Jafta Kgalabi Masemola – “The Tiger of Azania”

On this day 17th April, 1990, exactly 24 years ago, the PAC of Azania was robbed of one of its greatest leaders, Jafta Kgalabi Masemola – ‘The Tiger of Azania’, who died in a mysterious car crash or accident six months after spending over 26 years on Robben Island and other apartheid prisons. It will be remembered that Jafta Masemola, popularly known as ‘Bro Jeff’, and others including Judge Dikgang Moseneke were arrested on the night of the 21st March 1963 in Atteridgeville, some in Lady Selborne, Mamelodi, Hebron High School where Kilnerton Training Institution had been moved to. They were all underground operatives of the banned Pan Africanist Congress of Azania (PAC) at the time of Poqo the forerunner of the Azanian People’s Liberation Army (APLA). Prior to his arrest, he had been teaching at Atteridgeville (in a temporary capacity) then to Rama village (in a permanent capacity) and subsequently Banareng Primary School, at Atteridgeville, where Isaac Rammopo Makhudu was Principal.

He was charged with 15 others and sentenced to life imprisonment by Mr. Justice Cilliers sitting with two assessors in the Pretoria Supreme Court on July 2, 1963 for conspiracy to commit acts of sabotage and overthrowing the government by violent means. The other PAC-Poqo activists who were sentenced to life imprisonment and incarcerated on Robben Island with Jafta Masemola included John Nkosi (still alive), Ike Mthimunye (still alive), Philemon Tefu (no more), Samuel ‘Chips’ Chibane (no more), Dimake ‘Pro’ Malepe (no more). Jafta Masemola spent 23 years on Robben Island and the rest in the Sun City Prison from where he was released on October 10, 1989. The very day he was released he was flown to Cape Town to meet Nelson Mandela at Victor Verster Prison. After his meeting with Mandela, he was flown back to Johannesburg where he joined Walter Sisulu, Mkwayi, Kathrada, Motsoaledi and Mlangeni who were also released at that time.

On arrival at his home on 26 Makgatho street, Atteridgeville, Jafta arrived to a jubilant welcome from neighbours, friends, family members, former students and PAC members including Zephania Mothopeng, then President of the PAC. Jafta did not waste time. He immediately plunged into intense political activities travelling the length and breath of the country reviving and establishing PAC structures. In Atteridgeville, the people organised a home-coming celebration which attracted a huge crowd that filled the super stadium. This event unsettled the apartheid authorities who intervened and sent the police to disperse the crowd. Jafta had to be whisked out of the stadium before he could address the people that had come to welcome him. This was the beginning of strict surveillance on his life and activities. It is evident that his movements were closely watched and followed because the day he died he was not accompanied by anybody.

Jafta was a tireless and great organizer; a powerful speaker; disciplined, incorruptible, committed, fearless, selfless, straightforward and uncompromising; that is why the apartheid authorities feared and hated him because he was not the type to do business with. He was not amenable for their liking. He was like Sobukwe and Mothopeng. And like these leaders, he died at the time when PAC needed a leader of his caliber, stature and credentials. As we remember Jafta on this day, let us stop looking for a leader; let us build and develop leaders of tomorrow who will sustain this party into the future. The PAC will finally not survive if it continues to be as divided and fragmented as it is currently. The PAC must unite to become effective and thus restore its image and the dignity of the Great Mangaliso Robert Sobukwe, Zephania Lekoane Mothopeng -‘The Lion of Azania’and Jafta Kgalabi Masemola – ‘The Tiger of Azania’ and of all other PAC stalwarts and struggle heroes who served, suffered and sacrificed for national liberation, self-determination and social emancipation of the indigenous African people of this country and the entire African continent.

Izwe Lethu!

By Molefe Ike Mafole
The writer is a member of the Azania People’s Liberation Army (APLA) Military Veterans Association and a member of the PAC of Azania. He can be contacted on 072 630 2206.

Dr. Motsoko Pheko

The year 2014 in South Africa marks 100 years since John Dube, Sol Plaatje and three other leaders of the South African Native National Congress (SANNC) presented a petition to King George V of England. They were protesting against the colonial land dispossession of the African people of this country which created massive poverty. Britain had, in 1913 allocated five million African people 7% of their own land against 93% to its 349,837 colonial European settlers. In this petition the African leaders demanded “…that the natives [indigenous Africans] be put in possession of land in proportion to their numbers, and on the same conditions as the white race.” King George V and his British government ignored this petition. This was not surprising. A British colonial official Earl Glen had earlier said, “The Blacks [Africans] are generally looked upon by Whites as an inferior race whose interests must be systematically disregarded when they come into competition with their own and should be governed with a view to the advantage of the superior race. For this reason, two things must be afforded to white colonists obtaining land….The Kaffirs should be made to furnish as large and cheap labour as possible.”

In 1902, just seven years before the British formed its colonies of Cape, Transvaal, Natal and Orange Free State into a Union of South Africa in 1909; Cecil Rhodes, that arch agent of British imperialism had said, “I prefer land to niggers…the natives are children. They are just emerging from barbarism.” An informed London Daily newspaper, however, when reporting the land dispossession of Africans in South Africa, on 20th July 1914, said: “In carving out estates for themselves in Africa, the white races have shown little regard for the claims of the black man. They have appropriated his land and have taken away his economic freedom and have left him in a worse case than they found him….The blacks as compared with whites are in proportion of four to one, but are in legal occupation of only one-fifteenth of their land. The deputation of natives now in England has appealed to the imperial government for protection.”

