Hugh Glenister is preparing to return to the Constitutional Court, to argue that the amendments to the South African Police Amendment Act - known as the ‘Hawks Act' - do not meet that Court's criteria for an effective anti-corruption entity as laid out in the Glenister judgment of March 2011.
The Act was signed into law by President Zuma in September this year. Glenister submitted a notice of application to the Court today.
Glenister and his legal counsel have asked that the Court give the executive six months to remedy the legislation once again, and have suggested that a new entity with a specific mandate to combat corruption be established outside of the police service. Glenister says that this could be achieved in a number of ways, either through the creation of:
a new Chapter 9 institution;
a specialised unit within an existing Chapter 9 Institution (e.g. The office of the Public Protector or the Auditor General); or
a free-standing legislated body which is not accountable to the National Commissioner, the Minister or the cabinet.
The SAPS Amendment Act was first passed into law in 2008, when anti-corruption unit, the Scorpions, was disbanded and replaced by the Directorate for Priority Crime Investigation, a new unit within the police service known as ‘the Hawks'.
Glenister successfully argued that the legislation establishing the Hawks was unconstitutional when he won the 2011 ‘Glenister judgement' in the Constitutional Court. The Court found that the SAPS Amendment Act gave inadequate independence to the anti-graft unit in investigating corruption and gave the executive 18 months to amend the legislation. The cut-off date was 18 September 2012.
In its judgement, the Court clearly outlined its criteria for South Africa's anti-corruption entity:
Adequate specialisation and training;
independence from political influence and interference;
guaranteed resources; and
security of tenure for the entity's officials.
However, Glenister believes that the executive failed to adhere to these criteria and therefore to the requirements of the Constitution, specifically regarding the location of the Hawks and its reporting structure.
As a unit within the police, the Hawks head is answerable to the Commissioner of Police, the Minister of Police, Cabinet and ultimately, the President. Glenister believes that this makes the unit vulnerable to political meddling, compromising its ability to effectively investigate corruption at all levels of society.
"How can the Hawks combat corruption within the public sector if the ruling party has control over who can be investigated and who is above the law?" says Glenister, "The unit has its hands tied and is vulnerable to the kind of political interference which resulted in corruption charges being withdrawn against the President, without the opportunity of being tested in court."
According to the 2008/2009 annual report of the National Prosecuting Authority, the number of new investigations has dropped by 85% since the Hawks took over from the Scorpions in 2008, and the value of illegally acquired assets seized has fallen from R4 billion to R35 million.
Additionally, public perception about corruption within the SAPS is at an all time low according to an October survey by market research firm, TNS, which revealed that it is seen as the most corrupt government entity in South Africa. The Court regards public perception of independence as a relevant factor in its deliberations on the effectiveness and autonomy of the tweaked Hawks unit.
"If the unit itself is corrupt, how can it be expected to fight corruption?"
Statement issued by FTI Consulting on behalf of Hugh Glenister, November 29 2012
Source: Politicsweb
Thursday, November 29, 2012
Uganda: Human Rights Defenders and Land Ownership
Northern Uganda is rising from the debris of a long conflict involving the rebel Lord's Resistance Movement. Many challenges remain especially on land issues. But human rights defenders are trying to help.
Lira Town, situated some 350km from Kampala to the north, is an area deeply affected by the Lord's Resistance Army conflict that wrecked Uganda from 1986 until the Juba talks (2006-2008), marking the beginning of the end for Joseph Kony and the rebels in Uganda.
It was the start of a peace process that ultimately led to the creation of South Sudan in 2011 and also marked the beginning of a decline of the LRA in northern Uganda, forcing them out of the bases they had been occupying in southern Sudan, last seen in the Eastern Congo or the Central African Republic.
These days there is a lot less urgency for those internally displaced who had fled rural villages to seek sanctuary in towns from the violence. Lira town now thrives with bustle of commercial trade in its compact town centre.
The most talked about issues I encountered focussed on one central problem that's on the rise right across Uganda: land ownership.
In discussion with the Deputy District Police Commander and the District Office of Prosecutions it emerged that land ownership or land disputes were behind nearly all of the criminal cases and violations of human rights in Lira district.
This may not come as a surprise when Uganda's population has risen tenfold to since independence in 1962. The issue has been exacerbated by the discovery of oil reserves in Hoima District and new cases of forced evictions and land grabbing are reported on an almost daily basis.
The throngs of men and women I witnessed seated outside the Lira courts pending hearings on land issues, particularly over ownership by people displaced during conflict, all seek to reclaim land they previously worked on.
The court system is simply unable to cope with the demands on it. The Officer of Prosecutions bemoaned the lack of human resources at his disposal.
The state is bound to provide lawyers to represent the deceased in any court case but its failure to pay lawyers for their work has led to many refusing to take up these positions, bringing the justice process to a grinding halt.
Faced with a flailing system, a number of individuals seek alternative solutions which are not always legal.
Mob justice - where citizens take the law into their own hands - is on the rise in Uganda and it may increase as land disputes keep happening and formal crime and punishment structures fail to address them.
Just as mob justice can never be a workable alternative, removing rights, such as the right to a fair trial in the process, the same could be said of a failing judicial system.
Lobbying for its reform and greater accountability from the authorities is where human rights defenders (HRDs) are concentrating their efforts in looking to overcome this huge challenge.
WHAT IS A HUMAN RIGHTS DEFENDER? AND WHY DO THEY MATTER?
A Human Rights Defender (HRD) was formalised as a concept at the international level by the 1998 UN Declaration on Human Rights Defenders, which guarantees every individual's right to promote and to strive for the protection and realisation of human rights and fundamental freedoms at the national and international levels.
In practice HRDs extend from individuals, such as lawyers and social workers, to organisations that work on issues relating to human rights and even to instruments of the state.
In fact the chief HRDs in Ugandan society, at least in theory, are the police, prison service and judiciary, as they are mandated by the Constitution to protect and promote human rights. However they are often involved in abuses in the Ugandan case.
The key message for governments is that HRDs are legitimate actors, working in the interests of the state to promote and protect fundamental freedoms that all citizens should be entitled to.
The state should recognise this and create an enabling environment for their work, which includes protection where required and facilitation where it is mandated to so
The case studies that follow are based on interviews with men, women and persons with disabilities that I encountered, outlining just some of the challenges and success stories of HRDs in Lira.
CASE STUDY 1: LIVING WITH HIV AND AIDS
Semmy Apili, sharing her experience during a training workshop, said she won a court case and regained her land because of the will her late husband was able to write.
Even on issues such as HIV and AIDS the issue of land could not be avoided. Martin Ongune, Project Coordinator at the Lira Development Network for People Living with HIV Aids (LIDFOPHAN), remarked upon the need for support in 'will writing' in order to support the families of victims:
'There is a need here for legal advisers to assist the poorer members of society in writing wills. It will ensure a degree of security for families who may lose relatives because of HIV and AIDS.
We would also welcome training that would empower members of the community with these skills and enable a more sustainable solution.'
The organisation has, through its own networks, over 8,000 members and it works not only to provide support to victims of HIV and AIDS but also to the families of those victims. Ensuring that livelihoods can be guaranteed is an important part of this support process and while there is a need, the challenge of bringing about that change remains.
CASE STUDY 2: PERSONS WITH DISABILITIES
Uganda suffered both physical and mental trauma; issues that still need to be addressed. In meeting with Joseph Kasungo at the Freidis Rehabilitation and Disability Centre I encountered anger at the lack of support that directly targeted the issue of disability.
He remained frustrated that it continues to be something of a side issue, incorporated into other projects or initiatives but not given the priority that it should be. Social stigma remains attached to disability in Uganda and mental health issues are seen as human weakness rather than health issues that require treatment.
The Centre has the facilities to tackle these issues, with a fully equipped clinic and on-site psychologist, but its major challenge is reintegrating people back into society as equals.
CASE STUDY 3: EMPOWERING WOMEN
Diana Oroma of Women's Peace Initiative (WPI) passionately outlined the challenges facing women in Lira District but suggested that progress was being made.
Her organisation has played a key role in encouraging women to seek medical attention to be treated for victims of sexual abuse. In 2010 over 600 women were treated by a WPI initiative. Fifty of these women had such serious afflictions they required surgery.
There is no shortage of challenges facing the women who do come forward for treatment:
The stigma attached to being sexually violated or raped can often led to exclusion or people being ostracised from the community.
Cultural issues with regards to relationships between men and women are problematic. A lack of education about female sexual health, inclusive of men, means that cultural norms of women being the bearer of children remain strong and this can impact on recovery after treatment.
Women Peace Clubs have been set up by WPI in an effort to change the attitudes of the community. They have been successful in utilising women who have been treated talk to come and tell other women about their positive experiences.
Efforts have also been made to engage men in the education process. Progress, however, is slow as Diana outlined an example of a man coming to a workshop and agreeing that he would show more respect for his wife's sexual health. Yet a week later WPI learned that the woman had been heavily beaten by her husband for bringing shame upon him and their family.
This kind of example shows that changing (and challenging!) attitudes will be a gradual task, but initiatives being run by WPCs are the kind of projects best suited to bring about that change.
Where to from here for human rights defenders: some reflections on the local, national and international dimensions
At the local government level in Lira officials are working with civil society groups (such as the Lira NGO Forum) to enhance and protect human rights. Disputes over land and an ill-equipped judiciary for dealing with complaints being brought to its door, however, are challenges facing all Ugandan HRDs rather than just in Lira.
While some freedoms are being afforded to Ugandans there are still restrictions being placed on journalists in carrying out their work, women are still often regarded as second class citizens and rights for lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender Ugandans are almost non-existence.
In recent weeks a number of members of parliament have come out in support of the retrogressive Anti-Homosexuality Bill, touted by the Speaker of Parliament as a "Christmas gift" to Ugandans, which would make engaging in homosexual activities punishable by death. This is incredibly worrying for human rights standards and protections in Uganda.
Parliamentarians are voting on this bill in the coming days before 15th December, despite that Uganda holds a seat on the UN Human Rights Council until the end of 2013.
In her remarks addressing the UN Assembly in New York, the UN Special Rapporteur on Human Rights, Margaret Sekaggya, emphasized the constraints faced by defenders of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender rights due to criminalization of same-sex relations in over 75 countries worldwide, as well as recent legislative moves to purportedly curb promotion of homosexuality.
Although the recent decision of Malawi to suspend its anti-gay legislation is a small ray of hope it should be recognised and applauded as a step forward. www.developmenteducation.ie will be following these stories more closely in the months ahead.
Lastly, the creation of a Human Right Committee, made up of members of the Uganda parliament and tasked with the monitoring and evaluation of the government's compliance with human rights standards and protections is a very positive step. In theory, this should support the promotion and protection of those working to protect and stimulate human rights at the community level too.
Overall then, this is a refreshing turn for Ugandans struggling for a better life and looking to hold their politicians and public officials to a higher standard.
Throughout my field visits in Lira and elsewhere I have found the enthusiasm and commitment to such values remains undiminished. There are, of course, many challenges left but changes in attitudes at the community level are being observed.
This is welcome as the region gradually turns it focus away from a past ravaged by conflict to one embracing social and economic growth and development.
- Jamie Hitchen currently lives and works in Kampala, Uganda. Having obtained a Masters in African Politics from the School of Oriental and African Studies (SOAS) he now works for the Human Rights Centre Uganda (www.hrcug.org). This article was first published by Irish global education website www.developmentEducation.ie
Source: All Africa
Lira Town, situated some 350km from Kampala to the north, is an area deeply affected by the Lord's Resistance Army conflict that wrecked Uganda from 1986 until the Juba talks (2006-2008), marking the beginning of the end for Joseph Kony and the rebels in Uganda.
It was the start of a peace process that ultimately led to the creation of South Sudan in 2011 and also marked the beginning of a decline of the LRA in northern Uganda, forcing them out of the bases they had been occupying in southern Sudan, last seen in the Eastern Congo or the Central African Republic.
These days there is a lot less urgency for those internally displaced who had fled rural villages to seek sanctuary in towns from the violence. Lira town now thrives with bustle of commercial trade in its compact town centre.
The most talked about issues I encountered focussed on one central problem that's on the rise right across Uganda: land ownership.
In discussion with the Deputy District Police Commander and the District Office of Prosecutions it emerged that land ownership or land disputes were behind nearly all of the criminal cases and violations of human rights in Lira district.
This may not come as a surprise when Uganda's population has risen tenfold to since independence in 1962. The issue has been exacerbated by the discovery of oil reserves in Hoima District and new cases of forced evictions and land grabbing are reported on an almost daily basis.
The throngs of men and women I witnessed seated outside the Lira courts pending hearings on land issues, particularly over ownership by people displaced during conflict, all seek to reclaim land they previously worked on.
The court system is simply unable to cope with the demands on it. The Officer of Prosecutions bemoaned the lack of human resources at his disposal.
The state is bound to provide lawyers to represent the deceased in any court case but its failure to pay lawyers for their work has led to many refusing to take up these positions, bringing the justice process to a grinding halt.
Faced with a flailing system, a number of individuals seek alternative solutions which are not always legal.
Mob justice - where citizens take the law into their own hands - is on the rise in Uganda and it may increase as land disputes keep happening and formal crime and punishment structures fail to address them.
Just as mob justice can never be a workable alternative, removing rights, such as the right to a fair trial in the process, the same could be said of a failing judicial system.
Lobbying for its reform and greater accountability from the authorities is where human rights defenders (HRDs) are concentrating their efforts in looking to overcome this huge challenge.
WHAT IS A HUMAN RIGHTS DEFENDER? AND WHY DO THEY MATTER?
A Human Rights Defender (HRD) was formalised as a concept at the international level by the 1998 UN Declaration on Human Rights Defenders, which guarantees every individual's right to promote and to strive for the protection and realisation of human rights and fundamental freedoms at the national and international levels.
In practice HRDs extend from individuals, such as lawyers and social workers, to organisations that work on issues relating to human rights and even to instruments of the state.
In fact the chief HRDs in Ugandan society, at least in theory, are the police, prison service and judiciary, as they are mandated by the Constitution to protect and promote human rights. However they are often involved in abuses in the Ugandan case.
The key message for governments is that HRDs are legitimate actors, working in the interests of the state to promote and protect fundamental freedoms that all citizens should be entitled to.
The state should recognise this and create an enabling environment for their work, which includes protection where required and facilitation where it is mandated to so
The case studies that follow are based on interviews with men, women and persons with disabilities that I encountered, outlining just some of the challenges and success stories of HRDs in Lira.
CASE STUDY 1: LIVING WITH HIV AND AIDS
Semmy Apili, sharing her experience during a training workshop, said she won a court case and regained her land because of the will her late husband was able to write.
Even on issues such as HIV and AIDS the issue of land could not be avoided. Martin Ongune, Project Coordinator at the Lira Development Network for People Living with HIV Aids (LIDFOPHAN), remarked upon the need for support in 'will writing' in order to support the families of victims:
'There is a need here for legal advisers to assist the poorer members of society in writing wills. It will ensure a degree of security for families who may lose relatives because of HIV and AIDS.
We would also welcome training that would empower members of the community with these skills and enable a more sustainable solution.'
The organisation has, through its own networks, over 8,000 members and it works not only to provide support to victims of HIV and AIDS but also to the families of those victims. Ensuring that livelihoods can be guaranteed is an important part of this support process and while there is a need, the challenge of bringing about that change remains.
CASE STUDY 2: PERSONS WITH DISABILITIES
Uganda suffered both physical and mental trauma; issues that still need to be addressed. In meeting with Joseph Kasungo at the Freidis Rehabilitation and Disability Centre I encountered anger at the lack of support that directly targeted the issue of disability.
He remained frustrated that it continues to be something of a side issue, incorporated into other projects or initiatives but not given the priority that it should be. Social stigma remains attached to disability in Uganda and mental health issues are seen as human weakness rather than health issues that require treatment.
The Centre has the facilities to tackle these issues, with a fully equipped clinic and on-site psychologist, but its major challenge is reintegrating people back into society as equals.
CASE STUDY 3: EMPOWERING WOMEN
Diana Oroma of Women's Peace Initiative (WPI) passionately outlined the challenges facing women in Lira District but suggested that progress was being made.
Her organisation has played a key role in encouraging women to seek medical attention to be treated for victims of sexual abuse. In 2010 over 600 women were treated by a WPI initiative. Fifty of these women had such serious afflictions they required surgery.
There is no shortage of challenges facing the women who do come forward for treatment:
The stigma attached to being sexually violated or raped can often led to exclusion or people being ostracised from the community.
Cultural issues with regards to relationships between men and women are problematic. A lack of education about female sexual health, inclusive of men, means that cultural norms of women being the bearer of children remain strong and this can impact on recovery after treatment.
Women Peace Clubs have been set up by WPI in an effort to change the attitudes of the community. They have been successful in utilising women who have been treated talk to come and tell other women about their positive experiences.
Efforts have also been made to engage men in the education process. Progress, however, is slow as Diana outlined an example of a man coming to a workshop and agreeing that he would show more respect for his wife's sexual health. Yet a week later WPI learned that the woman had been heavily beaten by her husband for bringing shame upon him and their family.
