and adults and are torturing and beating local villagers on the diamond fields of Marange district. The military seized control of these diamond fields in eastern Zimbabwe after killing more than 200 people in Chiadzwa, a previously peaceful but impoverished area, in late October 2008. Marange has become a zone of lawlessness and impunity, a microcosm of the chaos and desperation that currently pervade Zimbabwe.
In late June 2009, Human Rights Watch published a report documenting the serious human rights abuses in the Marange diamond fields by the Zimbabwean military, including forced labor, child labor, the killing of more than 200 people, and other grave abuses.
In its recent plenary meeting in Namibia, the Kimberley Process Certification Scheme, an international body that oversees the trade of diamonds, decided not to suspend Zimbabwe from participation, nor bar the export of its diamonds, despite finding serious human rights abuses and rampant smuggling during its own investigation of the Marange diamond field. Its weak excuse was a technicality in its mandate that defines blood diamonds as those mined by abusive rebel groups, not by abusive governments.
Tell Kimberley Process member states that they need to take action to end the smuggling of blood diamonds and stop the human rights abuses at the Marange diamond fields.
This is the message to:
Brad Brooks-Rubin - Conflict Diamonds Advisor, US State Dept
Stephane Chardon - European Community KPCS Representative
Bernard Esau - Namibia, Chair KPCS
Boaz Hirsch - Israel, Incoming Chair KPCS
Eli Izakhoff - World Diamond Council
Igor Kozlyuk - Russia KPCS Representative
Suresh Kumar - India KPCS Representative
Weizhang Liang - China KPCS Representative
Sabrina Ramzi - Canada KPCS Representative
Susan Shabangu - South Africa, Minister of Minerals and Energy
Source: Human Rights Watch
Thursday, September 17, 2009
SA vows to crack down on illegal mining
South Africa has vowed to clamp down on illegal mining operations, which have increased on the back of higher metals prices and as Africa's biggest economy hit its first recession in 17 years. Mineral Resources Minister Susan Shabangu said late on Wednesday that illegal mining in the world's top platinum producer and number three producer of gold was valued at R5,6-billion.
She said the government would tighten up legislation to clamp down on illegal operations, as top police detectives investigate the organised crime. "Illegal mining is a huge, multibillion-rand criminal industry featuring national and international syndicates," Shabangu told Parliament. "These gold-smuggling syndicates are highly organised, dangerous and well-resourced," she said.
Shabangu said thousands of diggers, mainly from Lesotho, Mozambique, Zimbabwe and Botswana, risked their lives to share in the loot. The hidden world of illegal miners was recently thrust into the public spotlight when 91 people working in an abandoned mineshaft in Welkom died after a fire broke out.
Shabangu said illegal miners were no different from "ruthless criminals" and were openly carrying AK-47 assault rifles in the Barberton mining district in Mpumalanga, in the north of the country. She said heavily armed gangs were setting booby traps using explosives to protect their illegal mining operations from police and security personnel. "Legal mineworkers have been also abducted in Barberton and used as human shields in confrontations with the police," she said.
Source: Mail & Guardian
She said the government would tighten up legislation to clamp down on illegal operations, as top police detectives investigate the organised crime. "Illegal mining is a huge, multibillion-rand criminal industry featuring national and international syndicates," Shabangu told Parliament. "These gold-smuggling syndicates are highly organised, dangerous and well-resourced," she said.
Shabangu said thousands of diggers, mainly from Lesotho, Mozambique, Zimbabwe and Botswana, risked their lives to share in the loot. The hidden world of illegal miners was recently thrust into the public spotlight when 91 people working in an abandoned mineshaft in Welkom died after a fire broke out.
Shabangu said illegal miners were no different from "ruthless criminals" and were openly carrying AK-47 assault rifles in the Barberton mining district in Mpumalanga, in the north of the country. She said heavily armed gangs were setting booby traps using explosives to protect their illegal mining operations from police and security personnel. "Legal mineworkers have been also abducted in Barberton and used as human shields in confrontations with the police," she said.