All genuine African leaders in Azania (South Africa) have always rejected the land dispossession of their people. When Jan van Riebeeck, a colonialist from Europe told the Khoi Africans to reduce their cattle as there were not enough pastures for the cattle of the colonising settlers and those of the Africans; the leader of the Khoi, Doman asked, “Who then, with the greatest degree of justice should give way to land, the natural owner, or the foreign invader?” Doman added, “If we [Africans], were to come to Europe; would we be permitted to act in similar manner you act here? It would not matter if you stayed at the ‘provision station’ [at Table Mountain on your way to Asia for trade in spices], but you come out here to the interior. You select the best land for yourselves. You never ask us even once whether we like it or not, or whether it will disadvantage us.”

For his part, when the Boers seized over half of his country, Lesotho, despite the 1843 Treaty between the Basotho and the British government; King Moshoeshoe said, “The white people seem to be bent on proving that in politics Christianity plays no part….It may be you whites do not steal cattle, but you steal whole countries. If you had your wish you would send us to pasture our cattle in the clouds…whites are stealing Blackman’s land in the Cape to here [Free State part of Lesotho] and call it theirs.”

Land was the primary contradiction of the African liberation struggle until it was betrayed by some African leaders, in South Africa in June 1955, misled by white neo-liberals masquerading as “communists.” In 1943, the Congress Youth League under the leadership of Muziwakhe Lembede and A.P. Mda launched a manifesto which declared, “The white race, possessing superior military power has arrogated to itself the ownership of land. This has meant that the Africans who had the land before the advent of whites, has been deprived of security which may guarantee or ensure his leading a free and unhampered life.”

The constitution of “New South Africa” has ignored all these facts of colonial history in Azania (South Africa). Section 25(7) is simply a disguised name for the Native land Act 1913. It does not allow land claims by Africans before June 1913. The Mandela – De Klerk “negotiations” were not about land dispossession of the African people. Their main purpose was to save a collapsing apartheid colonial economy. John Pilger, in his book Betrayal Of South African Revolution reminds us how in September 1985, the “Freedom Charter” ANC leaders met a group of whites in Lusaka led by the chairman of the Anglo-American Corporation, Gavin Relly, when he says “The stock market had crashed the apartheid regime defaulted on its debt and the chieftains of the South African capital took fright. Their message to the ANC was that transition was possible, only if ‘order’ and ‘stability’ were guaranteed. This was reference to a ‘free market’ state where social justice would not be a priority.”

Was the ANC government Marikana massacre of 34 African workers at a platinum mine on 16 August 2012, a guarantee of this ‘order’ and ‘stability’? Prof Sampie Terreblanche, in his book A History Of Inequality in South Africa 1652-2002 corroborates that the “negotiations” in CODESA in South Africa were not about the liberation of the African people and their repossession of their land and its riches. He states that “The ANC’s core leaders effectively sold its sovereign freedom to implement an independent and appropriate socio-economic policy for a mess of pottage when it entered into several compromises with its corporate sector and its global partners. These unfortunate ‘transactions’ must be retracted or re-negotiated.”

Political power without economic power is a myth. Land is life. Life is land. Food, houses, farms, herbs for medicines, animal pastures, gold, diamonds, platinum and other mineral wealth are not in the sky or air. They are in the land. Land is the principal means of producing all the necessities of life. That is why colonialists always target the land of other people. When Cecil Rhodes said, “I prefer land to niggers,” he was making the crude and barbaric philosophy of imperialism very clear.

Celebrating “freedom” without the colonially seized land and its riches returning to its indigenous owners is self-cheating. A vote without ownership of land by the dispossessed is political docility. After 20 years of “freedom” and “democracy” in South Africa, Africans are still celebrating appeasement to the forces of colonialism and apartheid. This appeasement has resulted in “two nations” living side by side. One is extremely rich living a first world economy. It is a white minority. The other one is extremely poor living a third world economy. It is an indisputable 79.2% African majority. In the “rainbow nation,” Africans are evicted from land with monotonous regularity. They are the most unemployed and unskilled people. Many young women who could have been educated to become medical doctors, engineers, geologists, agric-economists, pilots etc are today suffering the humiliation of living on the proceeds of prostitution. They are now called “sex workers.”

In “New South Africa,” many young African men who joined the armed struggle and fought against the crime of apartheid have been languishing in prisons of “New South Africa” for twenty years. This is despite the fact that the United Nations declared apartheid a crime against humanity through its International Convention on the Suppression and Punishment of the Crime of Apartheid. The poorest people in South Africa are Africans. Millions of Africans are living in squalid shacks and inhuman squatter camps which often burn up or gets flooded, killing many people. Africans live on unhealthy diets. They suffer the shortest life expectancy and highest child mortality. That is why the African petition to King George V in July 1914, demanded “that the Africans [must] be put in possession of land in proportion to their numbers and on the same conditions as the white race.” “Liberation” of a land dispossessed people without the return of their land its resources is a gigantic colonial fraud. Let the dispossessed celebrate land repossession and its riches on 27 April 2015 and be truly liberated.

By Dr. Motsoko Pheko
The writer is former member of the South African Parliament and author of books such as THE HIDEN SIDE OF SOUTH AFRICAN POLITICS, TOWARDS AFRICA’S AUTHENTIC LIBERATION and 100 YEARS Of Native Land Act. He can be contacted on 0761414204.

This is not a reaction but a response to Mr. Barney Mthombothi’s article which appeared in the Opinion section of the Sunday Times newspaper of 11 May 2014. What he says about the PAC has been said so many times by analysts and journalists in this country especially in post 1994 era. They, like him have predicted and wished the demise or extinction of the PAC from the political scene in this country; some even went as far as using the word annihilation. The PAC has been buried so many times but, like a cat with nine lives, continues to exist because all these analysis are based on wishful thinking by those who have embraced the neoliberal paradigm and benefit on the continued poverty of the African majority who have yet to enjoy the fruits of their sweat and blood, 20 years down the line.