This kind of example shows that changing (and challenging!) attitudes will be a gradual task, but initiatives being run by WPCs are the kind of projects best suited to bring about that change.
Where to from here for human rights defenders: some reflections on the local, national and international dimensions
At the local government level in Lira officials are working with civil society groups (such as the Lira NGO Forum) to enhance and protect human rights. Disputes over land and an ill-equipped judiciary for dealing with complaints being brought to its door, however, are challenges facing all Ugandan HRDs rather than just in Lira.
While some freedoms are being afforded to Ugandans there are still restrictions being placed on journalists in carrying out their work, women are still often regarded as second class citizens and rights for lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender Ugandans are almost non-existence.
In recent weeks a number of members of parliament have come out in support of the retrogressive Anti-Homosexuality Bill, touted by the Speaker of Parliament as a "Christmas gift" to Ugandans, which would make engaging in homosexual activities punishable by death. This is incredibly worrying for human rights standards and protections in Uganda.
Parliamentarians are voting on this bill in the coming days before 15th December, despite that Uganda holds a seat on the UN Human Rights Council until the end of 2013.
In her remarks addressing the UN Assembly in New York, the UN Special Rapporteur on Human Rights, Margaret Sekaggya, emphasized the constraints faced by defenders of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender rights due to criminalization of same-sex relations in over 75 countries worldwide, as well as recent legislative moves to purportedly curb promotion of homosexuality.
Although the recent decision of Malawi to suspend its anti-gay legislation is a small ray of hope it should be recognised and applauded as a step forward. www.developmenteducation.ie will be following these stories more closely in the months ahead.
Lastly, the creation of a Human Right Committee, made up of members of the Uganda parliament and tasked with the monitoring and evaluation of the government's compliance with human rights standards and protections is a very positive step. In theory, this should support the promotion and protection of those working to protect and stimulate human rights at the community level too.
Overall then, this is a refreshing turn for Ugandans struggling for a better life and looking to hold their politicians and public officials to a higher standard.
Throughout my field visits in Lira and elsewhere I have found the enthusiasm and commitment to such values remains undiminished. There are, of course, many challenges left but changes in attitudes at the community level are being observed.
This is welcome as the region gradually turns it focus away from a past ravaged by conflict to one embracing social and economic growth and development.
- Jamie Hitchen currently lives and works in Kampala, Uganda. Having obtained a Masters in African Politics from the School of Oriental and African Studies (SOAS) he now works for the Human Rights Centre Uganda (www.hrcug.org). This article was first published by Irish global education website www.developmentEducation.ie
Source: All Africa
U.N. Assembly, in Blow to U.S., Elevates Status of Palestine
More than 130 countries voted on Thursday to upgrade Palestine to a nonmember observer state of the United Nations, a triumph for Palestinian diplomacy and a sharp rebuke to the United States and Israel.
But the vote, at least for now, did little to bring either the Palestinians or the Israelis closer to the goal they claim to seek: two states living side by side, or increased Palestinian unity. Israel and the militant group Hamas both responded critically to the day’s events, though for different reasons.
The new status will give the Palestinians more tools to challenge Israel in international legal forums for its occupation activities in the West Bank, including settlement-building, and it helped bolster the Palestinian Authority, weakened after eight days of battle between its rival Hamas and Israel.
But even as a small but determined crowd of 2,000 celebrated in central Ramallah in the West Bank, waving flags and dancing, there was an underlying sense of concerned resignation.
“I hope this is good,” said Munir Shafie, 36, an electrical engineer who was there. “But how are we going to benefit?”
Still, the General Assembly vote — 138 countries in favor, 9 opposed and 41 abstaining — showed impressive backing for the Palestinians at a difficult time. It was taken on the 65th anniversary of the vote to divide the former British mandate of Palestine into two states, one Jewish and one Arab, a vote Israel considers the international seal of approval for its birth.
The past two years of Arab uprisings have marginalized the Palestinian cause to some extent as nations that focused their political aspirations on the Palestinian struggle have turned inward. The vote on Thursday, coming so soon after the Gaza fighting, put the Palestinians again — if briefly, perhaps — at the center of international discussion.
“The question is, where do we go from here and what does it mean?” Salam Fayyad, the Palestinian prime minister, who was in New York for the vote, said in an interview. “The sooner the tough rhetoric of this can subside and the more this is viewed as a logical consequence of many years of failure to move the process forward, the better.” He said nothing would change without deep American involvement.
President Mahmoud Abbas of the Palestinian Authority, speaking to the assembly’s member nations, said, “The General Assembly is called upon today to issue a birth certificate of the reality of the state of Palestine,” and he condemned what he called Israeli racism and colonialism. His remarks seemed aimed in part at Israel and in part at Hamas. But both quickly attacked him for the parts they found offensive.
“The world watched a defamatory and venomous speech that was full of mendacious propaganda against the Israel Defense Forces and the citizens of Israel,” Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel responded. “Someone who wants peace does not talk in such a manner.”
While Hamas had officially backed the United Nations bid of Mr. Abbas, it quickly criticized his speech because the group does not recognize Israel.
“There are controversial issues in the points that Abbas raised, and Hamas has the right to preserve its position over them,” said Salah al-Bardaweel, a spokesman for Hamas in Gaza, on Thursday.
“We do not recognize Israel, nor the partition of Palestine, and Israel has no right in Palestine,” he added. “Getting our membership in the U.N. bodies is our natural right, but without giving up any inch of Palestine’s soil.”
Israel’s ambassador to the United Nations, Ron Prosor, spoke after Mr. Abbas and said he was concerned that the Palestinian Authority failed to recognize Israel for what it is.
“Three months ago, Israel’s prime minister stood in this very hall and extended his hand in peace to President Abbas,” Mr. Prosor said. “He reiterated that his goal was to create a solution of two states for two peoples, where a demilitarized Palestinian state will recognize Israel as a Jewish state.
“That’s right. Two states for two peoples. In fact, President Abbas, I did not hear you use the phrase ‘two states for two peoples’ this afternoon. In fact, I have never heard you say the phrase ‘two states for two peoples’ because the Palestinian leadership has never recognized that Israel is the nation-state of the Jewish people.”
The Israelis also say that the fact that Mr. Abbas is not welcome in Gaza, the Palestinian coastal enclave run by Hamas, from which he was ejected five years ago, shows that there is no viable Palestinian leadership living up to its obligations now.
As expected, the vote won backing from a number of European countries, and was a rebuff to intense American and Israeli diplomacy. France, Spain, Italy and Switzerland all voted yes. Britain and Germany abstained. Apart from Canada, no major country joined the United States and Israel in voting no. The other opponents included Palau, Panama and Micronesia.
Susan E. Rice, the American ambassador to the United Nations, was dismissive of the entire exercise. “Today’s grand pronouncements will soon fade,” she said. “And the Palestinian people will wake up tomorrow and find that little about their lives has changed, save that the prospects of a durable peace have only receded.”
A major concern for the Americans is that the Palestinians may use their new status to try to join the International Criminal Court. That prospect particularly worries the Israelis, who fear that the Palestinians may press for an investigation of their practices in the occupied territories widely viewed as violations of international law.
Saeb Erekat, the chief Palestinian negotiator, said that after the vote “life will not be the same” because “Palestine will become a country under occupation.”
“The terms of reference for any negotiations become withdrawal,” Mr. Erekat said.
Another worry is that the Palestinians may use the vote to seek membership in specialized agencies of the United Nations, a move that could have consequences for the financing of the international organizations as well as the Palestinian Authority itself. Congress cut off financing to the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization, known as Unesco, in 2011 after it accepted Palestine as a member. The United States is a major contributor to many of these agencies and is active on their governing boards.
In response to the Palestinian bid, a bipartisan group of senators said Thursday that they would introduce legislation that would cut off foreign aid to the authority if it tried to use the International Criminal Court against Israel, and close the Palestine Liberation Organization’s office in Washington if Palestinians refused to negotiate with Israel.
Calling the Palestinian bid “an unhealthy step that could undermine the peace process,” Senator Lindsey Graham, Republican of South Carolina, said that he and the other senators, including Charles E. Schumer, Democrat of New York, would be closely monitoring the situation.
The vote came shortly after an eight-day Israeli military assault on Gaza that Israel described as a response to stepped-up rocket fire into Israel. The operation killed scores of Palestinians and was aimed at reducing the arsenal of Hamas in Gaza, part of the territory that the United Nations resolution expects to make up a future state of Palestine.
The Palestinian Authority, based in Ramallah, was politically weakened by the Gaza fighting, with its rivals in Hamas seen by many Palestinians as more willing to stand up to Israel and fight back. That shift in sentiment is one reason that some Western countries gave for backing the United Nations resolution, to strengthen Mr. Abbas and his more moderate colleagues in their contest with Hamas.
Source: New York Times
Cops probing ammo suspect's alleged links to heists
Within hours of a police station commander appearing in court for the theft and sale of police ammunition to organised crime gangs, detectives have launched investigations into allegations that he might be linked to a series of violent crimes that were committed using police weapons.
Captain Petrus Badenhorst, the commander of Rust de Winter police station, near Pretoria, appeared in the Pretoria North Magistrate's Court yesterday with co-accused Eduan Smit, 31, and Smit's wife, Elmari, 26.
The three were arrested by the Hawks on Tuesday after a 10-month investigation into the theft and sale of police and military ammunition from the police station.
Smit and his wife were arrested in a sting operation at a Pretoria shopping centre; Badenhorst, who is to be suspended, was arrested at the police station.
During the arrests police seized over 10000 rounds of ammunition for semi-automatic rifles and handguns. In the past month, they had bought nearly 40000 rounds of ammunition from the three in several operations.
In the early hours of yesterday morning, just hours before the trio's court appearance, police raided a Pretoria house where they recovered dozens of military-issue 20mm rounds of ammunition and a quantity of AK47 bullets.
The house is believed to belong to a relative of the Smits and is thought to have been used as a storage facility while buyers for the ammunition were being sought.
A source said shortly after Badenhorst's arrest that the police received information of his alleged links to several crimes that were comitted using weapons taken from the police station.
"All these crimes appear to have been violent. Investigators are following up on information that should soon lead to the arrest of several more people, including police officers, who were involved in these thefts and sales.
"It appears he [Badenhorst] saw himself as a super cop and a law unto himself," said the source.
The expected arrests will follow the widening of the investigation by detectives to include several Gauteng and Limpopo police stations with armouries from which thousands of rounds of ammunition are believed to have been stolen, allegedly by Badenhorst and people who have been linked to him.
Source: Times Live
Captain Petrus Badenhorst, the commander of Rust de Winter police station, near Pretoria, appeared in the Pretoria North Magistrate's Court yesterday with co-accused Eduan Smit, 31, and Smit's wife, Elmari, 26.
The three were arrested by the Hawks on Tuesday after a 10-month investigation into the theft and sale of police and military ammunition from the police station.
Smit and his wife were arrested in a sting operation at a Pretoria shopping centre; Badenhorst, who is to be suspended, was arrested at the police station.
During the arrests police seized over 10000 rounds of ammunition for semi-automatic rifles and handguns. In the past month, they had bought nearly 40000 rounds of ammunition from the three in several operations.
In the early hours of yesterday morning, just hours before the trio's court appearance, police raided a Pretoria house where they recovered dozens of military-issue 20mm rounds of ammunition and a quantity of AK47 bullets.
The house is believed to belong to a relative of the Smits and is thought to have been used as a storage facility while buyers for the ammunition were being sought.
A source said shortly after Badenhorst's arrest that the police received information of his alleged links to several crimes that were comitted using weapons taken from the police station.
"All these crimes appear to have been violent. Investigators are following up on information that should soon lead to the arrest of several more people, including police officers, who were involved in these thefts and sales.
"It appears he [Badenhorst] saw himself as a super cop and a law unto himself," said the source.
The expected arrests will follow the widening of the investigation by detectives to include several Gauteng and Limpopo police stations with armouries from which thousands of rounds of ammunition are believed to have been stolen, allegedly by Badenhorst and people who have been linked to him.
Source: Times Live
Wednesday, November 28, 2012
Captain allegedly sold a 9mm and shotgun ammunition to criminals
A LIMPOPO police station commissioner was arrested yesterday for possession of and dealing in ammunition, the Hawks said. More than 500 rounds of ammunition were found at his house. Earlier police arrested a couple believed to be his accomplices. They had 10,500 rounds of ammunition worth about R1-million for apparent delivery to a buyer.
The captain, 43, allegedly sold the 9mm and shotgun ammunition to criminals. The three would appear in the Pretoria North Magistrate's Court today.
Source: The Sowetan
The captain, 43, allegedly sold the 9mm and shotgun ammunition to criminals. The three would appear in the Pretoria North Magistrate's Court today.
Source: The Sowetan
Time to raise the bar on Africa’s integration
MUCH has been said about African trade and the continent’s integration into a range of forums. It is the policy of African governments, and plenty of implementation is under way.
Africa’s leaders have long recognised the importance of economic integration as a remedy for the continent’s fragmentation. At the past two African Union summits, much was discussed regarding intra-African trade. We know the problems, the diagnostics and even the cure.
More than half of Africa’s 54 countries have a gross domestic product of less than $10bn, and a population of less than 10-million. Sixteen are landlocked, with all the challenges associated with small size and small markets. All of this is known.
Most African countries struggle to achieve the economies of scale required to become competitive internationally. That is why, through successive agreements, African governments have committed themselves to the pursuit of greater integration.
These commitments have not always proved easy to implement. In practice, national priorities have often trumped regional needs — a phenomenon not unique to Africa, of course.
As a result, the opportunities of regional integration have not been fully exploited. Yet today, as yesterday, trade still holds tremendous unrealised potential as a driver of growth and a way of improving food security, creating jobs and reducing poverty.
In short, while intra-African trade has more than doubled over the past five years, it remains far below potential. Most people would agree there are four pervasive challenges:
• a lack of adequate hard infrastructure, in particular transport, connectivity and energy;
• problems with ‘soft’ infrastructure — the institutions and regulations to facilitate trade links, which includes the overall business environment, and impediments to the free movement of goods, capital and talent;
• myriad company-level challenges that affect the private sector and the emergence and sustainability of exports, such as quality and meeting standards; and
• access to finance, trade finance and the financial infrastructure that supports trade.
These are issues we know well. Of growing urgency are railways and maritime port capacity. Much of our railway network dates back to the colonial era, and the costs of ageing systems with multiple gauges are now a real impediment. Few railways have been built since independence.
At our ports, crucial for regional integration and international trade, capacity has become a major obstacle. The volume of freight that they handle has increased dramatically in recent years. Most of these ports were not designed with a regional market in mind, and many are rapidly running out of capacity, especially as mineral exports increase.
As a result, they operate well below international norms, resulting in higher costs and longer processing times.
We know what has to be done, including the financing gap. Today, we need to ask a different question: since we all seem to agree on the principles and even the road map, what keeps us from faster progress? And how can our legislatures help?
Of late, many African countries have celebrated their golden jubilees. There has been much celebration, indeed, but also soul searching. There has been acknowledgment of progress and of disappointments.
However, as with all celebrations, there is the morning after. Where did we go wrong? Could we have charted a different path?
While we are all wiser in hindsight, there is no doubt we could have made better progress. And the new global environment dictates we do better.
As Africa enters this new era, we have only two options: a paradigm shift or a new period of muddling through, pleading some sort of African exceptionalism.
Our founders laid the basis: political liberation. They achieved much, including the epic struggle to rid Africa of the last vestiges of colonialism and apartheid. Like all pioneers, they often made mistakes — sometimes costly ones — that led to military dictatorships, one-party states and economic experimentation. In between, often economic meltdown, mayhem and even genocide.
There is much unfinished business politically: building peace, security and rule of law. However, most people would now agree the colossal struggle in Africa must be that of economic liberation through integration. There is also now near unanimity that this outcome is not possible with 54 balkanised states, economically speaking.
Nations develop through trade and investment. Of course some develop by exploiting other nations’ wealth and labour, and by imposing on other nations economic policies that they did not follow themselves at earlier stages of their development.
I am not saying Africa should also explore the second option. That would be absurd. What I want to suggest is different, an affirmation that many of the regions also grew by integration. By delaying economic integration in Africa, therefore, we are almost by default making it possible for others to continue exploiting our wealth and potential.
Former president Julius Nyerere of Tanzania, one of the founding fathers of the Organisation of African Unity, had this to say in Accra at Ghana’s 40th independence anniversary: "The confession is that we of the first-generation leaders of independent Africa have not pursued the objective of African unity with the vigour, commitment and sincerity that it deserved ...
"So this is my plea to the new generation of African leaders and African peoples: work for unity with the firm conviction that without unity, there is no future for Africa.
"My generation led Africa to political freedom. The current generation of leaders and peoples of Africa must pick up the flickering torch of African freedom, refuel it with their enthusiasm and determination, and carry forward Africa’s integration."
These are powerful words. The case he makes was valid yesterday and remains so today, more urgent than ever given recent developments in the global economy.
• Kaberuka, who holds a doctorate degree in economics from the University of Glasgow, is serving his second five-year term as president of the African Development Bank. He was the architect of Rwanda’s economic reforms and growth, having served there as finance minister from 1997 to 2005.