Source: Mail & Guardian
Thursday, July 9, 2009
ANC youth on nationalisation of mines
The African National Congress (ANC) Youth Leagues’ call for the nationalisation of South African mines has ignited diversified debate locally and internationally. ANC Youth League spokesperson Floyd Shivambu tells Mining Weekly that the ANC Youth Leagues’ call for the nationalisation of mines is within the context of the ANC's constitutional strategic goal. “The ANC's constitution commits all members to abide by the objectives of the Freedom Charter.”
He explains that the Freedom Charter states that unequivocally the mineral wealth beneath the soil that belongs to monopoly industries and banks shall be transferred to the ownership of the people as a whole. “The people as a whole is vividly distinguishable from State rentals of mineral wealth to big corporations who brutally exploit labour and unsustainably exploit mineral wealth to make big profits. “The Freedom Charter is a the clearest expression of what the ANC and alliance partners seek to achieve in South Africa and any person who is against the Charter is against the aims of the ANC and the revolutionary alliance,” Shivambu comments.
The ANC Youth League believes that this is even more relevant with the economic downturn. “We do not want the production extraction and trade of mineral wealth in the country to be profit driven. The profit motive, in particularly with regard to mining in the country, has not been helpful with the development of the South African economy. “Companies have been extracting mineral wealth from the country's soil without developing the communities where these minerals are being extracted. These same companies have also not significantly contributed to the industrialisation, beneficiation, and the diversification of the economy.”
Shivambu says that the country has been reliant on the production of mineral resources from mining for a very long time, and adds that it is not durable. “South Africa now needs to be competitive in other areas of the industry such as beneficiation. Most South Africans do not even know what the platinum is used for, yet 70% of platinum reserves are located in South Africa. The country needs to start beneficiating its resources,” he says.
The ANC Youth League believes that only when the State is in control of mineral production an opportunity will be created for the development of the country’s mineral industry. “The State will not employ people just because we want to make more money, and then cut labour when it suits us, with thousand of people losing their jobs and their lives because working conditions are not safe. “When the State is directly involved in the mining of these minerals, it is going to be more conducive to the people, developing communities and societies,” says Shivambu.
However, South African Mineral Resources Minister Susan Shabangu told Reuters that the country would not nationalise mines despite calls from the ruling party's allies. She confirmed that the ANC's youth wing, as well as trade union federation Cosatu, have asked the government to take control of mines. "We are definitely not going to nationalise mines," Shabangu reassured. "The ongoing debate will not change the government's policy at all. It must be a concern for investors, but I want to assure them that as government we are not going to go on that route. The South Africa they knew yesterday is the same today and nothing will change. It is a non-issue," she said.
To that, Shivambu says that the Minister is not representing the views of the ANC. “We met with the ANC and as far as we are concerned, the policy of the ANC is the Freedom Charter which was reaffirmed in the recent congress of the ANC. “The Minister is not speaking on behalf of the ANC, she is speaking on behalf of government. Even though the government is constantly mandated by the ANC, at times there are those who miss the proper understanding and grasp of what the ANC is saying on certain issues. “The Charter speaks to the nationalisation of mines, and possibly at government-level that has not been given practical meaning, however, within the ANC policy that is a reality. We are sure that the ANC will be guiding government on how to move forward on this particular issue.” He says that investor confidence will not be harmed by the nationalisation of the country’s mines. “We are going to open up investment opportunities in other areas such as the beneficiation of minerals, where we do not have the capacity. However, in terms of control ownership of mines we need the state to be in control of the mines.”
Shivambu explains that the nationalisation proposal is not going to be a “big-bang” introduction, but a gradual introduction of State ownership. “Partnerships will be formed between the State and big corporations,” he says. Ultimately, Shivambu states that the ANC is for nationalisation of mines in the country, and that it will happen.