We, the loyal disciples of the Great Mangaliso Robert Sobukwe understand and appreciate the views expressed by Mr. Mthombothi who is part of the elites that ‘eat good and dress good’ (Malcolm X or Malik Shabaaz) whilst the masses of the poorest of poor, the have-nots and the dispossessed continue to live in abject poverty and squalor. The PAC will continue to exist for as long the African people are there in this country and on the continent. We will not abandon our worldview simply because a journalist says “it seems it (PAC) can’t survive in an open democracy”. The PAC survived during the most ferocious repression when most of its underground Poqo operatives were hanged at the Pretoria Central Prison early to mid-1960s and the graves of most of these freedom fighters have yet to be identified.

Our worldview is anchored in the African people; it is in their innermost feeling. This is Africanism and Pan Africanism. The former upholds the material, spiritual and intellectual needs and interests of the African people and at continental level PAC stands for the total liberation and unification of Africa from Cape to Cairo, Madagascar to Morocco.

For the PAC, African unity is not integration, it is the creation of the United States of Africa and this will become a reality the day African leaders relinquish or surrender sovereignty to the Union of African states and thus end fragmentation of Africa. In this connection, Sobukwe says: “South Africa is an integral part of the African continent…” and he further goes on to say “the struggle in South Africa is part of the greater struggle throughout the continent for the restoration to the African people of the effective control of their land”. On the basis of this worldview we will continue to stand for the truth and the truth is that we do not own this land and its resources below and above ground and yet we are said to be ‘free’. We are not talking about piecemeal solutions to the land issue. We are not apologetic. We are not here to appease. That is why we are destabilized. Mr. Mthombothi you are aware that “private individuals and foreigners own close to 80 percent of South African land,” according to the latest land audit (Pretoria News, Friday September 6, 2013, front page).

We are happy that there are new political forces that have picked up what we have been saying since the inception of the PAC in April 1959. This has rekindled hope and confidence in the ranks of the PAC not to give up or abandon ship. All what we need to do is to unite and disappoint our detractors and thus restore the dignity of our founding leader – the Great Mangaliso Robert Sobukwe and other stalwarts and struggle heroes of this Party of the African people who served, suffered and sacrificed for the liberation of this our ancestral heritage – Azania.

Mr. Mthombothi, ‘African Renaissance’ is not Pan Africanism and because of this, it cannot make the PAC superfluous. Yes it did destabilize some of our members who were not strong enough ideologically but that was just ephemeral. Pan Africanism from its founding and from of its earlier founders such as Edward Blyden to the Manchester Congress in 1945, with W.E.B. du Bois, George Padmore ,T. Ras Makonnen, Jomo Kenyatta, Hastings Banda, Peter Abrahams and Dr. Kwame Nkrumah has always been socialist and poor people oriented. This is what the PAC represents to date and will continue to until others realize the correctness of our position because we believe in the dialectical process. Nothing is static or immutable. That is why, the PAC will sooner or later make a come back with determination and vigour to claim its political and ideological space or terrain in this country.

Izwe Lethu! Pamberi!

By Molefe ‘Ike’ Mafole
The writer is a Member of the PAC of Azania (PAC) and the Azanian People’s Liberation Army (APLA) Military Veterans Association. He can be contacted on 072 630 2206.

AFRICA DAY – Source: http://www.himajina.blogspot.com

INTRODUCTION……

The PAC must be seen to be active throughout the year; and to make this possible, PAC structures must make use of the calendar dates that mark some of the key events relating to past party activities, campaigns and memorials of the life of its leaders. The following are some of the important landmarks in the life of the PAC from its inception to date.

THE STATUS CAMPAIGN (Launched 2 August 1959)……

This was the first PAC campaign at its inception that focused on the mental and psychological state of the African people. At that time Africans were not only politically subjugated and economically exploited but they were also mentally and psychologically subjugated. It is important that we remember this campaign at the beginning of every year so that we gear ourselves for the whole year.

That is why Sobukwe observed that: “now for over three hundred years, the white foreign ruling minority has used its power to inculcate in the African the feeling of inferiority. This group has educated the African to accept the status quo of white supremacy and Black inferiority as normal”. It is our task to exorcise this slave mentality and to impart to the African masses that sense of self-reliance which will make them choose ’to starve in freedom rather than have plenty in bondage.’ We are reminding our people that acceptance of any indignity, any insult, any humiliation, is acceptance of inferiority. They must first think of themselves as men and women before they can demand to be treated as such. The campaign will free the mind of the African – and once the mind is free, the body will soon be free. Once white supremacy has become mentally untenable to our people, it will become physically untenable too – and will go.”

Briefly these are the core ideas of the status campaign which was all-embracing, multi-frontal and multi-faceted and covered the ideological, political, economic, social and cultural aspects of the lives of the African majority. This campaign is still valid. Its main thrust should be to expose the current false consciousness prevalent in the masses of the poor in our communities urban and rural and replace it with a true consciousness that is a reflection of the material conditions of the masses of the poorest of the poor, the have-nots and the dispossessed in our country. It is this campaign that fired the youth of the 1960s that became Poqo militants who carried the struggle forward under new conditions of armed conflict whilst our leaders were in prison.

SOBUKWE DAY (27 February)……

This is the day (27 February 1978) on which the PAC lost its great founder leader; a man of great intellect; a man of courage; a fearlessness man; a man with a purpose, mission, commitment, dedication and feared by the white minority oppressors who ensured that he died of torture and pain. The loss of Sobukwe resulted in the PAC losing direction and effectiveness. The PAC has since been in the wilderness and not making impact in the politics of this country despite its liberation struggle credentials. It is time the dignity of Sobukwe is restored and this will happen the day the PAC reorganizes itself and produce a credible leadership.