Source: Business Day
Africa’s leaders have long recognised the importance of economic integration as a remedy for the continent’s fragmentation. At the past two African Union summits, much was discussed regarding intra-African trade. We know the problems, the diagnostics and even the cure.
More than half of Africa’s 54 countries have a gross domestic product of less than $10bn, and a population of less than 10-million. Sixteen are landlocked, with all the challenges associated with small size and small markets. All of this is known.
Most African countries struggle to achieve the economies of scale required to become competitive internationally. That is why, through successive agreements, African governments have committed themselves to the pursuit of greater integration.
These commitments have not always proved easy to implement. In practice, national priorities have often trumped regional needs — a phenomenon not unique to Africa, of course.
As a result, the opportunities of regional integration have not been fully exploited. Yet today, as yesterday, trade still holds tremendous unrealised potential as a driver of growth and a way of improving food security, creating jobs and reducing poverty.
In short, while intra-African trade has more than doubled over the past five years, it remains far below potential. Most people would agree there are four pervasive challenges:
• a lack of adequate hard infrastructure, in particular transport, connectivity and energy;
• problems with ‘soft’ infrastructure — the institutions and regulations to facilitate trade links, which includes the overall business environment, and impediments to the free movement of goods, capital and talent;
• myriad company-level challenges that affect the private sector and the emergence and sustainability of exports, such as quality and meeting standards; and
• access to finance, trade finance and the financial infrastructure that supports trade.
These are issues we know well. Of growing urgency are railways and maritime port capacity. Much of our railway network dates back to the colonial era, and the costs of ageing systems with multiple gauges are now a real impediment. Few railways have been built since independence.
At our ports, crucial for regional integration and international trade, capacity has become a major obstacle. The volume of freight that they handle has increased dramatically in recent years. Most of these ports were not designed with a regional market in mind, and many are rapidly running out of capacity, especially as mineral exports increase.
As a result, they operate well below international norms, resulting in higher costs and longer processing times.
We know what has to be done, including the financing gap. Today, we need to ask a different question: since we all seem to agree on the principles and even the road map, what keeps us from faster progress? And how can our legislatures help?
Of late, many African countries have celebrated their golden jubilees. There has been much celebration, indeed, but also soul searching. There has been acknowledgment of progress and of disappointments.
However, as with all celebrations, there is the morning after. Where did we go wrong? Could we have charted a different path?
While we are all wiser in hindsight, there is no doubt we could have made better progress. And the new global environment dictates we do better.
As Africa enters this new era, we have only two options: a paradigm shift or a new period of muddling through, pleading some sort of African exceptionalism.
Our founders laid the basis: political liberation. They achieved much, including the epic struggle to rid Africa of the last vestiges of colonialism and apartheid. Like all pioneers, they often made mistakes — sometimes costly ones — that led to military dictatorships, one-party states and economic experimentation. In between, often economic meltdown, mayhem and even genocide.
There is much unfinished business politically: building peace, security and rule of law. However, most people would now agree the colossal struggle in Africa must be that of economic liberation through integration. There is also now near unanimity that this outcome is not possible with 54 balkanised states, economically speaking.
Nations develop through trade and investment. Of course some develop by exploiting other nations’ wealth and labour, and by imposing on other nations economic policies that they did not follow themselves at earlier stages of their development.
I am not saying Africa should also explore the second option. That would be absurd. What I want to suggest is different, an affirmation that many of the regions also grew by integration. By delaying economic integration in Africa, therefore, we are almost by default making it possible for others to continue exploiting our wealth and potential.
Former president Julius Nyerere of Tanzania, one of the founding fathers of the Organisation of African Unity, had this to say in Accra at Ghana’s 40th independence anniversary: "The confession is that we of the first-generation leaders of independent Africa have not pursued the objective of African unity with the vigour, commitment and sincerity that it deserved ...
"So this is my plea to the new generation of African leaders and African peoples: work for unity with the firm conviction that without unity, there is no future for Africa.
"My generation led Africa to political freedom. The current generation of leaders and peoples of Africa must pick up the flickering torch of African freedom, refuel it with their enthusiasm and determination, and carry forward Africa’s integration."
These are powerful words. The case he makes was valid yesterday and remains so today, more urgent than ever given recent developments in the global economy.
• Kaberuka, who holds a doctorate degree in economics from the University of Glasgow, is serving his second five-year term as president of the African Development Bank. He was the architect of Rwanda’s economic reforms and growth, having served there as finance minister from 1997 to 2005.
Source: Business Day
Tuesday, November 27, 2012
Behind Sunday's incident in KwaMashu - Mangosuthu Buthelezi
Dear friends and fellow South Africans,
Sunday's incident in KwaMashu, in which SAPA reporter Mr Giordano Stolley's car was torched, costing him a new laptop, two hard drives and family photographs, is not quite what the NFP would like to portray it as. I thank God that the reporters, Mr Stolley, Ms Bawinile Ngcobo and Ms Mpume Madlala, were unhurt. My sympathies are with them over this terrible incident.
What they experienced needs to be placed in context.
There will be a by-election in KwaMashu next Wednesday, to fill the seat left vacant by the murder of the IFP's Councillor in that ward, Mr Themba Xulu.
Last month, on a Friday night, Councillor Xulu was abducted in KwaMashu by five men posing as police officers. On Saturday, as his distraught family awaited news, IFP supporters gathered in KwaMashu to surround them with support. Fears were rife that Councillor Xulu's abduction was politically motivated and that he had fallen victim to thugs affiliated to the NFP.
The Minister of Police, Mr Nathi Mthetwa, visited KwaMashu that Saturday, calling for calm and reassuring the community of a police presence. As the Minister left, Ms Celiwe Shezi, still wearing her IFP T-shirt, was gunned down near the train station. An NFP KwaMashu Councillor - a member of the NFP's National Working Committee - was arrested for her murder.
The following morning, Councillor Xulu's body was found, riddled with bullets. IFP leaders again called for calm. That same day, the IFP's Mr Bongani Lushaba was murdered. Mr Lushaba was a father of eight children.
A week later, IFP supporters were gathered outside Ntuzuma Magistrate's Court, where the NFP men accused of killing Ms Celiwe Shezi were on trial. In full view of the police and the media, a leader of the NFP - a member of the NFP's peace delegation - took out a gun and shot dead an IFP supporter, Mr Siyabonga Dlamini. Mr Dlamini had been a witness to Councillor Themba Xulu's abduction.
For weeks, leaders of the IFP implored people to stay calm, not to retaliate or seek revenge, and to assist the police with investigations. Tensions simmered in KwaMashu, with fear, grief and righteous anger pervading the community.
Then, last Sunday, IFP Councillor Mthembeni Majola was attacked by three armed men while travelling with his son. Thank God, they survived the hail of bullets. The following day, the IFP's block chairperson in KwaMashu, Mr Sihle Menzi Biyela, was gunned down in cold blood.
As the IFP's eThekwini Caucus leader Mr Mdu Nkosi said, "We keep telling our members to calm down, but we continue to bury members."
There is no question that the violent attacks over the past two months were meant to intimidate the IFP's members and supporters in KwaMashu, through the clear message that neither the police nor the media can offer safety. No one can stop our assailants.
Under these volatile circumstances, just days after their block chairperson was murdered, IFP supporters in KwaMashu saw the NFP's leader, Mrs kaMagwaza-Msibi come rolling into town in a convoy of some 30 vehicles, ready to campaign for their votes in next week's by-election.
As Mr Giordano Stolley pointed out, her presence in KwaMashu was far from wise. Community members took up bottles and sticks and loudly expressed their desire for Mrs kaMagwaza-Msibi to leave. Shots were fired, but who fired those shots is unclear. It may have been the people wielding sticks and bottles, or it may have been the extensive entourage of the NFP leader's bodyguards.
Regardless of the facts, Mrs kaMagwaza-Msibi has jumped on her high horse accusing the IFP of creating a "no-go" area. Any thinking person's response would be that the NFP has created it themselves. Have your leaders kill a few people in a community, then see how welcome you are when you arrive to electioneer.
Mrs kaMagwaza-Msibi is milking this incident for all it is worth, and then some. Police have been unable to verify her allegation that a woman was killed, or that two other cars were torched.
I am amazed at her accusation that, "Now everyone can see the IFP for what it really is." What it really is, is the party she grew up in and led as National Chairperson for years and years, until she grew tired of waiting for the top position. What the IFP really is, is the party she did her utmost to divide and split, through lies, treachery and even a failed court bid.
The IFP's supporters in KwaMashu are a community of angry, fearful residents in a situation of immense and on-going tension. They have been attacked and murdered. They have been killed in front of the police. They have been living in fear for their lives for months on end.
The NFP created this powder keg and Mrs kaMagwaza-Msibi lit it.
I am not justifying the vandalism that took place on Sunday. I am pointing out that we are dealing with people who have been under duress for months. Outbursts like this cannot be unexpected.
Weeks ago, I asked Mrs kaMagwaza-Msibi to go to her people and call for an end to violence, just as I was calling for peace among IFP supporters. This was the groundwork that needed to be laid before our two parties could come together and seek a resolution to the tensions between us. Instead, she arrived to campaign for the NFP to take over where the IFP's leader lay dead.
The IFP does not believe in "no-go" areas. We operate within the rules of democracy and the electoral system. We will therefore ask again that our supporters in KwaMashu remain calm and refrain from acting on their distress. Our supporters know that the IFP is a party of non-violence.
But we also know, just as Mrs kaMagwaza-Msibi knows, that you can only push people so far. The leadership of the IFP will remain the fence holding in our people's emotions. I ask the leadership of the NFP .to stop being the dog that runs up and down outside the fence, inciting those emotions to burst.
I hope that Mr Giordano Stolley, Ms Bawinile Ngcobo and Ms Mpume Madlala will look deeper into what happened on Sunday and ask why KwaMashu really erupted.
Yours in the service of our nation,
Prince Mangosuthu Buthelezi MP
Issued by the IFP, November 27 2012
Source: Politicsweb
Sunday's incident in KwaMashu, in which SAPA reporter Mr Giordano Stolley's car was torched, costing him a new laptop, two hard drives and family photographs, is not quite what the NFP would like to portray it as. I thank God that the reporters, Mr Stolley, Ms Bawinile Ngcobo and Ms Mpume Madlala, were unhurt. My sympathies are with them over this terrible incident.
What they experienced needs to be placed in context.
There will be a by-election in KwaMashu next Wednesday, to fill the seat left vacant by the murder of the IFP's Councillor in that ward, Mr Themba Xulu.
Last month, on a Friday night, Councillor Xulu was abducted in KwaMashu by five men posing as police officers. On Saturday, as his distraught family awaited news, IFP supporters gathered in KwaMashu to surround them with support. Fears were rife that Councillor Xulu's abduction was politically motivated and that he had fallen victim to thugs affiliated to the NFP.
The Minister of Police, Mr Nathi Mthetwa, visited KwaMashu that Saturday, calling for calm and reassuring the community of a police presence. As the Minister left, Ms Celiwe Shezi, still wearing her IFP T-shirt, was gunned down near the train station. An NFP KwaMashu Councillor - a member of the NFP's National Working Committee - was arrested for her murder.
The following morning, Councillor Xulu's body was found, riddled with bullets. IFP leaders again called for calm. That same day, the IFP's Mr Bongani Lushaba was murdered. Mr Lushaba was a father of eight children.
A week later, IFP supporters were gathered outside Ntuzuma Magistrate's Court, where the NFP men accused of killing Ms Celiwe Shezi were on trial. In full view of the police and the media, a leader of the NFP - a member of the NFP's peace delegation - took out a gun and shot dead an IFP supporter, Mr Siyabonga Dlamini. Mr Dlamini had been a witness to Councillor Themba Xulu's abduction.
For weeks, leaders of the IFP implored people to stay calm, not to retaliate or seek revenge, and to assist the police with investigations. Tensions simmered in KwaMashu, with fear, grief and righteous anger pervading the community.
Then, last Sunday, IFP Councillor Mthembeni Majola was attacked by three armed men while travelling with his son. Thank God, they survived the hail of bullets. The following day, the IFP's block chairperson in KwaMashu, Mr Sihle Menzi Biyela, was gunned down in cold blood.
As the IFP's eThekwini Caucus leader Mr Mdu Nkosi said, "We keep telling our members to calm down, but we continue to bury members."
There is no question that the violent attacks over the past two months were meant to intimidate the IFP's members and supporters in KwaMashu, through the clear message that neither the police nor the media can offer safety. No one can stop our assailants.
Under these volatile circumstances, just days after their block chairperson was murdered, IFP supporters in KwaMashu saw the NFP's leader, Mrs kaMagwaza-Msibi come rolling into town in a convoy of some 30 vehicles, ready to campaign for their votes in next week's by-election.
As Mr Giordano Stolley pointed out, her presence in KwaMashu was far from wise. Community members took up bottles and sticks and loudly expressed their desire for Mrs kaMagwaza-Msibi to leave. Shots were fired, but who fired those shots is unclear. It may have been the people wielding sticks and bottles, or it may have been the extensive entourage of the NFP leader's bodyguards.
Regardless of the facts, Mrs kaMagwaza-Msibi has jumped on her high horse accusing the IFP of creating a "no-go" area. Any thinking person's response would be that the NFP has created it themselves. Have your leaders kill a few people in a community, then see how welcome you are when you arrive to electioneer.
Mrs kaMagwaza-Msibi is milking this incident for all it is worth, and then some. Police have been unable to verify her allegation that a woman was killed, or that two other cars were torched.
I am amazed at her accusation that, "Now everyone can see the IFP for what it really is." What it really is, is the party she grew up in and led as National Chairperson for years and years, until she grew tired of waiting for the top position. What the IFP really is, is the party she did her utmost to divide and split, through lies, treachery and even a failed court bid.
The IFP's supporters in KwaMashu are a community of angry, fearful residents in a situation of immense and on-going tension. They have been attacked and murdered. They have been killed in front of the police. They have been living in fear for their lives for months on end.
The NFP created this powder keg and Mrs kaMagwaza-Msibi lit it.
I am not justifying the vandalism that took place on Sunday. I am pointing out that we are dealing with people who have been under duress for months. Outbursts like this cannot be unexpected.
Weeks ago, I asked Mrs kaMagwaza-Msibi to go to her people and call for an end to violence, just as I was calling for peace among IFP supporters. This was the groundwork that needed to be laid before our two parties could come together and seek a resolution to the tensions between us. Instead, she arrived to campaign for the NFP to take over where the IFP's leader lay dead.
The IFP does not believe in "no-go" areas. We operate within the rules of democracy and the electoral system. We will therefore ask again that our supporters in KwaMashu remain calm and refrain from acting on their distress. Our supporters know that the IFP is a party of non-violence.
But we also know, just as Mrs kaMagwaza-Msibi knows, that you can only push people so far. The leadership of the IFP will remain the fence holding in our people's emotions. I ask the leadership of the NFP .to stop being the dog that runs up and down outside the fence, inciting those emotions to burst.
I hope that Mr Giordano Stolley, Ms Bawinile Ngcobo and Ms Mpume Madlala will look deeper into what happened on Sunday and ask why KwaMashu really erupted.
Yours in the service of our nation,
Prince Mangosuthu Buthelezi MP
Issued by the IFP, November 27 2012
Source: Politicsweb
Monday, November 26, 2012
Congo Slips Into Chaos Again as Rebels Gain
GOMA, Democratic Republic of Congo — The lights are out in most of Goma. There is little water. The prison is an empty, garbage-strewn wasteland with its rusty front gate swinging wide open and a three-foot hole punched through the back wall, letting loose 1,200 killers, rapists, rogue soldiers and other criminals.
Now, rebel fighters are going house to house arresting people, many of whom have not been seen again by their families.
“You say the littlest thing and they disappear you,” said an unemployed man named Luke.
In the past week, the rebels have been unstoppable, steamrolling through one town after another, seizing this provincial capital, and eviscerating a dysfunctional Congolese Army whose drunken soldiers stumble around with rocket-propelled grenades and whose chief of staff was suspended for selling crates of ammunition to elephant poachers.
Riots are exploding across the country — in Bukavu, Butembo, Bunia, Kisangani and Kinshasa, the capital, a thousand miles away. Mobs are pouring into streets, burning down government buildings and demanding the ouster of Congo’s weak and widely despised president, Joseph Kabila.
Once again, chaos is courting Congo. And one pressing question is, why — after all the billions of dollars spent on peacekeepers, the recent legislation passed on Capitol Hill to cut the link between the illicit mineral trade and insurrection, and all the aid money and diplomatic capital — is this vast nation in the heart of Africa descending to where it was more than 10 years ago when foreign armies and marauding rebels carved it into fiefs?
“We haven’t really touched the root cause,” said Aloys Tegera, a director for the Pole Institute, a research institute in Goma.
He said Congo’s chronic instability is rooted in very local tensions over land, power and identity, especially along the Rwandan and Ugandan borders. “But no one wants to touch this because it’s too complicated,” he added.
The most realistic solution, said another Congo analyst, is not a formal peace process driven by diplomats but “a peace among all the dons, like Don Corleone imposed in New York.”