Source: Polity
He explains that the Freedom Charter states that unequivocally the mineral wealth beneath the soil that belongs to monopoly industries and banks shall be transferred to the ownership of the people as a whole. “The people as a whole is vividly distinguishable from State rentals of mineral wealth to big corporations who brutally exploit labour and unsustainably exploit mineral wealth to make big profits. “The Freedom Charter is a the clearest expression of what the ANC and alliance partners seek to achieve in South Africa and any person who is against the Charter is against the aims of the ANC and the revolutionary alliance,” Shivambu comments.
The ANC Youth League believes that this is even more relevant with the economic downturn. “We do not want the production extraction and trade of mineral wealth in the country to be profit driven. The profit motive, in particularly with regard to mining in the country, has not been helpful with the development of the South African economy. “Companies have been extracting mineral wealth from the country's soil without developing the communities where these minerals are being extracted. These same companies have also not significantly contributed to the industrialisation, beneficiation, and the diversification of the economy.”
Shivambu says that the country has been reliant on the production of mineral resources from mining for a very long time, and adds that it is not durable. “South Africa now needs to be competitive in other areas of the industry such as beneficiation. Most South Africans do not even know what the platinum is used for, yet 70% of platinum reserves are located in South Africa. The country needs to start beneficiating its resources,” he says.
The ANC Youth League believes that only when the State is in control of mineral production an opportunity will be created for the development of the country’s mineral industry. “The State will not employ people just because we want to make more money, and then cut labour when it suits us, with thousand of people losing their jobs and their lives because working conditions are not safe. “When the State is directly involved in the mining of these minerals, it is going to be more conducive to the people, developing communities and societies,” says Shivambu.
However, South African Mineral Resources Minister Susan Shabangu told Reuters that the country would not nationalise mines despite calls from the ruling party's allies. She confirmed that the ANC's youth wing, as well as trade union federation Cosatu, have asked the government to take control of mines. "We are definitely not going to nationalise mines," Shabangu reassured. "The ongoing debate will not change the government's policy at all. It must be a concern for investors, but I want to assure them that as government we are not going to go on that route. The South Africa they knew yesterday is the same today and nothing will change. It is a non-issue," she said.
To that, Shivambu says that the Minister is not representing the views of the ANC. “We met with the ANC and as far as we are concerned, the policy of the ANC is the Freedom Charter which was reaffirmed in the recent congress of the ANC. “The Minister is not speaking on behalf of the ANC, she is speaking on behalf of government. Even though the government is constantly mandated by the ANC, at times there are those who miss the proper understanding and grasp of what the ANC is saying on certain issues. “The Charter speaks to the nationalisation of mines, and possibly at government-level that has not been given practical meaning, however, within the ANC policy that is a reality. We are sure that the ANC will be guiding government on how to move forward on this particular issue.” He says that investor confidence will not be harmed by the nationalisation of the country’s mines. “We are going to open up investment opportunities in other areas such as the beneficiation of minerals, where we do not have the capacity. However, in terms of control ownership of mines we need the state to be in control of the mines.”
Shivambu explains that the nationalisation proposal is not going to be a “big-bang” introduction, but a gradual introduction of State ownership. “Partnerships will be formed between the State and big corporations,” he says. Ultimately, Shivambu states that the ANC is for nationalisation of mines in the country, and that it will happen.
Source: Polity
Friday, May 9, 2008
Law society calls for overhaul of justice system
The Law Society of South Africa (LSSA) on Friday called for an overhaul of the justice system to deal with crime in the country. Co-chairpersons Vincent Saldahna and CP Fourie said the scourge of crime needed a more holistic and serious solution, which included the proper training and deployment of police officers, as well as a proper overhaul of the criminal justice system. "Government is urged to give its undivided attention to finding such a solution, since the unacceptable levels of crime -- particularly violent crime -- are, among other things, a serious threat to our young democracy". They said the LSSA was committed to assisting the state in whatever way it could.
The LSSA also expressed concern at the statements made by the Deputy Minister of Safety and Security, Susan Shabangu, encouraging members of the public and the South African Police Service (SAPS) to use force against suspected criminals. "Owners of licensed firearms, be they members of the public or the SAPS, must in terms of legislation be fully cognisant of their rights and responsibilities as contained in legislation governing the use of firearms," they said. They indicated that such statements might encourage members of the public to act unlawfully and take the law into their own hands.
