Mourning Madiba

South Africa’s former President and global icon Nelson ‘Rolihlahla’ Mandela has died aged 95.

Mandela died aged 95 (pic SABC)

Mandela was hospitalised repeatedly over the past year and in June it was announced the former statesman was in a critical condition. Rumours then circulated that he was being kept on life support, but he was eventually released from hospital care and returned to his Johannesburg home.

Current President Jacob Zuma announced Mandela’s death on Thursday night. He died in his Houghton home.

Seen as the last truly global icon, Mandela has for years been regarded as the embodiment of tolerance and peace. He is revered around the world for bringing South Africa back from the brink of national chaos and firmly ending the inequality and cruelty of the apartheid era.

During the apartheid years Mandela was arrested and convicted of sabotage and conspiracy to overthrow the government, and sentenced to life imprisonment. He spent 27 in prison, including time on Robben Island, in Pollsmoor and Victor Verster prisons, before his release in 1990.

Four years later, South Africa held its first democratic elections and Mandela was inaugurated as President a few months after that poll.

As South Africa’s first black President, he was not content with bringing such an important change to the country, but also strived to bring real reconciliation to the ‘rainbow nation’. He repeatedly emphasised this message of personal forgiveness and reconciliation and famously announced in 1995 that "courageous people do not fear forgiving, for the sake of peace."

Although only President for one term, the unity and relative peace seen in the country for many years has been attributed to the ‘Madiba magic’ that he managed to spread across the nation. For many South Africans, that ‘magic’ helped develop a vision of a South Africa free from its troubled past, where the country’s legacy would not be rooted in hate, but inspired by tolerance.

“What counts in life is not the mere fact that we have lived. It is what difference we have made to the lives of others that will determine the significance of the life we lead.” – Mandela, 2002

Mandela was also loved throughout the rest of the world, revered as a voice of truth and of right in the face of wrong. This saw him win hundreds of noted international awards, including the 1993 Nobel Peace Prize, the US Presidential Medal of Freedom and the Soviet Order of Lenin.

In Zimbabwe, Mandela will be remembered as a respected liberation leader. For many Zimbabweans however, Mandela will also be remembered for not speaking out against Robert Mugabe, despite the human rights abuses being committed by his regime. In 2008, when politically motivated violence was on the rise in Zimbabwe, Mandela came under huge pressure to publicly condemn what was happening.

He eventually made a comment during a visit to the UK, where he said that there was a "tragic failure of leadership" in Zimbabwe. The comment, though lauded as a strong condemnation, was criticised for not being critical enough. The excuse given was that Mandela did not want to interfere in a situation meant to be under the control of his political successor Thabo Mbeki, who in turn faced condemnation for his policy of ‘quiet diplomacy’ towards the crisis in Zimbabwe.

19 years since Mandela become president, South Africa’s battles have changed, with poverty, corruption and crime still regarded as major challenges preventing the relatively new democracy from achieving greatness. But there is hope that the ‘Madiba magic’ will not fade, and his legacy will live on

“For to be free is not merely to cast off one’s chains, but to live in a way that respects and enhances the freedom of others.” – Long Walk To Freedom

No African leadership prize in 2013 as African leaders fight for impunity

There is little coincidence that the respected Mo Ibrahim Foundation once again did not declare a winner for African leadership during its 2013 Ibrahim Index of African Governance presentation on Monday, despite the 'gains' in governance and development the Foundation has praised.

The award is only considered for FORMER heads of state, and to win, they must fulfill the following criteria: be a democratically elected former African Head of State or Government who has left office in the previous three years; have served her/his constitutionally mandated term; and have demonstrated excellence in office, helping to lift people out of poverty and paving the way for sustainable and equitable prosperity.

But for the FOURTH time since the prize was established in 2007, and for the second consecutive year, the award in 2013 has no recipient.

The non-award has coincided with the proposal raised at an African Union (AU) summit over the weekend that sitting heads of state be immune from prosecution at the International Criminal Court. The proposal was raised at a meeting specifically called to look at Africa's relationship with the court, with pressure building for African member nations to withdraw.