Congo’s problems have been festering for years, wounds that never quite scabbed over.
But last week there was new urgency after hundreds of rebel fighters, wearing rubber swamp boots and with belt-fed machine guns slung across their backs, marched into Goma, the capital of North Kivu Province and one of the country’s most important cities.
The rebels, called the M23, are a heavily armed paradox. On one hand, they are ruthless. Human rights groups have documented how they have slaughtered civilians, pulling confused villagers out of their huts in the middle of the night and shooting them in the head.
On the other hand, the M23 are able administrators — seemingly far better than the Congolese government, evidenced by a visit in recent days to their stronghold, Rutshuru, a small town about 45 miles from Goma.
In Rutshuru, there are none of those ubiquitous plastic bags twisted in the trees, like in so many other parts of Congo. The gravel roads have been swept clean and the government offices are spotless. Hand-painted signs read: “M23 Stop Corruption.” The rebels even have green thumbs, planting thousands of trees in recent months to fight soil erosion.
“We are not a rebellion,” said Benjamin Mbonimpa, an electrical engineer, a bush fighter and now a top rebel administrator. “We are a revolution.”
Their aims, he said, were to overthrow the government and set up a more equitable, decentralized political system. This is why the rebels have balked at negotiating with Mr. Kabila, though this weekend several rebels said that the pressure was increasing on them to compromise, especially coming from Western countries.
On Sunday, rebel forces and government troops were still squared off, just a few miles apart, down the road from Goma.
The M23 rebels are widely believed to be covertly supported by Rwanda, which has a long history of meddling in Congo, its neighbor blessed with gold, diamonds and other glittering mineral riches. The Rwandan government strenuously denies supplying weapons to the M23 or trying to annex eastern Congo. Rwanda has often denied any clandestine involvement in this country, only to have the denials later exposed as lies.
Many people in Goma don’t like the fact that the M23 is so closely linked to Rwanda, with Rwandan-speaking soldiers strutting around this city as if they own it — which they do right now. But the venom toward Joseph Kabila seems even greater.
The lights are now out in most of the city, the prison is empty, water is scarce and the rebels are going door to door arresting people.
“He treats us like street kids,” said Kalimbiro Kambere, a police officer who makes only $50 a month, despite 37 years in service. “No one wants to fight for him.”
Few countries in the world have been as disastrously ruled as Congo. Western interference has not helped — from the 1880s when King Leopold II of Belgium turned Congo into an enormous labor camp to produce as much rubber and ivory as possible, to the violence in the Goma area today, which may have been set into motion by a miscalculation on the part of Western ambassadors.
Last November, Mr. Kabila ran for re-election. He was widely unpopular, suspected of hoarding millions if not billions of dollars from mineral deals and leaving the bridges, roads, hospitals and schools a fiasco.
During the election, his agents were caught red-handed stuffing ballot boxes, and his soldiers gunned down opposition supporters who protested. But Western diplomats, though expressing unhappiness, did not press the case.
Several Congolese and Western rights advocates and analysts said that the diplomatic corps then urged Mr. Kabila to arrest Bosco Ntaganda, a Rwandan-speaking army general nicknamed the Terminator, who had been a commander in several brutal rebel groups and was wanted for years by the International Criminal Court on war crimes charges.
“Kabila miscalculated,” Mr. Tegera said. “And so did the West. They pressured him.”
In March, as Mr. Kabila began to move against Mr. Ntaganda and threatened to dislodge the Rwandan-speaking rebels who had been incorporated into the national army, they mutinied. They were far more powerful than the government expected, and United Nations officials said the rebels quickly drew reinforcements from Rwanda. They seized town after town, culminating in Goma, where power lines were cut in the fighting, casting it into darkness. At each battle, the government army unraveled.
The bodies of government soldiers now litter the roads around Goma, someone’s father or son rotting in the bush, eye sockets and mouth sizzling with flies. Villagers trudge past, looking away. For them, misery is a familiar face.
On Friday, Alfonse Kiburura stood in front of his twig and tarp hut in a camp for displaced people. The rains are falling hard now, every day. His family curls up on a floor of cold, wet mud.
This was the second time this year that the Kibururas have had to pick up everything they own, throw it over their heads and dash down the road away from the combat. Mr. Kiburura said that as soon as his 5-year-old son, Destin, heard gunfire, the boy knew what to do.
“This isn’t the first time he’s heard gunshots,” he said. “He’s heard them many times before.”
Source: New York Times
Now, rebel fighters are going house to house arresting people, many of whom have not been seen again by their families.
“You say the littlest thing and they disappear you,” said an unemployed man named Luke.
In the past week, the rebels have been unstoppable, steamrolling through one town after another, seizing this provincial capital, and eviscerating a dysfunctional Congolese Army whose drunken soldiers stumble around with rocket-propelled grenades and whose chief of staff was suspended for selling crates of ammunition to elephant poachers.
Riots are exploding across the country — in Bukavu, Butembo, Bunia, Kisangani and Kinshasa, the capital, a thousand miles away. Mobs are pouring into streets, burning down government buildings and demanding the ouster of Congo’s weak and widely despised president, Joseph Kabila.
Once again, chaos is courting Congo. And one pressing question is, why — after all the billions of dollars spent on peacekeepers, the recent legislation passed on Capitol Hill to cut the link between the illicit mineral trade and insurrection, and all the aid money and diplomatic capital — is this vast nation in the heart of Africa descending to where it was more than 10 years ago when foreign armies and marauding rebels carved it into fiefs?
“We haven’t really touched the root cause,” said Aloys Tegera, a director for the Pole Institute, a research institute in Goma.
He said Congo’s chronic instability is rooted in very local tensions over land, power and identity, especially along the Rwandan and Ugandan borders. “But no one wants to touch this because it’s too complicated,” he added.
The most realistic solution, said another Congo analyst, is not a formal peace process driven by diplomats but “a peace among all the dons, like Don Corleone imposed in New York.”
Congo’s problems have been festering for years, wounds that never quite scabbed over.
But last week there was new urgency after hundreds of rebel fighters, wearing rubber swamp boots and with belt-fed machine guns slung across their backs, marched into Goma, the capital of North Kivu Province and one of the country’s most important cities.
The rebels, called the M23, are a heavily armed paradox. On one hand, they are ruthless. Human rights groups have documented how they have slaughtered civilians, pulling confused villagers out of their huts in the middle of the night and shooting them in the head.
On the other hand, the M23 are able administrators — seemingly far better than the Congolese government, evidenced by a visit in recent days to their stronghold, Rutshuru, a small town about 45 miles from Goma.
In Rutshuru, there are none of those ubiquitous plastic bags twisted in the trees, like in so many other parts of Congo. The gravel roads have been swept clean and the government offices are spotless. Hand-painted signs read: “M23 Stop Corruption.” The rebels even have green thumbs, planting thousands of trees in recent months to fight soil erosion.
“We are not a rebellion,” said Benjamin Mbonimpa, an electrical engineer, a bush fighter and now a top rebel administrator. “We are a revolution.”
Their aims, he said, were to overthrow the government and set up a more equitable, decentralized political system. This is why the rebels have balked at negotiating with Mr. Kabila, though this weekend several rebels said that the pressure was increasing on them to compromise, especially coming from Western countries.
On Sunday, rebel forces and government troops were still squared off, just a few miles apart, down the road from Goma.
The M23 rebels are widely believed to be covertly supported by Rwanda, which has a long history of meddling in Congo, its neighbor blessed with gold, diamonds and other glittering mineral riches. The Rwandan government strenuously denies supplying weapons to the M23 or trying to annex eastern Congo. Rwanda has often denied any clandestine involvement in this country, only to have the denials later exposed as lies.
Many people in Goma don’t like the fact that the M23 is so closely linked to Rwanda, with Rwandan-speaking soldiers strutting around this city as if they own it — which they do right now. But the venom toward Joseph Kabila seems even greater.
The lights are now out in most of the city, the prison is empty, water is scarce and the rebels are going door to door arresting people.
“He treats us like street kids,” said Kalimbiro Kambere, a police officer who makes only $50 a month, despite 37 years in service. “No one wants to fight for him.”
Few countries in the world have been as disastrously ruled as Congo. Western interference has not helped — from the 1880s when King Leopold II of Belgium turned Congo into an enormous labor camp to produce as much rubber and ivory as possible, to the violence in the Goma area today, which may have been set into motion by a miscalculation on the part of Western ambassadors.
Last November, Mr. Kabila ran for re-election. He was widely unpopular, suspected of hoarding millions if not billions of dollars from mineral deals and leaving the bridges, roads, hospitals and schools a fiasco.
During the election, his agents were caught red-handed stuffing ballot boxes, and his soldiers gunned down opposition supporters who protested. But Western diplomats, though expressing unhappiness, did not press the case.
Several Congolese and Western rights advocates and analysts said that the diplomatic corps then urged Mr. Kabila to arrest Bosco Ntaganda, a Rwandan-speaking army general nicknamed the Terminator, who had been a commander in several brutal rebel groups and was wanted for years by the International Criminal Court on war crimes charges.
“Kabila miscalculated,” Mr. Tegera said. “And so did the West. They pressured him.”
In March, as Mr. Kabila began to move against Mr. Ntaganda and threatened to dislodge the Rwandan-speaking rebels who had been incorporated into the national army, they mutinied. They were far more powerful than the government expected, and United Nations officials said the rebels quickly drew reinforcements from Rwanda. They seized town after town, culminating in Goma, where power lines were cut in the fighting, casting it into darkness. At each battle, the government army unraveled.
The bodies of government soldiers now litter the roads around Goma, someone’s father or son rotting in the bush, eye sockets and mouth sizzling with flies. Villagers trudge past, looking away. For them, misery is a familiar face.
On Friday, Alfonse Kiburura stood in front of his twig and tarp hut in a camp for displaced people. The rains are falling hard now, every day. His family curls up on a floor of cold, wet mud.
This was the second time this year that the Kibururas have had to pick up everything they own, throw it over their heads and dash down the road away from the combat. Mr. Kiburura said that as soon as his 5-year-old son, Destin, heard gunfire, the boy knew what to do.
“This isn’t the first time he’s heard gunshots,” he said. “He’s heard them many times before.”
Source: New York Times
Sunday, November 25, 2012
ANC KZN backs Jacob Zuma for ANC Presidency
ANC KZN NOMINATION CONFERENCE STATEMENT
25 November 2012
The African National Congress (ANC) in KwaZulu-Natal on Sunday concluded its successful two-day conference which was characterized by frankness, robustness and a comradely spirit that made all sessions to be enjoyable and enlightening.
The conference was convened to consolidate KwaZulu-Natal's policy positions and to combine the province's nominations for preferred leadership to be elected in the National Conference of the ANC to be held in Mangaung in December 2012.
The ANC in KwaZulu-Natal is happy that the conference was characterized by very productive debates on policy issues. Debates spanned from various and diverse views and individual expressions, scientific theory of our revolution to the experience gained through our daily involvement in our community struggles and serving within state institutions and platforms of service delivery.
Our province is once again leading the way by forsaking the foreign tendencies of coming to conferences for the sole purpose of voting for positions. The conference made history by dedicating more focus on policy matters in order to shape the transformation agenda and usher in a better life for all our people.
The ANC in KwaZulu-Natal strongly believes that the difference in the paths and direction the ANC will take post Mangaung depends on the thoroughness of the discussions and preparations to resolve issues that plague our country not on the face of the leadership cadres elected.
"Today (Sunday) we are concluding what has been a very democratic process. Our branches nominated their preferred candidates freely. The fact that more than one name per position were nominated was a clear indication ANC is a democratic organization," said ANC provincial Secretary, Sihle Zikalala.
After a very vigorous nomination process, ANC branches in KwaZulu-Natal nominated the following cadres:
President: Cde President Cde Jacob Zuma [unanimous]
Deputy President: Cde Cyril Ramaphosa [841 votes]
National Chairperson: Cde Baleka Mbethe [863 votes]
Secretary General: Cde Gwede Mantashe, [unanimous]
Deputy Secretary General: Cde Jessie Duarte [834 votes]
Treasure General: Cde Zweli Mkhize. [833 votes]
The conference emphasized the importance of discipline, unity and political maturity to ensure that the ANC will remain united after the Mangaung conference.
Statement issued by the ANC KwaZulu-Natal provincial secretary Sihle Zikalala November 26 2012
Source: Politicsweb
25 November 2012
The African National Congress (ANC) in KwaZulu-Natal on Sunday concluded its successful two-day conference which was characterized by frankness, robustness and a comradely spirit that made all sessions to be enjoyable and enlightening.
The conference was convened to consolidate KwaZulu-Natal's policy positions and to combine the province's nominations for preferred leadership to be elected in the National Conference of the ANC to be held in Mangaung in December 2012.
The ANC in KwaZulu-Natal is happy that the conference was characterized by very productive debates on policy issues. Debates spanned from various and diverse views and individual expressions, scientific theory of our revolution to the experience gained through our daily involvement in our community struggles and serving within state institutions and platforms of service delivery.
Our province is once again leading the way by forsaking the foreign tendencies of coming to conferences for the sole purpose of voting for positions. The conference made history by dedicating more focus on policy matters in order to shape the transformation agenda and usher in a better life for all our people.
The ANC in KwaZulu-Natal strongly believes that the difference in the paths and direction the ANC will take post Mangaung depends on the thoroughness of the discussions and preparations to resolve issues that plague our country not on the face of the leadership cadres elected.
"Today (Sunday) we are concluding what has been a very democratic process. Our branches nominated their preferred candidates freely. The fact that more than one name per position were nominated was a clear indication ANC is a democratic organization," said ANC provincial Secretary, Sihle Zikalala.
After a very vigorous nomination process, ANC branches in KwaZulu-Natal nominated the following cadres:
President: Cde President Cde Jacob Zuma [unanimous]
Deputy President: Cde Cyril Ramaphosa [841 votes]
National Chairperson: Cde Baleka Mbethe [863 votes]
Secretary General: Cde Gwede Mantashe, [unanimous]
Deputy Secretary General: Cde Jessie Duarte [834 votes]
Treasure General: Cde Zweli Mkhize. [833 votes]
The conference emphasized the importance of discipline, unity and political maturity to ensure that the ANC will remain united after the Mangaung conference.
Statement issued by the ANC KwaZulu-Natal provincial secretary Sihle Zikalala November 26 2012
Source: Politicsweb
Friday, November 23, 2012
Kenya: Investigate Attack on Rights Activist
The Kenyan authorities should promptly and thoroughly investigate a serious physical assault on Okiya Omtatah Okoiti, a prominent human rights activist, on the evening of November 9, 2012, and bring appropriate charges, Human Rights Watch, ARTICLE 19, and East and Horn of Africa Human Rights Defenders Project said today. The organizations expressed concern over the apparent lack of a serious police investigation two weeks after the violent attack on an outspoken critic of the government.
Omtatah, executive director of Kenyans for Justice and Development (KEJUDE) Trust, a local NGO that advocates for transparency and accountability, was attacked by two unidentified men in central Nairobi. He lost six teeth and suffered serious injuries to his face and the back of his head, which required surgery. Omtatah told Human Rights Watch and ARTICLE 19 that the attackers demanded that he withdraw a lawsuit he filed to demand accountability in the procurement of biometric voter registration (BVR) kits because of corruption associated with the process.
“This vicious attack was clearly meant not just to intimidate Omtatah but to seriously injure him – and perhaps even to kill him,” said Leslie Lefkow, deputy Africa director at Human Rights Watch. “The aim seems to be to stop his work on corruption in the procurement of biometric voter registration kits for the upcoming elections.”
From a bed in a Nairobi hospital, Omtatah described the attack:
The two gentlemen walked behind me in the light rain at around 8:30 p.m. As we neared I&M Bank Building, one of them called out my name, “Omtatah,” and I responded, looked back, and we waved at each other pleasantly. I did not stop. Somehow they quickened up and one overtook me. The other stayed behind me. The one in front then turned to face me and he asked me in Kiswahili and in a very polite voice: “Will you withdraw the petition you have filed in the High Court over the procurement of the biometric voter registration kit?” I responded in English with a strong “No!”
He immediately flashed something that looked like a short, thick silver stick and struck me in the face. Almost simultaneously the other one struck me with a heavy blunt object at the back of my head. I heard an exploding sound in my head as I fell in the rain, gravely injured. They stole nothing from me. I had two mobile phones and cash.
Omtatah said a police investigator had visited him in the hospital but only to take the basic facts of the attack. They did not ask him for a description of the attackers. Police at Nairobi’s Central Police Station told Human Rights Watch and ARTICLE 19 that they could not begin an investigation while Omtatah was undergoing treatment.
“Omtatah has been the sole voice of concern in the problematic biometric voter kit procurement process,” said Henry Maina, director of ARTICLE 19 Eastern Africa. “The authorities need to get to the bottom of the procurement process and protect Omtatah’s right to seek the truth and they need to hold everyone responsible for corruption and for this attack accountable as well.”
Kenya’s 2007 elections were marked by controversy and violence, resulting in more than 1,000 deaths countrywide and causing more than 600,000 people to flee their homes. The problem was partly due to flaws in the integrity of the electoral process, which undermined confidence in the results. A commission of inquiry looking at the elections recommended a shift from the manual voter registration system to an electronic system to fix problems with the voter register.