SHARPEVILLE DAY (21 March)……

21 March 1960 is the day that ended non-violence and passive resistance as a method of struggle and philosophy in the struggle in South Africa. In fact Mahatma Gandhi left with the latter to India where it was applicable. Sharpeville and Langa Massacres ushered in the new era of armed struggle that saw the emergence of Poqo – the forerunner of the Azanian People’s Liberation Army (APLA). It is this method of struggle combined with mass struggles inside the country and external support that finally brought political freedom to South Africa which has yet to be complimented by economic liberation hence the unfinished business and the cry ‘NOT YET UHURU’.

PAC ANNIVERSARY (6 April)……

The 6th April 1959 marks the day on which the Pan Africanist Congress of Azania was formed/ founded. It is coincidentally the day the first Dutch colonialists arrived (6 April 1652) on the shores of the tip of the African continent in three ships: the dromedaries, the Goode Hoop and the Reiger. On this day was launched the ship of freedom of the African people. Sobukwe stated that, “on that historic day the African people declared total war against white domination, not only in South Africa but throughout the continent. On that day there entered into the Maelstrom of South African politics an organization committed to the overthrow of white supremacy and the establishment of an Africanist Socialist Democracy”. The President of the PAC also rejected what is called “South African Exceptionalism” because for the PAC South Africa is an integral part of the African continent and the outcome of the scramble for Africa and the division and re-division of Africa among the imperial powers following the Berlin congress of 1884-85.

JAFTA KGALABI MASEMOLA DAY (17 April)……

This day marks the tragic death (on 17 April 1990) of Jafta Kgalabi Masemola – The Tiger of Azania. He died in a mysterious car crash. The truck that crashed his car/beetle disappeared from the scene of the accident. No one ever reported or handed himself over to the nearest police station from where the accident occurred. This has appeared as a hit and run and yet we are aware of the programme of the system at the time. For us this was politically motivated assassination. When he was released from prison Jafta did not wait to be made a leader because he was a leader in his own right. He immediately plunged into intensive political activity that took him all over the country reviving and organizing PAC structures.

Jafta was hated and feared by the system because of his uncompromising revolutionary attitude and position both in prison and outside prison. His death was a devastating blow and great loss for the Pan Africanist Congress of Azania and his family who had missed him for over 26 years while incarcerated on Robben Island and other apartheid prisons. In celebrating him, we also need to emulate him as he remains a clear example of a tireless, relentless organizer and uncompromising leader.

WORKERS’ DAY (1 May)……

On this day we join rural and urban workers of this country who have waged heroic struggles against exploitation under white minority domination during slavery and apartheid colonialism. They continue these struggles in the conditions of capitalist exploitation under the new form of imperialism known as globalization – domination by transnational corporations of the industrialized and developed countries of the North supported by the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund (IMF) to impose a political and economic system that facilitates the continued plundering of the resources of African countries which are encouraged to remain fragmented.

AFRICA DAY (25 May)……

On this day (25 May 1963), which is being celebrated today, African leaders of all independent and sovereign states which included Ethiopia and Liberia which were not colonized came together in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia. They were hosted by Haile Selassie, the Emperor of Ethiopia, the Kings of kings and the lion of Judah. Presidents, Prime ministers and other kings met to unite Africa and plan the liberation of the countries still under colonial and white minority rule on the continent including the Islands and Archipelagoes around Africa. It was here that Dr. Kwame Nkrumah, the President of Ghana came with the idea of the United States of Africa. He proposed that Africa must unite at that time and establish a centrally administered government. He also suggested the creation of an African High Command to protect Africa from external threats and interference, one African bank and African currency. These ideas did not go down well with a section of African leaders at the time. These leaders were regarded as moderates who preferred and continue to prefer fragmentation and the perpetuation of the colonial created sovereign states which are easy preys to imperialism or foreign control of these leaders who are agents of neo-colonialism -facilitators of the plundering of the resources of the continent for the benefit of the developed and industrialized countries of the North and Japan under the cloak of globalization or global markets. It is important that we observe this day to highlight these factors and the plight of the African masses on the continent and continue to call for the creation of the United States of Africa, regionally or sub-regionally (within SADC, ECOWAS, EAC, etc) until this goal is achieved. Like the liberation of Africa, the unity of Africa will be achieved by Africans themselves because the liberation of Africa lies in her unity or the United States of Africa from Cape to Cairo, Madagascar to Morocco.

SOWETO STUDENTS’ UPRISINGS (16 June)……

On this day (June 16, 1976) we remember the thousands of school children who courageously and fearlessly rose against the system of apartheid when they rejected the imposition of Afrikaans as medium of instruction in African schools. We remember the sacrifices they made when they faced the might of the South African racist police and soldiers with bare hands and dustbin covers; and in the process many were killed, many maimed for life, some unaccounted for to this day; many others forced into exile and only to return to the country ready to face the oppressors at their game. We remember this day to honour these young men and women who dared and changed the struggle qualitatively by intensifying the struggle on all fronts with armed struggle as the principal method of struggle that eventually triumphed when the first democratic elections were held on the 27 April 1994.

JOHN NYATI POKELA DAY (30 June)……

He became chairman of the PAC Central Committee and leader of the PAC in exile in 1981. The PAC had been going through serious crises that had dented its image and paralysed its effectiveness. He was received with enthusiasm and renewed commitment by all PAC members in exile because of his credibility and the inspiring leadership he provided. He restored confidence, pride, hope and unity in the ranks. He defined his mission as follows: “To unite all loyal members of the PAC here abroad and to reorganise the Part; to establish a permanent link between the External Mission and the home base; to re-orientate the party external wing membership homeward; and to implement the home going programme in its political and military aspects – in other words to intensify armed struggle and mass struggles in occupied Azania.