The two may not be in any way linked, and as many commentators have said, there has been significant progress in terms of governance figures in Africa that suggest not all is doom and gloom (read the 2013 Mo Ibrahim Index here).

But it is a coincidence too glaring to overlook. On one hand you have another empty award, which can be read as yet another sign of the void of decent leadership in Africa. On the other hand you have a proposal so shocking, that the integrity of the continent has again been brought into question.

 

Daniel Bekele (pictured) the Executive Director of the Africa Division of Human Rights Watch, was among the many to criticise the African leaders. He said, in a Dispatches report on the HRW wesbsite that the "depressing truth" about the AU meeting in Addis Ababa "is that the main issue on the agenda was how to protect a handful of Africa’s most powerful people."

"AU leaders concluded that instead of addressing any of the urgent human rights disasters that threaten Africans, displacing millions and forcing tens of thousands to flee abroad, the most urgent issue was to unite their voices to obstruct the work of the International Criminal Court (ICC), which has become the last, best hope for many of those Africans who have been victims of  atrocities implicating some of these very same leaders," Bekele said.

He added that despite the AU "paying lip service to ending impunity, the central proposal out of Addis was that sitting heads of state or anybody acting or entitled to act in such a capacity should have immunity from prosecution. That means Sudanese President Omar al-Bashir should be not be required to appear for trial for genocide and crimes against humanity, or Kenyan President Uhuru Kenyatta for crimes against humanity. (Let’s not forget that Bashir is currently the only head of state aside from Syria’s Bashar al-Assad who is implicated in bombing his own people on a daily basis.)"

Meanwhile, Peter Fabricius, the foreign editor of Independent Newspapers in South Africa, has questioned in the Au proposal was a 'red herring'. He wrote in an opinion piece that "the AU summit did not decide that African states should withdraw from the ICC. Many commentators welcomed this decision as a victory for Africa’s fight against impunity."

"But was it such a great victory? Or was the threat of total withdrawal always just a red herring? Did it distract our attention from what the AU leaders actually decided in the end – that all other Africans should remain subject to ICC prosecution – while granting themselves impunity?" Fabricius questioned.

The precedent being set in Africa right now is a seriously disturbing one, but is there still hope as the Mo Ibrahim Foundation believes. What are your views? Let me know.

Would you give Zimbabwe's army military grade helicopters?

I know I wouldn't, if it was in my power to make such decisions. And you don't need to search too hard on Google to understand why the notoriously pro-Mugabe military in Zimbabwe should not be further supported in terms of such hardware.

So why and how did the South African National Defence Force think they could get away with donating a full fleet? Did they think no one would notice?

Luckily, groups like AfriForum exist for the simple fact that they challenged this donation, and this week an interdict against the delivery of the helicopters was upheld.

Here's my latest report:

A fleet of helicopters that were set to be donated to Zimbabwe’s military by the South African National Defence Force (SANDF), will remain where they are for now.

The North Gauteng High Court in South Africa on Thursday upheld an interdict against the delivery of the helicopters, meaning the donation will not happen in the near future. The Court also ordered the government to pay costs for Thursday’s legal proceedings.

The legal battle began soon after it emerged in January that the SANDF was planning to gift its fleet of unused Alouette helicopters to the Zimbabwean army. Civil rights group AfriForum had applied for an urgent interdict to stop the donation and that interim interdict was granted to allow time for the main application challenging the donation to be finalised.

AfriForum is arguing against the donation on the basis that Zimbabwe’s human rights record indicates that the helicopters could be used to facilitate oppression. The group has warned that South Africa would be complicit in such oppression if it willing gifted the helicopters, in spite of the human rights record across the border.

This is of particular concern as Zimbabwe heads towards elections, and incidents of politically motivated violence as well as a crackdown on civil society have intensified.

AfriForum’s legal representative Willie Spies told SW Radio Africa on Thursday that the interdict was upheld because of a ‘concession’ by the government’s legal team.

“It was quite an awkward experience. We were ready for the process and had gone to a great deal of trouble to ensure the matter was brought before court in a relatively small amount of time. That was on the insistence of the legal team of the government,” Spies explained.