The Independent Electoral and Boundaries Commission (IEBC)is trying to introduce biometric voter registration kits to improve the process, but the procurement process has been fraught with controversy, with allegations of bribery, influence peddling, and irregularities in the tendering process. Last July the commission’s tender committee resigned to protest what it called external influences on the process and the IEBC. The biometric voter kit uses specific facial features to identify each voter during voting to prevent fraud.
The lowest bidder in the BVR tender, 4G Identity Solutions of India, was disqualified in August 2012. The company’s CEO, Sreeni Tripuraneni, said that the company was being punished for refusing to pay 30 million Kenyan shillings in bribes to senior officials in Kenya’s Foreign Affairs Ministry. In September 2012 the IEBC canceled the tender altogether, prompting an inquiry by a parliamentary committee. The IEBC Chairman, Isaack Hassan, told the committee that his commission had come “under immense pressure from external interests” who sought to influence the tender.
“Omtatah has been keeping the IEBC on its toes and, together with others, making sure the process is transparent and fair,” Maina said. “In the end, the credibility of Kenya’s electoral process is at stake.”
After the cancellation of the tender the Kenyan government took over the procurement process amid protests from some civil society groups about possible manipulation and implications for the independence of IEBC.
Omtatah’s KEJUDE and other civil society groups have raised concerns about the rising costs – from an initial 3.9 billion Kenyan shillings for 9,750 BVR kits under the IEBC to 9.6 billion Kenyan shillings for 1,500 BVR kits when the government took over. Omtatah went to court to stop the process over the alleged corruption. He filed detailed documents in court that appeared to show that Kenya would lose up to 4 billion Kenyan shillings in the deal.
The three organizations said Omtatah might be in danger if the authorities fail to assure his safety. Kenya has a responsibility to respect and protect the rights of human rights defenders, as contained in the UN Declaration on Human Rights Defenders, as well as to provide effective remedies for any violations of these rights. The government should urgently order a full and impartial investigation into the attack and prosecute those responsible.
“The authorities must investigate this vicious attack and bring those responsible to justice,” said Hassan Shire, executive director of East and Horn of Africa Human Rights Defenders Project. “Activists need to be able to carry their work without the fear of violent repercussions.”
Source: Human Rights Watch
Omtatah, executive director of Kenyans for Justice and Development (KEJUDE) Trust, a local NGO that advocates for transparency and accountability, was attacked by two unidentified men in central Nairobi. He lost six teeth and suffered serious injuries to his face and the back of his head, which required surgery. Omtatah told Human Rights Watch and ARTICLE 19 that the attackers demanded that he withdraw a lawsuit he filed to demand accountability in the procurement of biometric voter registration (BVR) kits because of corruption associated with the process.
“This vicious attack was clearly meant not just to intimidate Omtatah but to seriously injure him – and perhaps even to kill him,” said Leslie Lefkow, deputy Africa director at Human Rights Watch. “The aim seems to be to stop his work on corruption in the procurement of biometric voter registration kits for the upcoming elections.”
From a bed in a Nairobi hospital, Omtatah described the attack:
The two gentlemen walked behind me in the light rain at around 8:30 p.m. As we neared I&M Bank Building, one of them called out my name, “Omtatah,” and I responded, looked back, and we waved at each other pleasantly. I did not stop. Somehow they quickened up and one overtook me. The other stayed behind me. The one in front then turned to face me and he asked me in Kiswahili and in a very polite voice: “Will you withdraw the petition you have filed in the High Court over the procurement of the biometric voter registration kit?” I responded in English with a strong “No!”
He immediately flashed something that looked like a short, thick silver stick and struck me in the face. Almost simultaneously the other one struck me with a heavy blunt object at the back of my head. I heard an exploding sound in my head as I fell in the rain, gravely injured. They stole nothing from me. I had two mobile phones and cash.
Omtatah said a police investigator had visited him in the hospital but only to take the basic facts of the attack. They did not ask him for a description of the attackers. Police at Nairobi’s Central Police Station told Human Rights Watch and ARTICLE 19 that they could not begin an investigation while Omtatah was undergoing treatment.
“Omtatah has been the sole voice of concern in the problematic biometric voter kit procurement process,” said Henry Maina, director of ARTICLE 19 Eastern Africa. “The authorities need to get to the bottom of the procurement process and protect Omtatah’s right to seek the truth and they need to hold everyone responsible for corruption and for this attack accountable as well.”
Kenya’s 2007 elections were marked by controversy and violence, resulting in more than 1,000 deaths countrywide and causing more than 600,000 people to flee their homes. The problem was partly due to flaws in the integrity of the electoral process, which undermined confidence in the results. A commission of inquiry looking at the elections recommended a shift from the manual voter registration system to an electronic system to fix problems with the voter register.
The Independent Electoral and Boundaries Commission (IEBC)is trying to introduce biometric voter registration kits to improve the process, but the procurement process has been fraught with controversy, with allegations of bribery, influence peddling, and irregularities in the tendering process. Last July the commission’s tender committee resigned to protest what it called external influences on the process and the IEBC. The biometric voter kit uses specific facial features to identify each voter during voting to prevent fraud.
The lowest bidder in the BVR tender, 4G Identity Solutions of India, was disqualified in August 2012. The company’s CEO, Sreeni Tripuraneni, said that the company was being punished for refusing to pay 30 million Kenyan shillings in bribes to senior officials in Kenya’s Foreign Affairs Ministry. In September 2012 the IEBC canceled the tender altogether, prompting an inquiry by a parliamentary committee. The IEBC Chairman, Isaack Hassan, told the committee that his commission had come “under immense pressure from external interests” who sought to influence the tender.
“Omtatah has been keeping the IEBC on its toes and, together with others, making sure the process is transparent and fair,” Maina said. “In the end, the credibility of Kenya’s electoral process is at stake.”
After the cancellation of the tender the Kenyan government took over the procurement process amid protests from some civil society groups about possible manipulation and implications for the independence of IEBC.
Omtatah’s KEJUDE and other civil society groups have raised concerns about the rising costs – from an initial 3.9 billion Kenyan shillings for 9,750 BVR kits under the IEBC to 9.6 billion Kenyan shillings for 1,500 BVR kits when the government took over. Omtatah went to court to stop the process over the alleged corruption. He filed detailed documents in court that appeared to show that Kenya would lose up to 4 billion Kenyan shillings in the deal.
The three organizations said Omtatah might be in danger if the authorities fail to assure his safety. Kenya has a responsibility to respect and protect the rights of human rights defenders, as contained in the UN Declaration on Human Rights Defenders, as well as to provide effective remedies for any violations of these rights. The government should urgently order a full and impartial investigation into the attack and prosecute those responsible.
“The authorities must investigate this vicious attack and bring those responsible to justice,” said Hassan Shire, executive director of East and Horn of Africa Human Rights Defenders Project. “Activists need to be able to carry their work without the fear of violent repercussions.”
Source: Human Rights Watch
Wednesday, November 21, 2012
Davis ‘may lead exodus’ after Xstrata bonus snub
XSTRATA CEO Mick Davis might lead an exodus of the company’s top executives after its shareholders on Tuesday approved a $31bn merger with Glencore, but rejected a £144m management retention scheme that the miner’s directors had proposed.
The shareholder vote on the deal will bring the 10-month saga one step closer to its conclusion, uniting Xstrata’s output of copper, coal and nickel with Glencore’s marketing and trading expertise.
But the snubbing of the retention scheme prompted Xstrata chairman John Bond, who will be chairman of the combined group, to announce yesterday that he would step down once a replacement is found.
Mr Davis, who with his management team has grown Xstrata to a multibillion-dollar company from one worth just $500m in a decade, is expected to step down in six months in favour of Glencore’s Ivan Glasenberg.
Mr Davis has been tipped to replace outgoing Anglo American CEO Cynthia Carroll. He was asked during yesterday’s shareholder meeting in Zug, Switzerland, whether he would be starting another business or retiring.
"I have not yet decided what my future plans will be but certainly retirement will not be part of them," Mr Davis said.
The controversial management retention scheme for 70 top Xstrata managers was rejected by 78.4% of Xstrata shareholders voting on Tuesday.
Glencore Xstrata International, the new name for the company, will have interests in about 35 coal mines in Colombia, Africa and Australia, and account for about 10% of global seaborne exports of the fuel. It will be the world’s third-biggest producer of mined copper, the largest zinc miner and the biggest exporter of coal burnt by power stations.
The group will have about 11% of the 13-million-ton global zinc market and about 40% of the 1.9-million tons of the metal produced in Europe.
One large Xstrata shareholder, asset manager Knight Vinke, said at the meeting yesterday that it had no confidence in the "independence and robustness" of the board and had voted against the deal. "We are extremely concerned with regard to the ability of the board of the newly merged company to represent our interests," said David Trenchard, vice-chairman of Knight Vinke.
"Good governance must now take centre stage and we intend to broaden our discussions with fellow shareholders to ensure that this is the case."
But most Glencore shareholders backed the merger. At the meeting in Zug, which lasted just 12 minutes, over 99% of voting shareholders backed the deal.
The deal, announced in February, has already had more than its fair share of twists, with the original terms panned by shareholders — some of whom also took exception to retention payments for Xstrata executives.
Qatar’s sovereign wealth fund and Xstrata’s second-largest shareholder after Glencore said last week it would back the deal unreservedly. But the fund, which played a pivotal role, did not approve the controversial packages proposed for Xstrata’s key team.
In negotiations with Qatar, Mr Glasenberg insisted he become CE of the combined company rather than Mr Davis, who is expected to leave six months after the deal closes but can depart earlier if he wishes.
Glencore must also overcome European Commission concerns about potential competition problems the deal poses.
The trader has offered to sell Xstrata’s German zinc smelter, after its first solution was deemed insufficient by regulators.
Source: Business Day
The shareholder vote on the deal will bring the 10-month saga one step closer to its conclusion, uniting Xstrata’s output of copper, coal and nickel with Glencore’s marketing and trading expertise.
But the snubbing of the retention scheme prompted Xstrata chairman John Bond, who will be chairman of the combined group, to announce yesterday that he would step down once a replacement is found.
Mr Davis, who with his management team has grown Xstrata to a multibillion-dollar company from one worth just $500m in a decade, is expected to step down in six months in favour of Glencore’s Ivan Glasenberg.
Mr Davis has been tipped to replace outgoing Anglo American CEO Cynthia Carroll. He was asked during yesterday’s shareholder meeting in Zug, Switzerland, whether he would be starting another business or retiring.
"I have not yet decided what my future plans will be but certainly retirement will not be part of them," Mr Davis said.
The controversial management retention scheme for 70 top Xstrata managers was rejected by 78.4% of Xstrata shareholders voting on Tuesday.
Glencore Xstrata International, the new name for the company, will have interests in about 35 coal mines in Colombia, Africa and Australia, and account for about 10% of global seaborne exports of the fuel. It will be the world’s third-biggest producer of mined copper, the largest zinc miner and the biggest exporter of coal burnt by power stations.
The group will have about 11% of the 13-million-ton global zinc market and about 40% of the 1.9-million tons of the metal produced in Europe.
One large Xstrata shareholder, asset manager Knight Vinke, said at the meeting yesterday that it had no confidence in the "independence and robustness" of the board and had voted against the deal. "We are extremely concerned with regard to the ability of the board of the newly merged company to represent our interests," said David Trenchard, vice-chairman of Knight Vinke.
"Good governance must now take centre stage and we intend to broaden our discussions with fellow shareholders to ensure that this is the case."
But most Glencore shareholders backed the merger. At the meeting in Zug, which lasted just 12 minutes, over 99% of voting shareholders backed the deal.
The deal, announced in February, has already had more than its fair share of twists, with the original terms panned by shareholders — some of whom also took exception to retention payments for Xstrata executives.
Qatar’s sovereign wealth fund and Xstrata’s second-largest shareholder after Glencore said last week it would back the deal unreservedly. But the fund, which played a pivotal role, did not approve the controversial packages proposed for Xstrata’s key team.
In negotiations with Qatar, Mr Glasenberg insisted he become CE of the combined company rather than Mr Davis, who is expected to leave six months after the deal closes but can depart earlier if he wishes.
Glencore must also overcome European Commission concerns about potential competition problems the deal poses.
The trader has offered to sell Xstrata’s German zinc smelter, after its first solution was deemed insufficient by regulators.
Source: Business Day
Tuesday, November 20, 2012
DR Congo: US Should Urge Rwanda to End M23 Support
The United States government should publicly support sanctions against Rwandan officials backing the armed group M23, which has been responsible for widespread war crimes in eastern Democratic Republic of Congo. M23 rebels, whose commanders have been implicated in serious abuses, captured the city of Goma on November 20, 2012.
“The US government’s silence on Rwandan military support to the M23 rebels can no longer be justified given the overwhelming evidence of Rwanda’s role and the imminent threat to civilians around Goma,” said Tom Malinowski, Washington director at Human Rights Watch. “The US government should support urgent sanctions against Rwandan officials who are backing M23 fighters responsible for serious abuses.”
Rwandan military support for the M23 rebels has been evident in their offensive that began on November 15, Human Rights Watch said. Several civilians living near the Rwandan border told Human Rights Watch that they saw hundreds of Rwandan army soldiers crossing the border from Rwanda into Congo at Njerima hill, Kasizi, and Kabuhanga in apparent support of M23 fighters. Human Rights Watch has also documented several incidents in which Rwandan and Congolese soldiers fired across the border from either side between November 16 and 20.
A draft of the final report of the United Nations Group of Experts on the Democratic Republic of Congo, soon to be published, alleges that the Rwandan government has provided “direct military support to M23 rebels” and that the “M23’s de facto chain of command includes General Bosco Ntaganda and culminates with the Rwandan Minister of Defense General James Kabarebe.” Ntaganda is on the UN sanctions list and is sought on arrest warrants from the International Criminal Court for war crimes and crimes against humanity.
Human Rights Watch has independently established that the Rwandan army has regularly provided significant military support to the M23, including overseeing operational planning, providing weapons and ammunition, recruiting at least 600 people in Rwanda to fight for the M23, training new recruits, and deploying Rwandan army troops to eastern Congo in direct support of M23 rebels.
Over the past seven months, Human Rights Watch has documented widespread war crimes by M23 rebels in eastern Congo, including summary executions, rapes, and forced recruitment, including of children. Rwandan officials may be complicit in war crimes through their military assistance to M23 forces throughout this period, Human Rights Watch said.
The draft UN Group of Experts’ report says that, “Rwandan officials coordinated the creation of the rebel movement as well as its major military operations” and “provided military support to M23 through permanent troop reinforcement and clandestine support by RDF [Rwandan Defence Forces] special units.” The Group of Experts found that “RDF commanders operated alongside M23 and provided logistical support during the July 2012 operations which enabled the capture of Bunagana, Rutshuru, Kiwanja and Rumangabo.” During these operations, “the rebels killed one [UN] peacekeeper at Bunagana and fired on the [UN peacekeeping] base at Kiwanja,” the report states.
The Group of Experts also documented support to the M23 by commanders of the Ugandan People’s Defence Force. While stating that “Rwandan officials exercise overall command and strategic planning for M23,” they note that “senior Government of Uganda officials have also provided support to M23 in the form of direct troop reinforcement in DRC territory, weapons deliveries, [and] technical assistance.”
“The fall of Goma to the M23 magnifies the security risks to civilians in eastern Congo,” Malinowski said. “As a permanent member of the UN Security Council, the US should press for sanctions that target not only the M23 but the foreign officials backing their atrocities.”
The Group of Experts has recommended individual sanctions against several Rwandan and Ugandan officials named in its report.
The M23’s latest offensive began on November 15 with M23 rebels fighting UN peacekeepers and Congolese army forces as the rebels progressed toward Goma. By the early afternoon of November 20, after heavy fighting in and around Goma, the M23 had taken control of key areas of Goma. Congolese army soldiers had fled the town, while UN peacekeepers were still present.
Human Rights Watch has received reports of at least 11 civilians killed and dozens of others wounded during the fighting in and around Goma since November 15. An estimated 80,000 people are newly displaced in the area around Goma, including an estimated 60,000 who were in a displacement camp about 10 kilometers outside Goma, according to the UN Office for Humanitarian Affairs.
“The US should endorse all measures that would enable UN sanctions against Rwandan officials who are assisting the M23,” Malinowski said. “All parties to the conflict should take urgent measures to protect civilians and stop abuses.”
Background on the M23
The M23 is largely made up of soldiers who took part in a mutiny from the Congolese army between late March and May 2012. Many were previously members of the National Congress for the Defense of the People (CNDP), a former Rwanda-backed rebel group that integrated into the Congolese army in January 2009. Bosco Ntaganda, who was then a general in the Congolese army, initially led the mutiny. In May, Col. Sultani Makenga, a former colleague of Ntaganda in the CNDP, announced he was beginning a separate mutiny. In the days that followed, Ntaganda and his forces joined Makenga. The new armed group called itself the M23. The M23 claimed the mutiny was to protest the Congolese government’s failure to fully implement the March 23, 2009 peace agreement (hence the name M23), which had integrated them into the Congolese army.