But unfortunately Pokela would not see the accomplishment or fulfillment of his mission because his life was cut short on 30 June 1985 when he suddenly collapsed and died in Harare, Zimbabwe after visiting Botswana. His remains have yet to be brought home; a serious indictment against PAC leadership and its cadres.

HEROES’ DAY (31 July)……

This day was initiated a month after the adoption of the Kliptown Charter in June 1955 (so called Freedom Charter) when “the Africanists staged a memorial service to Anton Lembede and used this occasion to honour the heroes of the African past”. This day is observed by the Pan Africanist Congress of Azania as “Heroes’ Day’ and celebrated every year to remember those men and women who served, sacrificed and suffered for the liberation of this country and the continent.

WOMEN’S DAY (9 August)……

We celebrate this day in solidarity with the women counterparts in their struggle for equality and justice in this country. It will be remembered how on this day, 9 August 1956, 20 000 women of this country challenged the oppressive, repressive and white supremacist regime and marched on the Union Buildings to protest the carrying of the passbook or ‘Dopass’ by African women.

APLA DAY (11 September)……

This day (11 September 1961) marks the birth of the Azanian People’s Liberation Army (APLA) initially known as Poqo. Poqo heralded the dawn of a new era – the era of armed conflict. Armed struggle became a necessity when the state of emergency was declared on 30 March 1960 followed by the banning of PAC on 8 April 1960 and this closed all peaceful avenues of struggle. The liberation movement had no choice but to respond to reactionary violence with revolutionary violence in waging guerilla warfare in the form of a people’s war that eventually forced the racist minority to plead for a negotiated settlement before the war had reached the third phase of strategic offensive.

HERITAGE DAY (24 September)……

Let us observe this day with the entire nation to celebrate the heritage of our country and people. This day should remind us of who we are, where we come from, how we came to be where we are and where we are going as a people. We should know our heritage as a people of this continent of Africa and this heritage is our land which is God given and not a commodity to be exchanged like any product of labour.

MOTHOPENG DAY (23 October)……

On this day (23 October 1990) Zephania Mothopeng – ‘The Lion of Azania’ gave in to long and painful struggle for life. This was a sad day and a great loss for his family and the PAC who had never enjoyed his company for the many years he has lived because he was either in and out of prison, under restriction or banished or under house arrest or on the way mobilizing the masses for the cause of national liberation. We celebrate this day to remember the sterling work he did after Sharpeville and in the period leading to the SOWETO students’ uprisings. His consistent and courageous involvement in the struggle of the masses made him the indisputable successor to the Great Mangaliso Sobukwe, the first President of the Pan Africanist Congress of Azania.

Finally, let us use every other opportunity to promote the PAC and its leaders and not blame others for what is our responsibility or duty as genuine and committed members of the Pan Africanist Congress of Azania (PAC). Let us be there at all times and on time.

Izwe Lethu! I-Africa!

By Molefe ‘Ike’ Mafole
The writer is a Member of the PAC of Azania (PAC) and the Azanian People’s Liberation Army (APLA) Military Veterans Association. He can be contacted on 072 630 2206.

It is what African leaders do now and daily which will determine the place of Africa in the next fifty years. Africa has already waited for fifty years for present African leaders to implement the foundational principles that the pioneers of Africa’s independence struggle laid down on 25 May 1963. If Africa has to wait for another 50 years to achieve her goal of economic development and technological advancement, and rescue her people out of poverty, ignorance, enslaving “foreign aid” and its deepening debts, it is a sign that many present African leaders are subtly opposed to the Pan African vision and mission for which the African Union and its predecessor, the Organisation of African Unity were formed. They are hunting with the dogs but running with the rabbit, and making sure the rabbit is not caught.

A genuinely liberated Africa will not come from heaven like manna. Like Africa’s political independence struggle, it will come through the sweat and blood of its own sons and daughters led by wise, dedicated and committed Pan Africanist leaders. Fifty years for Africa from now will be reaping time. Now is the sowing time. If African leaders are sowing nothing now, there will be nothing to reap in 2063. The African Union seems to be failing to implement ideas that were long put forward by the pioneers of African unity in 1963 and beyond. These ideas are the foundation for a strong Africa that can control its riches for its own people and effectively defend all the interests of Africa.

The process of liberating Africa is like building a house with an agreed plan. This house must be built in stages. Those stages must show that the house is being constructed according to the designed building plan. In this context, at what stage is Africa? Why must it take 50 years to rescue Africa from economic powerlessness in the midst of so much technology? Former colonial powers and their allies are afraid of a strong Africa that controls its resources and is advancing technologically. When they gave in to Africa’s political liberation, they made sure that this liberation was devoid of economic power and also burdened with debts called “foreign aid.” Africa’s economic liberation therefore is not going to be a dinner party. Zimbabwe is an example of how deeply the former colonial forces and their allies hate an Africa that they can no longer plunder and loot its riches. Muammar Gaddafi’s Libya is another example.

Africa faces internal and external problems. These problems were there during the struggle for political liberation. Africa won her political liberation through African unity. Without the Organisation of African Unity, African people in South Africa would today, be living in the “Bantustans.” The apartheid colonial forces would be today intimidating, the whole of Africa with nuclear weapons. The South African nuclear programme was dismantled only when it was feared that it might be inherited by a radical Pan Africanist Congress government. Without the Organisation of African Unity support, the people of Namibia, Angola, Guinea-Bissau, Mozambique and Zimbabwe might have lost their wars of liberation. The OAU may not have been a finished house, but it was a useful tent that can show important political gains. For instance, the Pan Africanist Congress of Azania (PAC) then led by people like Potlako K. Leballo and David Sibeko got apartheid South Africa expelled from the United Nations General Assembly. This was through the diplomatic support by OAU member states at the United Nations. The expulsion of South Africa resulted in the PAC and the ANC being recognised as liberation movements and granted an Observer status at the United Nations.