Source: Mail & Guardian
The LSSA also expressed concern at the statements made by the Deputy Minister of Safety and Security, Susan Shabangu, encouraging members of the public and the South African Police Service (SAPS) to use force against suspected criminals. "Owners of licensed firearms, be they members of the public or the SAPS, must in terms of legislation be fully cognisant of their rights and responsibilities as contained in legislation governing the use of firearms," they said. They indicated that such statements might encourage members of the public to act unlawfully and take the law into their own hands.
Source: Mail & Guardian
Saturday, April 12, 2008
Zuma on crime: Shabangu has a point
Deputy Safety and Security Minister Susan Shabangu's controversial "shoot to kill" comment has received African National Congress (ANC) president Jacob Zuma's backing.
Speaking at the KwaZulu-Natal Institute of Local Government and Traditional Leadership's fund-raising gala dinner on Friday night, Zuma said: "If you have a deputy minister saying the kind of things that the deputy minister was saying, this is what we need to happen." Zuma pointed out that police had at one stage been "asked not to shoot at criminals". "Because the fact of the matter [is that] criminals shoot police. Instead of talking at that level, we ought to be seeing action that we are tougher on the criminals. That's the point I'm making. What the deputy minister was saying is what we are to be doing is dealing with the criminals rather than talking about it."
Shabangu, who was speaking at an anti-crime imbizo (meeting) in Pretoria West, was quoted by the Pretoria News as saying: ""You must kill the bastards if they threaten you or the community. You must not worry about the regulations. That is my responsibility. Your responsibility is to serve and protect." While her comments have sparked outrage among some and received the backing of others, the issue of crime has been raised repeatedly at several functions attended by the ANC president in Durban and Richards Bay during the past two days. "You know, if you haven't experienced crime, you can theorise about it, but for those that have experienced it, it is a painful thing," Zuma said. He said he had visited the Cape Flats and heard several horrendous crime stories. He added that many of those who felt strongly about crime had been victims themselves. Addressing the media, he said: "I'm hoping that when you write, [you] don't sensationalise what I said. Use the words that say exactly what I say. I just hope the clarity is as clear as I put it."
Earlier on Friday, Zuma had said that the issue of bail for those accused of rape and murder needed to be debated. "I don't think we have debated the issue. Let us do something that favours the victim and not the criminal." Asked if he was personally in favour of rape and murder accused being denied bail, Zuma said: "I'm not saying it's my personal view. I want to say that these things need to be looked at." Zuma cited a number of examples where members of the public had questioned him about criminals being released on bail. "I have not been able to give them answers. We over-stretch human rights sometimes," he said. He pointed out that once a murder had taken place, a person's right to life had already been infringed. "We need to look at the things we do that don't favour the victim." He also said it was an "open secret" that murderers released on bail often interfered with witnesses.
At the dinner, Zuma said he believed that education could play a major role in combating crime. If the country could tackle crime, health and education, many of its problems would be resolved. He suggested that remuneration in these three sectors needed to be addressed. "I don't think we should be afraid to pay for those services," he said.
Source: Mail & Guardian
Speaking at the KwaZulu-Natal Institute of Local Government and Traditional Leadership's fund-raising gala dinner on Friday night, Zuma said: "If you have a deputy minister saying the kind of things that the deputy minister was saying, this is what we need to happen." Zuma pointed out that police had at one stage been "asked not to shoot at criminals". "Because the fact of the matter [is that] criminals shoot police. Instead of talking at that level, we ought to be seeing action that we are tougher on the criminals. That's the point I'm making. What the deputy minister was saying is what we are to be doing is dealing with the criminals rather than talking about it."