Some of the M23’s senior commanders have well-known histories of serious abuses, committed over the past decade in eastern Congo as they moved from one armed group to another. They have been responsible for ethnic massacres, recruitment of children, mass rape, killings, abductions, and torture. Before the mutinies, at least five of the M23 leaders were on a UN black list of people with whom the UN would not collaborate due to their human rights records.
Ntaganda has been wanted by the International Criminal Court since 2006 for recruiting and using child soldiers in Ituri district in northeastern Congo in 2002 and 2003. In July, the court issued a second warrant against him for war crimes and crimes against humanity, namely murder, persecution based on ethnic grounds, rape, sexual slavery, and pillaging, also in connection with his activities in Ituri.
Human Rights Watch has documented numerous war crimes and crimes against humanity by troops under Ntaganda’s command, as well as by other M23 commanders, including Col. Makenga, Col. Innocent Zimurinda, Col. Baudouin Ngaruye, and Col. Innocent Kayna.
On November 12, 2012, the UN Security Council added Makenga to its list of individuals under sanctions, including an asset freeze and a travel ban. On November 13, the US imposed sanctions on Makenga, which includes an asset freeze and forbids American citizens from undertaking any transactions with him.
Source: Human Rights Watch
“The US government’s silence on Rwandan military support to the M23 rebels can no longer be justified given the overwhelming evidence of Rwanda’s role and the imminent threat to civilians around Goma,” said Tom Malinowski, Washington director at Human Rights Watch. “The US government should support urgent sanctions against Rwandan officials who are backing M23 fighters responsible for serious abuses.”
Rwandan military support for the M23 rebels has been evident in their offensive that began on November 15, Human Rights Watch said. Several civilians living near the Rwandan border told Human Rights Watch that they saw hundreds of Rwandan army soldiers crossing the border from Rwanda into Congo at Njerima hill, Kasizi, and Kabuhanga in apparent support of M23 fighters. Human Rights Watch has also documented several incidents in which Rwandan and Congolese soldiers fired across the border from either side between November 16 and 20.
A draft of the final report of the United Nations Group of Experts on the Democratic Republic of Congo, soon to be published, alleges that the Rwandan government has provided “direct military support to M23 rebels” and that the “M23’s de facto chain of command includes General Bosco Ntaganda and culminates with the Rwandan Minister of Defense General James Kabarebe.” Ntaganda is on the UN sanctions list and is sought on arrest warrants from the International Criminal Court for war crimes and crimes against humanity.
Human Rights Watch has independently established that the Rwandan army has regularly provided significant military support to the M23, including overseeing operational planning, providing weapons and ammunition, recruiting at least 600 people in Rwanda to fight for the M23, training new recruits, and deploying Rwandan army troops to eastern Congo in direct support of M23 rebels.
Over the past seven months, Human Rights Watch has documented widespread war crimes by M23 rebels in eastern Congo, including summary executions, rapes, and forced recruitment, including of children. Rwandan officials may be complicit in war crimes through their military assistance to M23 forces throughout this period, Human Rights Watch said.
The draft UN Group of Experts’ report says that, “Rwandan officials coordinated the creation of the rebel movement as well as its major military operations” and “provided military support to M23 through permanent troop reinforcement and clandestine support by RDF [Rwandan Defence Forces] special units.” The Group of Experts found that “RDF commanders operated alongside M23 and provided logistical support during the July 2012 operations which enabled the capture of Bunagana, Rutshuru, Kiwanja and Rumangabo.” During these operations, “the rebels killed one [UN] peacekeeper at Bunagana and fired on the [UN peacekeeping] base at Kiwanja,” the report states.
The Group of Experts also documented support to the M23 by commanders of the Ugandan People’s Defence Force. While stating that “Rwandan officials exercise overall command and strategic planning for M23,” they note that “senior Government of Uganda officials have also provided support to M23 in the form of direct troop reinforcement in DRC territory, weapons deliveries, [and] technical assistance.”
“The fall of Goma to the M23 magnifies the security risks to civilians in eastern Congo,” Malinowski said. “As a permanent member of the UN Security Council, the US should press for sanctions that target not only the M23 but the foreign officials backing their atrocities.”
The Group of Experts has recommended individual sanctions against several Rwandan and Ugandan officials named in its report.
The M23’s latest offensive began on November 15 with M23 rebels fighting UN peacekeepers and Congolese army forces as the rebels progressed toward Goma. By the early afternoon of November 20, after heavy fighting in and around Goma, the M23 had taken control of key areas of Goma. Congolese army soldiers had fled the town, while UN peacekeepers were still present.
Human Rights Watch has received reports of at least 11 civilians killed and dozens of others wounded during the fighting in and around Goma since November 15. An estimated 80,000 people are newly displaced in the area around Goma, including an estimated 60,000 who were in a displacement camp about 10 kilometers outside Goma, according to the UN Office for Humanitarian Affairs.
“The US should endorse all measures that would enable UN sanctions against Rwandan officials who are assisting the M23,” Malinowski said. “All parties to the conflict should take urgent measures to protect civilians and stop abuses.”
Background on the M23
The M23 is largely made up of soldiers who took part in a mutiny from the Congolese army between late March and May 2012. Many were previously members of the National Congress for the Defense of the People (CNDP), a former Rwanda-backed rebel group that integrated into the Congolese army in January 2009. Bosco Ntaganda, who was then a general in the Congolese army, initially led the mutiny. In May, Col. Sultani Makenga, a former colleague of Ntaganda in the CNDP, announced he was beginning a separate mutiny. In the days that followed, Ntaganda and his forces joined Makenga. The new armed group called itself the M23. The M23 claimed the mutiny was to protest the Congolese government’s failure to fully implement the March 23, 2009 peace agreement (hence the name M23), which had integrated them into the Congolese army.
Some of the M23’s senior commanders have well-known histories of serious abuses, committed over the past decade in eastern Congo as they moved from one armed group to another. They have been responsible for ethnic massacres, recruitment of children, mass rape, killings, abductions, and torture. Before the mutinies, at least five of the M23 leaders were on a UN black list of people with whom the UN would not collaborate due to their human rights records.
Ntaganda has been wanted by the International Criminal Court since 2006 for recruiting and using child soldiers in Ituri district in northeastern Congo in 2002 and 2003. In July, the court issued a second warrant against him for war crimes and crimes against humanity, namely murder, persecution based on ethnic grounds, rape, sexual slavery, and pillaging, also in connection with his activities in Ituri.
Human Rights Watch has documented numerous war crimes and crimes against humanity by troops under Ntaganda’s command, as well as by other M23 commanders, including Col. Makenga, Col. Innocent Zimurinda, Col. Baudouin Ngaruye, and Col. Innocent Kayna.
On November 12, 2012, the UN Security Council added Makenga to its list of individuals under sanctions, including an asset freeze and a travel ban. On November 13, the US imposed sanctions on Makenga, which includes an asset freeze and forbids American citizens from undertaking any transactions with him.
Source: Human Rights Watch
Where is the grace? Where is the compassion?
I am haunted by this picture. It is of a woman unsuccessfully trying to stop a bulldozer from demolishing her home in Lenasia. No one seemed to have thought of asking the woman her name. The newspapers said she was “unidentified”: Like so many other black woman in South Africa she is literally treated as being without an identity, without a history, without a personality. Why did the Gauteng government want to demolish this woman’s home and why did a court grant an order allowing the demolition?
The bulldozing of people’s homes is an emotionally laden issue in South Africa. Anyone with a passing knowledge of the apartheid past must recall the horrible images of bulldozers wrecking people’s homes in Fietas, Sophiatown, District Six and in many other parts of the country. It therefore came as a shock to hear that our government sought, and a South African court ordered, the demolition of houses in Lenasia.
The Gauteng local government and housing department began destroying the houses two weeks ago because the land they were built on was intended for government housing, and had been sold illegally. About 50 houses had been destroyed and another 113 were in line to be demolished before the South African Human Rights Commission went to court to try and stop this. The plots of land were apparently sold fraudulently for amounts ranging from R2500 to R95 000. The buyers were given forged deeds of sale with the department’s logo.
On 29 September last year, the South Gauteng High Court ordered the relevant residence of Lenasia to vacate their homes and to demolish the homes or structures erected on the property. In the event of failure to remove or demolish within the time period given, the City was granted the right to demolish the homes. The Order did not require the City to provide those evicted with alternative accommodation.
Given the Constitutional Court’s jurisprudence on forced evictions and the provisions of the Prevention of Illegal Evictions from and Unlawful Occupation of Land (PIE) Act, it is difficult to agree with the court for granting this court order – which in any case the Gauteng Government should never have asked for. I guess if one does not live at Nkandla, one’s home is not seen as either private or sacred by our government.
In terms of section 26(3) of the Constitution, when considering whether to order the forced eviction of unlawful occupiers from their homes, a court must take into account all relevant factors. As the Constitutional Court stated in Port Elizabeth Municipality v Various Occupiers, our Constitution “acknowledges that a home is more than just a shelter from the elements”. A home “is a zone of personal intimacy and family security” and the forced removal from a home “is a shock for any family”. It does not make any difference whether that home is lawfully or unlawfully occupied.
The PIE Act confirms that a court must take into account all the relevant circumstances under which people occupied the land. In the PE Municipality case justice Albie Sachs warned that a court should be slow to order the eviction of its citizens from state owned land as “the state generally has further land to meet its obligations”. The degree of emergency or desperation of people, who have sought a spot on which to erect their shelters, would always have to be considered. And persons “occupying land with at least a plausible belief that they have permission to be there” can be looked at with far greater sympathy than those who deliberately invaded land with a view to disrupting the organised housing programme and placing themselves at the front of the queue.
It is settled law that a court should be reluctant to grant an eviction against relatively settled occupiers unless it is satisfied that a reasonable alternative is available. In City of Johannesburg v Blue Moonlight Properties the Constitutional Court found – in slightly different circumstances than the present – that the City’s housing policy was unconstitutional to the extent that it excluded some people evicted from privately owned property from consideration for temporary accommodation. It found that such an exclusion was unreasonable. This does not mean that the City would always have to provide alternative accommodation, but if it failed to do so in circumstances where people would be left homeless the eviction would almost never be granted.
In the end a court must consider all relevant factors but should not do so in a mechanical way or in a way that gave too much weight to the bureaucratic needs and plans of the Municipality and too little weight to the needs of those who might be affected by the eviction. In PE Municipality Sachs explained the approach as follows:
In this case, the residents were defrauded. They built structures on government owned land believing that they had bought the plots. They built solid structures, using their own money, believing they had a right to do so. They did not do so because they wanted to jump the queue for land or housing. Those who committed the fraud are being prosecuted, but it is unclear why those who were duped must be punished for their crime.
It is unclear what constitutionally permitted purpose is being served by the eviction of such innocent people from their homes. How does the bulldozing of their homes demonstrates the Gauteng government’s commitment to a caring society, one which is animated by the principle of Ubuntu, which holds that we are all demeaned if some among us are treated without grace and compassion – all in order to pursue a coldhearted and bureaucratic housing plan without any consideration of the feelings of those affected?
I wonder if the Gauteng Premier and the judicial officer who granted the eviction and demolition order have had time to pause for a moment to consider the feelings of the unnamed woman in the picture. Have they asked themselves what must have gone through her mind as she desperately threw her body in the path of that bulldozer? Do they wonder about all the hopes and dreams she had about her new home and how these have now been shattered by the greedy fraudsters who sold these plots to innocent citizens, abetted by the Gauteng Government and by the court who ordered the eviction?
Where is the grace? Where is the compassion? Where is the common decency? Or are these feelings only reserved for one “special” person, a person who might bleed and sleep and eat and have sex and defecate like the rest of us, but who somehow is viewed as more important and more worthy of concern and respect than the unnamed woman in Lenasia who planted her body in front of that bulldozer?
Why is it that we are told (in expensive adverts in the Sunday papers) not to care that the homes of some citizens are bulldozed, while we are also told that it is none of our business that more than R250 million of public funds are being used to upgrade the private homestead of our king, our leader, our father in chief – all while some of our people who contributed to the upgrade of the President’s house do not have a roof over their heads and will be forced to sleep under a bush or in a ditch tonight and for many, many, more nights to come?
Source: Constitutionally Speaking
The bulldozing of people’s homes is an emotionally laden issue in South Africa. Anyone with a passing knowledge of the apartheid past must recall the horrible images of bulldozers wrecking people’s homes in Fietas, Sophiatown, District Six and in many other parts of the country. It therefore came as a shock to hear that our government sought, and a South African court ordered, the demolition of houses in Lenasia.
The Gauteng local government and housing department began destroying the houses two weeks ago because the land they were built on was intended for government housing, and had been sold illegally. About 50 houses had been destroyed and another 113 were in line to be demolished before the South African Human Rights Commission went to court to try and stop this. The plots of land were apparently sold fraudulently for amounts ranging from R2500 to R95 000. The buyers were given forged deeds of sale with the department’s logo.
On 29 September last year, the South Gauteng High Court ordered the relevant residence of Lenasia to vacate their homes and to demolish the homes or structures erected on the property. In the event of failure to remove or demolish within the time period given, the City was granted the right to demolish the homes. The Order did not require the City to provide those evicted with alternative accommodation.
Given the Constitutional Court’s jurisprudence on forced evictions and the provisions of the Prevention of Illegal Evictions from and Unlawful Occupation of Land (PIE) Act, it is difficult to agree with the court for granting this court order – which in any case the Gauteng Government should never have asked for. I guess if one does not live at Nkandla, one’s home is not seen as either private or sacred by our government.
In terms of section 26(3) of the Constitution, when considering whether to order the forced eviction of unlawful occupiers from their homes, a court must take into account all relevant factors. As the Constitutional Court stated in Port Elizabeth Municipality v Various Occupiers, our Constitution “acknowledges that a home is more than just a shelter from the elements”. A home “is a zone of personal intimacy and family security” and the forced removal from a home “is a shock for any family”. It does not make any difference whether that home is lawfully or unlawfully occupied.
It is not only the dignity of the poor that is assailed when homeless people are driven from pillar to post in a desperate quest for a place where they and their families can rest their heads. Our society as a whole is demeaned when state action intensifies rather than mitigates their marginalisation. The integrity of the rights-based vision of the Constitution is punctured when governmental action augments rather than reduces denial of the claims of the desperately poor to the basic elements of a decent existence. Hence the need for special judicial control of a process that is both socially stressful and potentially conflictual.
The PIE Act confirms that a court must take into account all the relevant circumstances under which people occupied the land. In the PE Municipality case justice Albie Sachs warned that a court should be slow to order the eviction of its citizens from state owned land as “the state generally has further land to meet its obligations”. The degree of emergency or desperation of people, who have sought a spot on which to erect their shelters, would always have to be considered. And persons “occupying land with at least a plausible belief that they have permission to be there” can be looked at with far greater sympathy than those who deliberately invaded land with a view to disrupting the organised housing programme and placing themselves at the front of the queue.
It is settled law that a court should be reluctant to grant an eviction against relatively settled occupiers unless it is satisfied that a reasonable alternative is available. In City of Johannesburg v Blue Moonlight Properties the Constitutional Court found – in slightly different circumstances than the present – that the City’s housing policy was unconstitutional to the extent that it excluded some people evicted from privately owned property from consideration for temporary accommodation. It found that such an exclusion was unreasonable. This does not mean that the City would always have to provide alternative accommodation, but if it failed to do so in circumstances where people would be left homeless the eviction would almost never be granted.
In the end a court must consider all relevant factors but should not do so in a mechanical way or in a way that gave too much weight to the bureaucratic needs and plans of the Municipality and too little weight to the needs of those who might be affected by the eviction. In PE Municipality Sachs explained the approach as follows:
The Constitution and PIE require that in addition to considering the lawfulness of the occupation the court must have regard to the interests and circumstances of the occupier and pay due regard to broader considerations of fairness and other constitutional values, so as to produce a just and equitable result. Thus, PIE expressly requires the court to infuse elements of grace and compassion into the formal structures of the law. It is called upon to balance competing interests in a principled way and promote the constitutional vision of a caring society based on good neighbourliness and shared concern.
In this case, the residents were defrauded. They built structures on government owned land believing that they had bought the plots. They built solid structures, using their own money, believing they had a right to do so. They did not do so because they wanted to jump the queue for land or housing. Those who committed the fraud are being prosecuted, but it is unclear why those who were duped must be punished for their crime.
It is unclear what constitutionally permitted purpose is being served by the eviction of such innocent people from their homes. How does the bulldozing of their homes demonstrates the Gauteng government’s commitment to a caring society, one which is animated by the principle of Ubuntu, which holds that we are all demeaned if some among us are treated without grace and compassion – all in order to pursue a coldhearted and bureaucratic housing plan without any consideration of the feelings of those affected?
I wonder if the Gauteng Premier and the judicial officer who granted the eviction and demolition order have had time to pause for a moment to consider the feelings of the unnamed woman in the picture. Have they asked themselves what must have gone through her mind as she desperately threw her body in the path of that bulldozer? Do they wonder about all the hopes and dreams she had about her new home and how these have now been shattered by the greedy fraudsters who sold these plots to innocent citizens, abetted by the Gauteng Government and by the court who ordered the eviction?