Indeed, at the independence of Ghana on 6 March 1957, President Kwame Nkrumah dedicated the liberation of Ghana to the whole of Africa. He declared, “Ghana’s independence is meaningless, unless it is linked to the total liberation of Africa.” There were then eight African independent African States to the 54 today. Africa gained her political liberation through African Unity. Africa will not regain her economic liberation and social emancipation of her people without African Unity. If Africa does not sow seeds of economic prosperity, control of her riches, massive education in various spheres of knowledge, she will reap nothing in 2063. People that do not sow seeds, cannot reap because they have nothing to reap. This is the law of nature.

Present Africa’s leaders must do an introspection of themselves. They must ask themselves if they are pursuing and protecting the interests of Africa’s people with the same passion, vigilance and wisdom that was shown by Africa’s leaders of the independence movement such as Kwame Nkrumah, Ahmed Sekou Toure, Nnamdi Azikiwe, Obefami Awolowo, Patrice Lumumba, Robert Mangaliso Sobukwe, Gamal Abdel Nasser, Ahmed Ben Bella, Modibo Keita, Julius Nyerere, Haile Selassie and many others? Emperor Haile Selassie mediation act which brought about the Casablanca and Monrovia Groups together to form the OAU must be written in golden letters in the history of Africa. What would have been Africa without the OAU? But today what mediation machinery does the African Union have in situations of political instability and civil wars among its member states? “Prevention is better than cure,” said the wise.

Africa must increase her capacity to be self-reliant. Nigeria a sister African nation has presently a problem of Boko Haram terrorism that has resulted in the whole world focussing on nearly 300 school girls that the terrorists have kidnapped. Now, foreign powers with strong economic interests in Africa and in Nigeria itself have offered assistance to find these girls. How many strings are attached to this assistance? The pioneers of Africa’s independence often said, “We accept aid from all people of goodwill. But we shall not accept any assistance that has strings attached to it and compromises Africa’s interests.” It is hoped that foreign powers such as France, Britain and America will not attach strings to this purely humanitarian effort to find the abducted Nigerian school girls. Moreover, terrorism is now a global problem that affects many nations of the world. Its causes, however must be established so that the appropriate remedy can be found.

The American government long wanted to locate its so-called “Africa command” on the soil of Africa. Will this now be America’s chance to push “Africom” into Nigeria and other African countries that have resisted foreign soldiers in their countries? The question that may now be asked is: Is America prepared to allow Russia or China to establish its own “American command” in America and call it “Americom”? These are some of the issues that Africa’s leaders must scrutinise for an Africa that must be secure and strong in the next fifty years. Why? Vice Admiral Moeller was the man that President George Bush entrusted with the main purpose of forming “Africom” in Africa. Addressing the United States Africa Command Conference held at Fort McNair on 18 February 2008, Moeller declared, “Protecting the free flow of natural resources from Africa to the global market is one of American Africa’s guiding principles.” Moeller specifically cited “oil disruption,” “terrorism” and “the growing influence of the Peoples’ Republic of China as a major challenge to United States interests in Africa.”

Past Africa’s leaders stated how Africa must be restored to her lost power in world affairs. As early as April 1959, Mangaliso Robert Sobukwe, the President of the Pan Africanist Congress of Azania who was imprisoned on Robben Island in 1963 without any court trial by the apartheid colonialist regime and later banished to Kimberly where he died, allegedly poisoned by the apartheid regime, proclaimed “Nobody, disputes our contention that Africa will be free from foreign rule….Even though I live in South Africa, I have no doubt that this prophecy will be fulfilled. But the question is: After freedom; then what? The ready answer of white ruling minorities is chaos and reversion to barbarism and savagery. The ready answer of all Pan Africanists is…the creation of a United States of Africa and the advent of a new era of freedom, creative production and abundance. The potential wealth of Africa in minerals, oil, hydro-electric power and so on, is immense. By cutting waste through systematic planning, a central government can bring the most rapid development….By the end of the century [2000], the standard of living of the masses of our people will have undoubtedly arisen dramatically. For Robert Mangaliso Sobukwe, Africa should by now have been sitting where some African leaders say she will sit in the next 50 years. What are the obstacles? When Sobukwe spoke these words, there were only eight independent African states in the whole of Africa compared to 54 today. Sobukwe added, “For the lasting peace of Africa and solution of the economic, social and political problems of the continent, there must be a democratic principle. This means that foreign domination under whatever disguise must be destroyed.”

President “Mwalimu” Julius Nyerere of Tanzania appealed for urgent Africa’s action. “There is no time to waste,” he said. “We must unite or perish. Political independence is only a prelude to a new and more involved struggle for the right to conduct our social affairs unhampered by crushing and humiliating control of our affairs.” At present there is more than a snail’s pace on the part of Africa’s leaders. “…the standard of living of the masses of our people will have undoubtedly arisen dramatically,” as Sobukwe envisaged has not happened. Why? Is it corruption by many African leaders? Leadership is service. Servants of the people are men and women who are not for sale and refuse to be bought for any price. They are honest and sound from centre to circumference. They hate corruption. Corruption exacerbates poverty and underdevelopment. It destroys nations.

On the dangers that would hinder Africa to have attained her goal in 2013, Dr. Nkrumah warned, “As a continent we have emerged into independence in a difficult age, with imperialism grown stronger, more ruthless and experienced, and more dangerous in its international associations. Our economic advancement demands the end of colonialist and neo-colonialist domination of Africa.”