Shabangu, who was speaking at an anti-crime imbizo (meeting) in Pretoria West, was quoted by the Pretoria News as saying: ""You must kill the bastards if they threaten you or the community. You must not worry about the regulations. That is my responsibility. Your responsibility is to serve and protect." While her comments have sparked outrage among some and received the backing of others, the issue of crime has been raised repeatedly at several functions attended by the ANC president in Durban and Richards Bay during the past two days. "You know, if you haven't experienced crime, you can theorise about it, but for those that have experienced it, it is a painful thing," Zuma said. He said he had visited the Cape Flats and heard several horrendous crime stories. He added that many of those who felt strongly about crime had been victims themselves. Addressing the media, he said: "I'm hoping that when you write, [you] don't sensationalise what I said. Use the words that say exactly what I say. I just hope the clarity is as clear as I put it."
Earlier on Friday, Zuma had said that the issue of bail for those accused of rape and murder needed to be debated. "I don't think we have debated the issue. Let us do something that favours the victim and not the criminal." Asked if he was personally in favour of rape and murder accused being denied bail, Zuma said: "I'm not saying it's my personal view. I want to say that these things need to be looked at." Zuma cited a number of examples where members of the public had questioned him about criminals being released on bail. "I have not been able to give them answers. We over-stretch human rights sometimes," he said. He pointed out that once a murder had taken place, a person's right to life had already been infringed. "We need to look at the things we do that don't favour the victim." He also said it was an "open secret" that murderers released on bail often interfered with witnesses.
At the dinner, Zuma said he believed that education could play a major role in combating crime. If the country could tackle crime, health and education, many of its problems would be resolved. He suggested that remuneration in these three sectors needed to be addressed. "I don't think we should be afraid to pay for those services," he said.
Source: Mail & Guardian
Thursday, April 10, 2008
Kill the criminals, minister tells cops
Deputy Minister of Safety and Security Susan Shabangu told police that they should kill criminals if they threaten police or the community, the Star reported on Thursday. "You must kill the bastards if they threaten you or the community. You must not worry about the regulations. That is my responsibility. Your responsibility is to serve and protect," Shabangu said at an anti-crime imbizo in Pretoria West on Wednesday.
Shabangu, who received a standing ovation, was responding to questions on what police and the government are doing to curb crime. Residents of Danville, Pretoria West, Lotus Gardens, Hercules and Elandspoort complained about the "pathetic excuses" given by police allegedly unable or unwilling to deal with crime. "I want to assure the police station commissioners and policemen and women from these areas that they have permission to kill these criminals. "I won't tolerate any pathetic excuses for you not being able to deal with crime. You have been given guns, now use them." She added that there should be no warning shots. "I want no warning shots. You have one shot and it must be a kill shot. If you miss, the criminals will go for the kill. They don't miss. We can't take this chance. "Criminals are hell-bent on undermining the law and they must now be dealt with. If criminals dare to threaten the police or the livelihood or lives of innocent men, women and children, they must be killed. End of story. There are to be no negotiations with criminals."
She said law-abiding people and not the criminals must be protected. "I say that criminals must be made to pay for their crimes. The Constitution says criminals must be kept safe, but I say No!" she said.
Source: Mail & Guardian
Shabangu, who received a standing ovation, was responding to questions on what police and the government are doing to curb crime. Residents of Danville, Pretoria West, Lotus Gardens, Hercules and Elandspoort complained about the "pathetic excuses" given by police allegedly unable or unwilling to deal with crime. "I want to assure the police station commissioners and policemen and women from these areas that they have permission to kill these criminals. "I won't tolerate any pathetic excuses for you not being able to deal with crime. You have been given guns, now use them." She added that there should be no warning shots. "I want no warning shots. You have one shot and it must be a kill shot. If you miss, the criminals will go for the kill. They don't miss. We can't take this chance. "Criminals are hell-bent on undermining the law and they must now be dealt with. If criminals dare to threaten the police or the livelihood or lives of innocent men, women and children, they must be killed. End of story. There are to be no negotiations with criminals."
She said law-abiding people and not the criminals must be protected. "I say that criminals must be made to pay for their crimes. The Constitution says criminals must be kept safe, but I say No!" she said.
Source: Mail & Guardian
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)