Where is the grace? Where is the compassion? Where is the common decency? Or are these feelings only reserved for one “special” person, a person who might bleed and sleep and eat and have sex and defecate like the rest of us, but who somehow is viewed as more important and more worthy of concern and respect than the unnamed woman in Lenasia who planted her body in front of that bulldozer?
Why is it that we are told (in expensive adverts in the Sunday papers) not to care that the homes of some citizens are bulldozed, while we are also told that it is none of our business that more than R250 million of public funds are being used to upgrade the private homestead of our king, our leader, our father in chief – all while some of our people who contributed to the upgrade of the President’s house do not have a roof over their heads and will be forced to sleep under a bush or in a ditch tonight and for many, many, more nights to come?
Source: Constitutionally Speaking
Friday, November 16, 2012
Rainbow SA cannot work if its people don’t trust its political system
PONDERING the state of South African politics, many believe that a fresh political alternative is what is needed to invigorate our democracy and put the country back on a sound footing. This school of thought believes the missing ingredient is the quality of the men and women leading our political institutions. They may be right, but is it enough? Even in the context of African National Congress politics there is an obsession with re-educating members in the old traditions of the organisation. This is admirable and may help, but also falls hopelessly short of conceiving what SA will need to grow into a nation leading the world in years to come.
We have a state that battles to complete basic tasks, political elites that often play a deeply polarising role and different sectors of society that are at war with one another. While there is much talk about social dialogue, it largely remains confined to dealing with the trivia of policy. There is no central, uniting idea that makes a powerful emotional connection with citizens from across the social and political spectrum while being sufficiently realistic to translate into tangible actions.
But why are we in such a state of listlessness?
Among several reasons, the most central is the manner in which post-1994 South African society has been organised.
We are bound together by a constitution whose most critical provisions are largely rejected or misunderstood by many South Africans. The death penalty would be likely to be reinstated in a referendum and the state would be given the power to confiscate land without compensation and give it to black people. There are also many who see homosexuality as an abomination and would not protest too much if gay South Africans were afforded less rights than those of heterosexual location. There are also those who wish the executive or legislature could overrule the judiciary.
There is a professed belief in fighting all forms of discrimination such as racism, sexism and others. We do badly at fulfilling this promise too — with even those in the corridors of power and influence displaying a particularly hypocritical streak.
Depending on the audience they address, or whether or not they are in the company of their ilk, they will verbalise vile racism, sexism and homophobia.
With such attitudes towards the constitution, there is little or nothing that binds the country together into a coherent nation.
As economic and social circumstances become more challenging for many South Africans, polarisation is common in particular along racial and class lines.
It is not unusual for powerful political entrepreneurs to launch self-serving, acerbic attacks on the black middle class for daring to comment unfavourably about the ruling elite. It is also common for the same politicians to launch racially charged attacks on so-called white capital while accepting back-handers in the form of lucrative business opportunities from the same purported enemy.
They use their proximity to power in the ruling party and the state as a lever to gain access to these opportunities, while fooling the public into believing they are in a war on behalf of the poorer classes.
In short, the convergence point of political, business and social interest of the elite is nothing more than a marketplace in which influences get traded for personal gain under the guise of social consensus. This situation is unsustainable and needs to change if this country is to achieve the level of the cohesion required to make great strides in social, scientific and economic development.
The national philosophical endeavour the country should strive for is a clear set of ideas which sets out what the country and its people should aspire to be, the institutions needed to support these ideas and what ethos such institutions should follow.
These should form the basis of a strong national philosophical centre to which most sectors in society feel drawn.
As a result, the areas of extreme disagreement between different social sectors would be few, and so would those who take extreme positions on critical issues.
Such a broad consensus greatly reduces attempts by different sectors and actors to delegitimise critical institutions that are meant to weld this country together.
Such behaviour is destructive and sends a worrying message that institutions of state are to be respected only when they agree with certain political or ideological interests.
SA’s philosophical foundation should also go as far as trying to describe the archetypal South African which young people should aspire to being. It must inculcate strong open democratic values, solid ethical foundations, individual care for the other, and an attitude to work and success that results in a powerful national competitive spirit with no patience for laziness, mediocrity and the prevalent culture of entitlement.
To succeed, such an endeavour needs a strong political figure and centre whose charisma and gravitas appeal across class and race, and whose personal ethos resonates with the majority of South Africans.
They must have the ability and confidence to surround themselves with men and women of significant intellectual depth so they can successfully articulate the vision and transform it into practical ideas citizens find easy to understand and support.
We have to pursue this because a society such as ours, which is held together by a constitution we hardly understand, often disagree with and whose institutions are being destroyed by the very people meant to protect and strengthen them, is untenable.
The grand plans contained in the National Development Plan will not be realised when different sectors continue to work to destroy each other and there is no central, uniting idea that helps South Africans overcome some of their narrow interests for greater national and social good.
Countries ruled by benign dictatorships have managed to walk this path with a degree of success.
SA is a democracy in which people cannot be forced to participate in things they do not wish to support, in particular where the poverty of the ideas behind them is so apparent.
That is why this must be premised on winning the trust and confidence of the population, and on the production of evidence that what is being espoused is the right thing — and that it will succeed.
This confidence can arise only from trust in the political system and its actors, which is glaringly absent right now.
Many have warned that SA is sitting on a powder keg. Increasingly, people are retreating to racial and ideological laagers whose premise is making others the problem. There is much talk about “change”, but this means vastly different things to different people. Even when some political change materialises, it will be as hotly contested as the status quo, absorbing and dissipating energy that should otherwise go to a focused, nationbuilding effort grounded in ideas and strong, respected institutions.
The first step for SA is to recognise that the status quo is a transitional arrangement whose destination is unclear and needs urgent definition.
To reach its ultimate goals, it will have to dispense with a lot of what is now familiar and make a fresh start. That is as hard and long a journey as it gets, but not to start would be a tragedy in the making.
Opinion: Songezo Zibi: Midrand Group.
Source: Business Day
We have a state that battles to complete basic tasks, political elites that often play a deeply polarising role and different sectors of society that are at war with one another. While there is much talk about social dialogue, it largely remains confined to dealing with the trivia of policy. There is no central, uniting idea that makes a powerful emotional connection with citizens from across the social and political spectrum while being sufficiently realistic to translate into tangible actions.
But why are we in such a state of listlessness?
Among several reasons, the most central is the manner in which post-1994 South African society has been organised.
We are bound together by a constitution whose most critical provisions are largely rejected or misunderstood by many South Africans. The death penalty would be likely to be reinstated in a referendum and the state would be given the power to confiscate land without compensation and give it to black people. There are also many who see homosexuality as an abomination and would not protest too much if gay South Africans were afforded less rights than those of heterosexual location. There are also those who wish the executive or legislature could overrule the judiciary.
There is a professed belief in fighting all forms of discrimination such as racism, sexism and others. We do badly at fulfilling this promise too — with even those in the corridors of power and influence displaying a particularly hypocritical streak.
Depending on the audience they address, or whether or not they are in the company of their ilk, they will verbalise vile racism, sexism and homophobia.
With such attitudes towards the constitution, there is little or nothing that binds the country together into a coherent nation.
As economic and social circumstances become more challenging for many South Africans, polarisation is common in particular along racial and class lines.
It is not unusual for powerful political entrepreneurs to launch self-serving, acerbic attacks on the black middle class for daring to comment unfavourably about the ruling elite. It is also common for the same politicians to launch racially charged attacks on so-called white capital while accepting back-handers in the form of lucrative business opportunities from the same purported enemy.
They use their proximity to power in the ruling party and the state as a lever to gain access to these opportunities, while fooling the public into believing they are in a war on behalf of the poorer classes.
In short, the convergence point of political, business and social interest of the elite is nothing more than a marketplace in which influences get traded for personal gain under the guise of social consensus. This situation is unsustainable and needs to change if this country is to achieve the level of the cohesion required to make great strides in social, scientific and economic development.
The national philosophical endeavour the country should strive for is a clear set of ideas which sets out what the country and its people should aspire to be, the institutions needed to support these ideas and what ethos such institutions should follow.
These should form the basis of a strong national philosophical centre to which most sectors in society feel drawn.
As a result, the areas of extreme disagreement between different social sectors would be few, and so would those who take extreme positions on critical issues.
Such a broad consensus greatly reduces attempts by different sectors and actors to delegitimise critical institutions that are meant to weld this country together.
Such behaviour is destructive and sends a worrying message that institutions of state are to be respected only when they agree with certain political or ideological interests.
SA’s philosophical foundation should also go as far as trying to describe the archetypal South African which young people should aspire to being. It must inculcate strong open democratic values, solid ethical foundations, individual care for the other, and an attitude to work and success that results in a powerful national competitive spirit with no patience for laziness, mediocrity and the prevalent culture of entitlement.
To succeed, such an endeavour needs a strong political figure and centre whose charisma and gravitas appeal across class and race, and whose personal ethos resonates with the majority of South Africans.
They must have the ability and confidence to surround themselves with men and women of significant intellectual depth so they can successfully articulate the vision and transform it into practical ideas citizens find easy to understand and support.
We have to pursue this because a society such as ours, which is held together by a constitution we hardly understand, often disagree with and whose institutions are being destroyed by the very people meant to protect and strengthen them, is untenable.
The grand plans contained in the National Development Plan will not be realised when different sectors continue to work to destroy each other and there is no central, uniting idea that helps South Africans overcome some of their narrow interests for greater national and social good.
Countries ruled by benign dictatorships have managed to walk this path with a degree of success.
SA is a democracy in which people cannot be forced to participate in things they do not wish to support, in particular where the poverty of the ideas behind them is so apparent.
That is why this must be premised on winning the trust and confidence of the population, and on the production of evidence that what is being espoused is the right thing — and that it will succeed.
This confidence can arise only from trust in the political system and its actors, which is glaringly absent right now.
Many have warned that SA is sitting on a powder keg. Increasingly, people are retreating to racial and ideological laagers whose premise is making others the problem. There is much talk about “change”, but this means vastly different things to different people. Even when some political change materialises, it will be as hotly contested as the status quo, absorbing and dissipating energy that should otherwise go to a focused, nationbuilding effort grounded in ideas and strong, respected institutions.
The first step for SA is to recognise that the status quo is a transitional arrangement whose destination is unclear and needs urgent definition.
To reach its ultimate goals, it will have to dispense with a lot of what is now familiar and make a fresh start. That is as hard and long a journey as it gets, but not to start would be a tragedy in the making.
Opinion: Songezo Zibi: Midrand Group.
Source: Business Day
Thursday, November 15, 2012
Scramble to raise farm wages amid Cape havoc
THE government on Wednesday announced an immediate review of minimum
wages for all farm workers as part of a deal in which trade unions
representing striking Western Cape farm workers agreed to return to work
on Thursday.
The development came after a day of unprecedented and frequently violent protest action by farm workers in the Western Cape, in which one worker was confirmed dead as a result of police action in Wolseley. Other towns in which protesters clashed with police and public roads were barricaded included: De Doorns, Ceres, Prince Alfred Hamlet, Robertson, Ashton, Bonnievale, Villiersdorp and Piketberg. Amid the chaos, Western Cape Premier Helen Zille warned that the province was "heading for anarchy", and that thousands of jobs could be on the line.
The promised wage review will have profound implications for the agricultural sector, for which the labour minister has set a minimum wage of R70 a day. It could also push up food prices and inflation, and have a knock-on effect on other minimum wages. Western Cape farm workers are demanding R150 a day. If they find the new minimum wage, expected to be announced within two weeks, unacceptable, they will resume striking on December 4. At a press briefing in Cape Town on Wednesday, acting labour minister Angie Motshekga — Labour Minister Mildred Oliphant is out of the country — said a notice will be published in the Government Gazette within a week "indicating the intention to call all interested parties to comment on the possibility to review the sectoral determination". A notice will also be published announcing the cancellation of the existing wage determination, affecting all agricultural workers.
The Employment Conditions Commission, the statutory body which advises the labour minister on minimum wages, was meeting from Wednesday to begin determining a new minimum wage. Employer and worker representatives will have an opportunity to make representations to the commission on appropriate wage levels. There was some uncertainty over whether a single minimum wage for all agricultural sectors will again be set, or whether there will be differentiation according to different province’s products.
Congress of South African Trade Unions (Cosatu) Western Cape secretary Tony Ehrenreich is advocating that there should be differentiation within the sector as some products — such as the table grapes grown in the De Doorns area where the strike began — are more profitable than others.
Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries Minister Tina Joemat-Pettersson said on Wednesday that the commission would have to make recommendations on whether new minimum wages should be set for all provinces, or whether the higher wages would apply only in the Western Cape. However, the cancellation of the existing determination necessarily implies that wages in all provinces be reviewed.
Cosatu, which led the brokering of the deal between the government and the strikers, was confident on Wednesday that workers would return to work, despite the strike spreading across towns and farms in the Western Cape over the past two days. Although not initially involved in the labour action, Cosatu and a coalition of independent unions and nongovernmental organisations active on the farms were "invited" by strikers to represent them in the negotiations. Cosatu subsequently assumed a leading role in the action among workers, of whom only 6% are unionised. Co-ordination of the strike across the towns was achieved largely through the relatively small networks of organisations, which spread word by SMS.
Mr Ehrenreich said the agreement contained three key elements: an urgent review of the national minimum wage; that no disciplinary action be taken against strikers; and that an interim minimum of R80 apply until the new wage is agreed.
Wednesday was the second day of unprecedented and frequently violent protest action by farm workers in the Western Cape. One worker was confirmed dead as a result of police action in incident in the town of Wolseley. Other towns in which protesters clashed with police and public roads were barricaded yesterday included: De Doorns, Ceres, Prince Alfred Hamlet, Robertson, Ashton, Bonnievale, Villiersdorp and Piketberg.
Premier of the Western Cape Premier Helen Ms Zille wrote to President Jacob Zuma on Tuesday, asking him and Ms Oliphant to set a new minimum wage for farm workers. On Wednesday, Ms Zille made a desperate appeal for co-operation to Western Cape African National Congress leader Marius Fransman. "We are heading towards anarchy. Thousands of jobs will be lost and an industry potentially destroyed," she said in an SMS to Mr Fransman. "I am receiving horrific reports of farm worker intimidation. It is essential that we remove politics from this matter and stabilise the situation. I am extremely worried that lives are in danger and that people will retaliate."
Presidency spokesman Mac Maharaj said yesterday that Ms Zille could ask for the South African National Defence Force’s assistance to quell the violence as Mr Zuma had already authorised its deployment until January to assist with public violence nationwide after the Marikana tragedy in September. Mr Maharaj said Ms Zille had to engage with Ms Oliphant and Defence Minister Nosiviwe Mapisa-Nqakula. "There is no need for the president to micromanage everything. Ms Zille should approach the channels available," he said.
Employer body Agri SA said the setting of minimum wages was the sole preserve of government. Agri SA president Johannes Möller said farmers were free to negotiate with workers on pay. "Agri SA has encouraged farmers, where possible, to pay above the minimum wage."
Cape Chamber of Commerce president Fred Jacobs said the government should return to "an empirical methodology" rather than "sucking a number out of the sky to determine what should be paid".
Source: Mail & Guardian
The development came after a day of unprecedented and frequently violent protest action by farm workers in the Western Cape, in which one worker was confirmed dead as a result of police action in Wolseley. Other towns in which protesters clashed with police and public roads were barricaded included: De Doorns, Ceres, Prince Alfred Hamlet, Robertson, Ashton, Bonnievale, Villiersdorp and Piketberg. Amid the chaos, Western Cape Premier Helen Zille warned that the province was "heading for anarchy", and that thousands of jobs could be on the line.
The promised wage review will have profound implications for the agricultural sector, for which the labour minister has set a minimum wage of R70 a day. It could also push up food prices and inflation, and have a knock-on effect on other minimum wages. Western Cape farm workers are demanding R150 a day. If they find the new minimum wage, expected to be announced within two weeks, unacceptable, they will resume striking on December 4. At a press briefing in Cape Town on Wednesday, acting labour minister Angie Motshekga — Labour Minister Mildred Oliphant is out of the country — said a notice will be published in the Government Gazette within a week "indicating the intention to call all interested parties to comment on the possibility to review the sectoral determination". A notice will also be published announcing the cancellation of the existing wage determination, affecting all agricultural workers.
The Employment Conditions Commission, the statutory body which advises the labour minister on minimum wages, was meeting from Wednesday to begin determining a new minimum wage. Employer and worker representatives will have an opportunity to make representations to the commission on appropriate wage levels. There was some uncertainty over whether a single minimum wage for all agricultural sectors will again be set, or whether there will be differentiation according to different province’s products.
Congress of South African Trade Unions (Cosatu) Western Cape secretary Tony Ehrenreich is advocating that there should be differentiation within the sector as some products — such as the table grapes grown in the De Doorns area where the strike began — are more profitable than others.
Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries Minister Tina Joemat-Pettersson said on Wednesday that the commission would have to make recommendations on whether new minimum wages should be set for all provinces, or whether the higher wages would apply only in the Western Cape. However, the cancellation of the existing determination necessarily implies that wages in all provinces be reviewed.