The April 2014 Brussels Conference at which the African Union (AU) and the European Union (EU) met, clearly indicates that Europe still dominates and insults Africa. This is after 50 years of Africa’s independence from European colonial and racist rule. The EU refused to grant visas for some security officials and assistants to countries such as Zimbabwe and Kenya. What would be the reaction of the EU if its member states had been treated in a similar manner? In South Africa many former freedom fighters of the PAC and ANC are still listed as “terrorists” by the United States government and refused visas to enter America. This is in spite of the fact that the United Nations declared apartheid a crime against humanity through its International Convention on the Suppression and Punishment of the Crime of Apartheid. What does the AU say about this? Reciprocity is a principle of diplomacy. Why do African governments allow certain governments to treat their nationals in a manner that is devoid of reciprocity? These matters are determining what Africa will look like in the next fifty years.

The slave and master relationship between the AU and EU and its allies must be thrown into the dustbin of history if Africa wants her dignity, power and glory untainted and unchallengeable in the next 50 years. If African leaders through AU, do not plant positive seeds now and everyday for Africa, there will be only negative seeds to reap in 2063. This will be a betrayal of Africa’s coming generations. Nkrumah was right when he said, “If we, [Africans] are to remain free, if we are to enjoy the full benefits of Africa’s rich resources, we must unite to plan for our raw materials and human means….To go it alone will limit our horizons, curtail our expectations and threaten our liberty.” Before I mention what Nkrumah said on foreign investors, let me mention a recent incident. It happened in one of the African countries. A foreign investor offered to build a road and a hospital for the right to mine a rich mineral mine. This is 50 years after Africa’s “independence!” Over 50 years ago, Nkrumah pronounced on foreign investment with regard to Ghana when he said “We welcome foreign investors in a spirit of partnership. They can earn their profits here provided they leave us an agreed portion, promoting the welfare and happiness of our people as a whole, as against the greedy ambitions of the few. From what we get out of this partnership we hope to expand the health services of our people, to feed and house all, to give them more and better educational institutions and see to it that they have a rising standard of living.”

Africa’s Leaders in the African Union and elsewhere must get their act together. Africans paid a heavy price for their political independence. Africa’s people must be willing to pay even a higher price for their economic power to control the riches of Africa for their people. There must be a minimum fifteen year-prison sentence without the option of a fine and granting of parole for corrupt government officials. Africa’s people must engage with the modern world on the basis of interdependence of nations. They must not present themselves to the world as if they are bankrupt debtors with nothing to put on the world’s table. Africa has enormous riches.

There must be massive intra-trade among African countries. There must be a plan to process raw materials in Africa and export them as finished goods. The necessary high technology needed in Africa must be exchanged for high technology from which ever part of the world it comes. African raw materials including minerals must not be sold for cash or goods. They must be exchanged for the technology needs of the African Continent. Those who now have this technology are secretive about it. They are refusing technology transfer to Africa. They want to keep Africa technologically backward so that its people can be a mere nation of consumers, not a nation of manufacturers that export finished goods. Africa’s people must not allow their continent to be merely a source of raw materials and dumping ground of imported goods. There must be huge investment in the education of Africa’s youth. Africa must prioritise and maximise the study of modern science and technology in all her institutions of learning. There must be transport and communication system within Africa. A liberated Africa cannot afford to have its citizens, travel to Africa via Europe or their posted documents within some parts of Africa, to go to Europe first before they reach another African country. For rapid development of Africa, investors and governments must invest in the infrastructure of Africa. There are many things that Africa can do for herself and lessen her dependence on the outside world. Many non-Africans get their riches in Africa. This is one of the main causes of poverty and underdevelopment in Africa.

Africa is the epicentre of this planet called earth. She has impeccable credentials to occupy a prominent place in world affairs. She created the first human civilisation. What Africa must do now is to acquire knowledge on a colossal scale. Africa’s knowledge was destroyed by slave traders, colonialists and racists. Where Africa will be in the next fifty years will be determined by what kind of seeds African leaders, plant now. Africa’s history shows that when Africa planted correct seeds she became a giant. Hence the old African proverb, “An anti-hill that is destined to be a giant-hill shall ultimately become one, no matter how many times it is destroyed by elephants.”

By Dr. Motsoko Pheko
The writer is a historian, political scientist, lawyer and theologian. He is former Representative of the victims of apartheid and colonialism at the United Nations in New York and at the UN Commission On Human Rights in Geneva, as well as a former Member of the South African Parliament. He is author several books, including TOWARDS AFRICA’S AUTHENTIC LIBERATION, THE HIDDEN SIDE OF SOUTH AFRICAN POLITICS and THE TRUE OF HISTORY OF ROBBEN ISLAND MUST BE PRESERVED.

Source: http://icarusfilms.com

On the eve of an historic event in South Africa that exploded the myth that Africans would remain slaves of apartheid colonialism forever, Robert Mangaliso Sobukwe the Founding President of the Pan Africanist Congress of Azania despatched outside apartheid colonial South Africa three members of his PAC National Executive Council (NEC). They were Peter N Raboroko, Peter H Molotsi and Nelson “Nana” Mahomo. These PAC leaders were the first to meet President Kwame Nkrumah of Ghana from South Africa. They operated from his country spreading their liberation message throughout the world. Veteran “Nana” Mahomo, then about thirty years of age, was one of the architects of the national campaign called the “Positive Action Campaign.” Its results demonstrate its uniqueness.

The best way to pay my tribute to Veteran Nelson “Nana” Mahomo is call those who witnessed the political events of those days and effects which included 84 PAC supporters who became martyrs in what is now internationally known as “Sharpeville Uprising,” “Sharpeville Day” or what the United Nations called “International Day For The Elimination of Racial Discrimination.” That was as a result of sending out Nelson “Nana” Mahomo and other PAC representatives outside South Africa.