He continued: “But all a sudden the senior advocate for the government indicated he was not well and was not ready to carry on. And the government just tendered costs and said the matter should be postponed for an indefinite period. They also offered that the interim indict be maintained until the process is finalised.”

“So it’s quite a concession by the government lawyers and means the matter was not formally heard. We are satisfied for the simple reason that the helicopters will not be exported, will not be donated, will not be delivered.”

Spies went on to explain that they are now waiting for the government’s lawyers to proceed, but stressed “we won’t rush the matter. As soon as the government’s lawyers are ready, we will go to court. In the time being, we have what we need.”

“The only way the helicopters will be donated is if the government’s lawyers successfully challenge our review application. I have serious doubts that they will be successful. We have a very strong case. I’m not convinced they have a strong case. The fact that the lead council today essentially kicked for touch is indicated that they are not confident to go to court,” Spies said.

Zimbabwe's diamonds: How political will and new 'diplomacy' is still standing in the way

Zimbabwe's diamond sector remains the giant screaming elephant in the room in terms of Southern African development, because the riches quite simply have changed the face of diplomacy in the space of a few years. From being a condemnable epicentre of human rights abuses (including murder, beatings, forced labour and more) Zimbabwe's lucrative diamond fields are now the centre of diplomatic wrangling, with everyone wanting their slice of this shiny pie. 

Cynic I may be, but there is no denying that the outrage that followed the 2008 murder of hundreds of diamond panners at the hands of the Zim military (who gunned down scores of people in single rounds of gun fire from helicopters) has morphed into a tragic acceptance that this was 'collateral damage'. 

Those abuses will never be investigated. Those lost lives will never be honoured  The horrific abuses that followed (and reportedly still happen) will not receive any outcry. And you can thank the Western world for this state of affairs.

The biggest slap in the face for many Zimbabweans (and other concerned people) however will be the fact that this situation is being actively normalised, not for the sake of the millions who need the diamond riches to be utilised to improve their lives, but rather to enrich a corrupt minority. 

So moving to my latest article on the situation:

A complete overhaul of Zimbabwe’s political framework has been described as the key to unlocking the country’s true diamond potential, which remains under a cloud of corruption and suspicion.

Noted human rights defender Farai Maguwu (pictured below), who is the Director of the Centre for Natural Resource Governance, made these comments during an interview with me on Tuesday. He was explaining how the Zimbabwe Diamond Policy, adopted by the government last year, is not enough to ensure the diamond sector becomes a transparent, accountable, beneficial one.

Farai Maguwu from the Centre for Natural Resource Governance

The Centre this week released a full analysis of the Diamond Policy, stating that while the Policy is a good starting point to improve governance in Zimbabwe’s diamond, it does need revision. The Centre states in its analysis key issues remain unaddressed, namely investor identification, revenue transparency, community participation, mine closure, environmental impacts and access to information, among other things.

Maguwu said that the major problem in the sector is a result of a lack of political will, which is preventing proper governance and oversight in the industry.

“It is an issue of politics. I have always said that Marange (diamond fields) should not be seen as an island, because it is a part of Zimbabwe that is experiencing the same governance problems in every sector in the country. Unless there is a turnaround in the way we think and the way we do things politically, there won’t be the quick turnaround we need,” Maguwu said.

He added: “We need political will; we need good leaders who have the interests of citizens at heart. Not the current situation where we have unpatriotic elites who are doing things for themselves and not for the people.”

Maguwu also explained that aside from the ‘internal’ problems dogging the industry, there are also external factors.

“We have (diamond) dealers who are taking advantage of the weak political, institutional, legislation and policy framework in Zimbabwe to do underhand deals and in the process are prejudicing Zimbabwe of millions of dollars,” Maguwu explained.

He said that while the Diamond Policy is an acknowledgement by the government of the need for such a policy, there is still c critical need for revision.

“The Policy does not show that government has learned from it past mistakes … I don’t think we have addressed the fundamental problems and checks and balance in whole value chain,” Maguwu said.