Cosatu, which led the brokering of the deal between the government and the strikers, was confident on Wednesday that workers would return to work, despite the strike spreading across towns and farms in the Western Cape over the past two days. Although not initially involved in the labour action, Cosatu and a coalition of independent unions and nongovernmental organisations active on the farms were "invited" by strikers to represent them in the negotiations. Cosatu subsequently assumed a leading role in the action among workers, of whom only 6% are unionised. Co-ordination of the strike across the towns was achieved largely through the relatively small networks of organisations, which spread word by SMS.
Mr Ehrenreich said the agreement contained three key elements: an urgent review of the national minimum wage; that no disciplinary action be taken against strikers; and that an interim minimum of R80 apply until the new wage is agreed.
Wednesday was the second day of unprecedented and frequently violent protest action by farm workers in the Western Cape. One worker was confirmed dead as a result of police action in incident in the town of Wolseley. Other towns in which protesters clashed with police and public roads were barricaded yesterday included: De Doorns, Ceres, Prince Alfred Hamlet, Robertson, Ashton, Bonnievale, Villiersdorp and Piketberg.
Premier of the Western Cape Premier Helen Ms Zille wrote to President Jacob Zuma on Tuesday, asking him and Ms Oliphant to set a new minimum wage for farm workers. On Wednesday, Ms Zille made a desperate appeal for co-operation to Western Cape African National Congress leader Marius Fransman. "We are heading towards anarchy. Thousands of jobs will be lost and an industry potentially destroyed," she said in an SMS to Mr Fransman. "I am receiving horrific reports of farm worker intimidation. It is essential that we remove politics from this matter and stabilise the situation. I am extremely worried that lives are in danger and that people will retaliate."
Presidency spokesman Mac Maharaj said yesterday that Ms Zille could ask for the South African National Defence Force’s assistance to quell the violence as Mr Zuma had already authorised its deployment until January to assist with public violence nationwide after the Marikana tragedy in September. Mr Maharaj said Ms Zille had to engage with Ms Oliphant and Defence Minister Nosiviwe Mapisa-Nqakula. "There is no need for the president to micromanage everything. Ms Zille should approach the channels available," he said.
Employer body Agri SA said the setting of minimum wages was the sole preserve of government. Agri SA president Johannes Möller said farmers were free to negotiate with workers on pay. "Agri SA has encouraged farmers, where possible, to pay above the minimum wage."
Cape Chamber of Commerce president Fred Jacobs said the government should return to "an empirical methodology" rather than "sucking a number out of the sky to determine what should be paid".
Source: Mail & Guardian
Thursday, November 1, 2012
Land Reform in South Africa: An Unfulfilled Obligation
The question of land and agricultural reform in South Africa remains largely unresolved as we head towards the end of our second decade of democracy. It is remarkable that a democratically elected government, enjoying such an overwhelming parliamentary majority and popular support, has failed so spectacularly, in such an important area of governance, for so long.
It is equally remarkable that the government is still, this late in the day, touting concepts as vague as the five-step programme on land reform recently outlined by President Zuma. Something certainly has to be said about this hot button issue. What with leadership under review, even vapid brainstorms may be interpreted as leadership!
The fact is that land reform, tenure and security has not yet been tackled sufficiently robustly by the democratic government. The early iterations of the land reform process bumbled along with good intentions but with little impact.
The new post 1994 political leadership appeared unable or unwilling to grasp obvious solutions like tapping into the vast collection of state owned land as a starting point. A major roadblock was that the dysfunctional Department of Public Works was unable to quantify state land ownership. This problem remains unresolved. A separate national audit of all private land ownership, meant to be completed in 2010 also awaits completion. No wonder land reform remains so fraught.
We are now in the anomalous position of decreasing numbers of white commercial farmers owning increasingly large farms. This has occurred through the government continuing to support an industrial farming model dependent on high input, energy intensive farming using genetically modified seed. This is the antithesis of farming practice required for land and agrarian reform. Land reform and agricultural practices are inextricably connected if transformation is to succeed.
A global consensus has emerged amongst ideologically disparate organisations like the World Bank, the UN Global Environment Facility and various other UN bodies that diversified, smallholder led, sustainable farming practices are required to feed a growing global population in the face of climatic and economic uncertainty.
The failure to achieve land and agricultural reform has negatively impacted food security. National levels of mal- and under nutrition remain a disgrace in a food exporting nation like South Africa. Land reform, food security, market reform and access to a balanced diet are each distinct aspects of the same problem, none of which have been adequately addressed, let alone resolved.
While the government has made the right noises about land reform during the previous 18 years, little more has been achieved than placating investors while alienating the political support base. The land reform programme started by the 1994 Restitution of Land Rights Act has largely failed key constituencies such as women and marginalised communities who voted the ANC into power.
A green paper on land reform took six years to compile. When it was released in 2011, it said nothing new and was arguably counter-productive. Rural Development and Land Reform Minister Gugile Nkwinti has attempted to fix a broken system but clearly lacks an over-arching vision. There is little work being done on the Land Tenure Security Bill. The Communal Land Resources Act of 2004 was declared unconstitutional in 2010, in a judgement, which turned on technical details yet left the substantiative problems related to communal land ownership unaddressed.
The Extension of Security of Tenure Act, meant to protect vulnerable farm workers and dwellers, has not been adequately enforced. So land tenure and security, both within traditional structures and on conventional farms, remain unresolved.
Agricultural extension and support programmes such as the Comprehensive Agricultural Support Programme (CASP), Micro Agricultural Financial Institutions of South Africa (MAFISA) and the Land Care Foundation have been criticised by both parliamentary committees and by farmers. The present Minister of Agriculture is clearly out of her depth and would not be there except for her obsequious support for the President. Previous Ministers have fared little better.
Neither have supposedly neutral arbiters been much help. Recent proclamations by the Institute of Race Relations (IRR) assumed a particularly tactless stance by claiming “populist” calls for land reform, particularly for agricultural land, were misplaced. The IRR opined that these calls were unrealistic, suggesting that people rather aspired toward middle class, urban lifestyles than toward a return to unglamorous, agrarian roots. While increased urbanisation and the middle class dream may be relevant, this is only one facet of a complex land debate.
Despite a promise to transfer 30% of agricultural land by 2014, only 8% has been transferred to date. Even this is problematic as extension services to newly settled farmers are inadequate and failure rates of new land claimants are high. State extension services can cost more than R40 000 per visit. Smallholder farmers are seldom assisted and extension quality is rated below par.
On the other hand NGO’s and private entities are providing extension services at a fraction of this cost. In KwaZulu Natal a full time extension officer provides support at less than R40 000, to extended communities, per month. There are clearly ways to fix the problems of agrarian reform, more efficiently, flexibly and productively than is presently being done.
Land reform is an undeniably political process. Yet the piecemeal, fragmented and un-coordinated solutions of land and agricultural reform have signally failed to achieve the desired results. The recently released New Growth Plan recognises the importance of the agricultural economy, yet its proposals echo the ASGISA programme, which failed to achieve any significant progress. It is fine and well for the New Growth Plan to propose creation of a million farming jobs by 2030 but how realistic is this given prior delivery experience?
The string of examples cited highlight an overriding reality: That we have attempted to fix a broken system of land and agricultural reform without a suitable overarching vision or template. We have never achieved anything approaching a national consensus on how we should achieve what is clearly urgently required.
It seems obvious that a national summit on land reform should be held. Practical and academic studies and models must be presented, discussed, and a focussed, overarching policy hammered out. The CODESA template would provide a suitable way forward. It may be an expensive exercise but the alternative is to continue to waste billions of Rands, attempting to fix a broken system with broken tools. Some degree of constitutional and legal reform may be required to solve land and agrarian issues, but broad consensus must be gained and then acted upon.
The reality is that the world is rapidly changing. South African agricultural policy has failed to reflect this. Industrial agriculture remains the dominant voice, echoing the past but devoid of a suitable vision for the future. While the old agricultural extension model may have worked in the past, it is increasingly irrelevant.
Extension to large commercial farmers is provided by seed and chemical companies while small and emerging farmers are left in the cold by extension officers incapable of helping them because of poor foundations - agricultural colleges perpetuate outdated practices. Small and emerging farmers need constant, innovative and hands on assistance, not a visit every year or two by extension officers trained in irrelevant methodology.
There are numerous experts with excellent proposals to achieve the required changes. The Programme for Land and Agrarian Reform (PLAAS) at the University of the Western Cape has studied many of these and proposed numerous solutions to various aspects of these systemic problems. The Sustainability Institute at the University of Stellenbosch has implemented several courses examining food production systems at Masters and higher levels.
There are numerous small scale NGO-run schemes, which can be scaled up, just as there are indeed some successful programmes initiated by the government, which can be replicated. Equally, we can learn as much from our failures as from our successes. We should also take some lessons from land reform programmes in South America and elsewhere in Africa.
A broad body of relevant international experience exists, including agricultural programmes devised to withstand the impacts of climate change and water constraints. These are particularly suited to smallholder and emerging farmers. The UN FAO runs regular international dialogues on food security from which our policy makers are notably absent. Most of our systemic shortcomings can be addressed.
We also need to reduce staff turnover with every change of political administration, especially in portfolios like agriculture where institutional memory is so important.
The solutions for land reform are certainly more complex than those related to agricultural solutions, because of the political baggage. However land reform can never succeed if there is not an over-arching model to enable the productive use and resettlement of the land.
It is fruitless to hand over huge parcels of land to new, emerging farmers with inadequate capital resources and no means to leverage land for capital collateral. Most of the land presently being transferred to new owners is not even transferred, but leased, almost setting the system up for failure.
We urgently need to move away from the failed dialogue of the deaf between government and commercial farmers. We need wider expertise, broader buy-in and the involvement of grass roots farmers if this system is to succeed. All of the interests and experts in this field must co-operate to solve this problem for once and for all.
Or we can just muddle along, floating woolly concepts until the fuse for the powder keg is lit by circumstance or a Malema clone, placing expediency above the collective interest.
Source: by Glenn Ashton: SACSIS
It is equally remarkable that the government is still, this late in the day, touting concepts as vague as the five-step programme on land reform recently outlined by President Zuma. Something certainly has to be said about this hot button issue. What with leadership under review, even vapid brainstorms may be interpreted as leadership!
The fact is that land reform, tenure and security has not yet been tackled sufficiently robustly by the democratic government. The early iterations of the land reform process bumbled along with good intentions but with little impact.
The new post 1994 political leadership appeared unable or unwilling to grasp obvious solutions like tapping into the vast collection of state owned land as a starting point. A major roadblock was that the dysfunctional Department of Public Works was unable to quantify state land ownership. This problem remains unresolved. A separate national audit of all private land ownership, meant to be completed in 2010 also awaits completion. No wonder land reform remains so fraught.
We are now in the anomalous position of decreasing numbers of white commercial farmers owning increasingly large farms. This has occurred through the government continuing to support an industrial farming model dependent on high input, energy intensive farming using genetically modified seed. This is the antithesis of farming practice required for land and agrarian reform. Land reform and agricultural practices are inextricably connected if transformation is to succeed.
A global consensus has emerged amongst ideologically disparate organisations like the World Bank, the UN Global Environment Facility and various other UN bodies that diversified, smallholder led, sustainable farming practices are required to feed a growing global population in the face of climatic and economic uncertainty.
The failure to achieve land and agricultural reform has negatively impacted food security. National levels of mal- and under nutrition remain a disgrace in a food exporting nation like South Africa. Land reform, food security, market reform and access to a balanced diet are each distinct aspects of the same problem, none of which have been adequately addressed, let alone resolved.
While the government has made the right noises about land reform during the previous 18 years, little more has been achieved than placating investors while alienating the political support base. The land reform programme started by the 1994 Restitution of Land Rights Act has largely failed key constituencies such as women and marginalised communities who voted the ANC into power.
A green paper on land reform took six years to compile. When it was released in 2011, it said nothing new and was arguably counter-productive. Rural Development and Land Reform Minister Gugile Nkwinti has attempted to fix a broken system but clearly lacks an over-arching vision. There is little work being done on the Land Tenure Security Bill. The Communal Land Resources Act of 2004 was declared unconstitutional in 2010, in a judgement, which turned on technical details yet left the substantiative problems related to communal land ownership unaddressed.
The Extension of Security of Tenure Act, meant to protect vulnerable farm workers and dwellers, has not been adequately enforced. So land tenure and security, both within traditional structures and on conventional farms, remain unresolved.
Agricultural extension and support programmes such as the Comprehensive Agricultural Support Programme (CASP), Micro Agricultural Financial Institutions of South Africa (MAFISA) and the Land Care Foundation have been criticised by both parliamentary committees and by farmers. The present Minister of Agriculture is clearly out of her depth and would not be there except for her obsequious support for the President. Previous Ministers have fared little better.
Neither have supposedly neutral arbiters been much help. Recent proclamations by the Institute of Race Relations (IRR) assumed a particularly tactless stance by claiming “populist” calls for land reform, particularly for agricultural land, were misplaced. The IRR opined that these calls were unrealistic, suggesting that people rather aspired toward middle class, urban lifestyles than toward a return to unglamorous, agrarian roots. While increased urbanisation and the middle class dream may be relevant, this is only one facet of a complex land debate.
Despite a promise to transfer 30% of agricultural land by 2014, only 8% has been transferred to date. Even this is problematic as extension services to newly settled farmers are inadequate and failure rates of new land claimants are high. State extension services can cost more than R40 000 per visit. Smallholder farmers are seldom assisted and extension quality is rated below par.
On the other hand NGO’s and private entities are providing extension services at a fraction of this cost. In KwaZulu Natal a full time extension officer provides support at less than R40 000, to extended communities, per month. There are clearly ways to fix the problems of agrarian reform, more efficiently, flexibly and productively than is presently being done.
Land reform is an undeniably political process. Yet the piecemeal, fragmented and un-coordinated solutions of land and agricultural reform have signally failed to achieve the desired results. The recently released New Growth Plan recognises the importance of the agricultural economy, yet its proposals echo the ASGISA programme, which failed to achieve any significant progress. It is fine and well for the New Growth Plan to propose creation of a million farming jobs by 2030 but how realistic is this given prior delivery experience?
The string of examples cited highlight an overriding reality: That we have attempted to fix a broken system of land and agricultural reform without a suitable overarching vision or template. We have never achieved anything approaching a national consensus on how we should achieve what is clearly urgently required.
It seems obvious that a national summit on land reform should be held. Practical and academic studies and models must be presented, discussed, and a focussed, overarching policy hammered out. The CODESA template would provide a suitable way forward. It may be an expensive exercise but the alternative is to continue to waste billions of Rands, attempting to fix a broken system with broken tools. Some degree of constitutional and legal reform may be required to solve land and agrarian issues, but broad consensus must be gained and then acted upon.
The reality is that the world is rapidly changing. South African agricultural policy has failed to reflect this. Industrial agriculture remains the dominant voice, echoing the past but devoid of a suitable vision for the future. While the old agricultural extension model may have worked in the past, it is increasingly irrelevant.
Extension to large commercial farmers is provided by seed and chemical companies while small and emerging farmers are left in the cold by extension officers incapable of helping them because of poor foundations - agricultural colleges perpetuate outdated practices. Small and emerging farmers need constant, innovative and hands on assistance, not a visit every year or two by extension officers trained in irrelevant methodology.
There are numerous experts with excellent proposals to achieve the required changes. The Programme for Land and Agrarian Reform (PLAAS) at the University of the Western Cape has studied many of these and proposed numerous solutions to various aspects of these systemic problems. The Sustainability Institute at the University of Stellenbosch has implemented several courses examining food production systems at Masters and higher levels.
There are numerous small scale NGO-run schemes, which can be scaled up, just as there are indeed some successful programmes initiated by the government, which can be replicated. Equally, we can learn as much from our failures as from our successes. We should also take some lessons from land reform programmes in South America and elsewhere in Africa.
A broad body of relevant international experience exists, including agricultural programmes devised to withstand the impacts of climate change and water constraints. These are particularly suited to smallholder and emerging farmers. The UN FAO runs regular international dialogues on food security from which our policy makers are notably absent. Most of our systemic shortcomings can be addressed.
We also need to reduce staff turnover with every change of political administration, especially in portfolios like agriculture where institutional memory is so important.
The solutions for land reform are certainly more complex than those related to agricultural solutions, because of the political baggage. However land reform can never succeed if there is not an over-arching model to enable the productive use and resettlement of the land.
It is fruitless to hand over huge parcels of land to new, emerging farmers with inadequate capital resources and no means to leverage land for capital collateral. Most of the land presently being transferred to new owners is not even transferred, but leased, almost setting the system up for failure.
We urgently need to move away from the failed dialogue of the deaf between government and commercial farmers. We need wider expertise, broader buy-in and the involvement of grass roots farmers if this system is to succeed. All of the interests and experts in this field must co-operate to solve this problem for once and for all.
Or we can just muddle along, floating woolly concepts until the fuse for the powder keg is lit by circumstance or a Malema clone, placing expediency above the collective interest.
Source: by Glenn Ashton: SACSIS
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)