Frantz Fanon author of THE WRETCHED OF THE EARTH, writing about the Sharpeville Uprising said, “The seventeen days that shook South Africa, indeed, the entire world from 21st March this year [1960] have forced an irrevocable turn in the history of the country. ….The Pan Africanist Congress actively intervened in their affairs and ushered in a new period, rich in historical perspective and pregnant with political possibilities for the democratic movement…. Sharpeville has become the symbol. It was through it that, men and women in the world became acquainted with the problem of apartheid in South Africa.”

For the first time ever, as a result of the Sharpeville and Langa Uprisings on 21st March 1960, led by Nelson Nana Mahomo’s organisation, the PAC of Azania, the supreme body of the United Nations, in honour of the PAC martyrs who sacrificed their lives on March 21st March 1960 at Sharpeville, Langa, Evaton, Vanderbyl Park and other places in the country, the United Nations General Assembly, through its Resolution 2396 declared March 21st each year, International Day For The Elimination Of Racial Discrimination. This happened because PAC leaders like “Nana” Mahomo had left the comfort of their homes and dedicated themselves to the liberation of their country and humanity.

Dr. Ismail Mohammed, a Mathematics lecturer at the University of Witwatersrand was absolutely correct on political events and the significance of the Sharpeville Uprising when he wrote, “Sharpeville stands out as a turning point in our history. In the aftermath of the Sharpeville Uprising, when the full horrible magnitude of the tyrant became clear, the lines were drawn to determine the destiny of our country.” (The Natal Mercury newspaper 18 March 1981). Veteran Nelson “Nana” Mahomo contributed immensely to this “turning point in the history of our country.”

The United Nations Special Committee was formed as a result of the Sharpeville Uprising of which Nana Mahomo had been one of its architects. The expulsion of South Africa from the United Nations General Assembly was brought about by the PAC representatives at the United Nations of which “Nana” Mahomo had been a founder. The United Nations gave observer status to PAC and ANC as recognised liberation movements from South Africa as a result of the PAC campaign waged with the support of the Organisation of African Organisation. The PAC had prepared a paper pointing out that South Africa was a British colony which Britain had never decolonised. Confirming this fact, Prof. Tom Lodge has written, “In November 1974 PAC lobbyists succeeded in obtaining the expulsion of South Africa from the United Nations General Assembly and in July 1975 the Organisation of African Unity Meeting in Kampala (Uganda), adopted as official policy a long document prepared by the PAC arguing the case for the illegality of South Africa’s status.”

Veteran Mahomo served the liberation of the African people in Azania with remarkable dedication and perseverance. This was despite insults hurled at him by his political opponents. Commenting on the impact of the Sharpeville Uprising for which Nana Mahomo had been despatched outside the country by President Sobukwe, the renowned Prof. Z.K. Matthews of Fort Hare University who was also once the Treasurer-General of the ANC wrote in the IMVO newspaper in 1961: “There have been many groups that broke away from the ANC….None of them survived. The Pan Africanist Congress is an historical exception. It broke away from the ANC and launched the Sharpeville Uprising on 21st March 1960 which had a unique national and international significance and changed the cause of history in this country [South Africa]. It prompted a first visit ever by a United Nations Secretary-General. The PAC launched the most significant movement for South Africa’s international isolation.”

Nana a founder and Secretary for Culture for the Pan Africanist Congress made a tremendous contribution to this isolation internationally. He was part of this “historical exception” and launching of “the most significant movement for South Africa’s international isolation.” In fact, Mahomo’s organisation became the pace setter in the politics of South Africa until Pollsmoor, Victor Vester, CODESA and the involvement of President Bill Clinton of America in the 1994 South Africa elections.(DESPATCH FROM THE WAR ROOM Stanley B. Greenberg pages 126 and 127)

Nana Mahomo’s movement (PAC) was the first to form a military wing in South Africa. This was fifty five years after Chief Bambatha had led the last war of national resistance against British colonialism in 1905. The military wing of the PAC known as POQO/APLA was formed on 11th September 1961. Tom Lodge who was a senior lecturer at the University of Witwatersrand in South Africa wrote: “The largest and most sustained insurrection in South Africa in modern times was mounted by POQO, the under-ground wing of the outlawed Pan Africanist Congress (PAC)…the persistence of the movement over relatively long time – span and over large geographical area, qualify POQO to lay claim to be being the most sustained insurrection by blacks in modern times…the PAC insurgents were very much more numerous than Umkhonto….In terms of geographical extensiveness, the numbers involved and its time-span, the POQO conspiracies…represent the largest and most sustained African insurrectionary movement since the inception of modern political organisations in South Africa.” Nana Mahomo organised not only scholarships for students from this country who wanted to further their education, but weapons as well for his movement. He envisaged a country rid of greed and alarming economic inequalities. He loved knowledge and desired his people to acquire it on a massive scale in all fields of life.

What of Robben Island Prison? This again brings in Nana Mahomo into an important history. The first political prisoners and some sentenced to life imprisonment in Robben Island were PAC prisoners. The first batch of these freedom fighters were imprisoned on Robben Island on 12th October 1962. Incidentally Mahomo was one of the organisers of books for political prisoners to further their studies in Robben Island Prison. Jafta Masemola is the longest-serving prisoner on Robben Island in the history of South Africa. He was the first and the four others to be sentenced to life imprisonment. This was caused by the military impact of POQO activities. There is no doubt that the world would never have heard of “Robben Island” if the Sharpeville and POQO Uprisings had not happened. Veteran Nana Mahomo and his co-founders of the PAC made this possible. History must be told as it happened and not to suit certain political interests.

One of his lasting legacies which will continue to remind lovers of freedom about Africa’s authentic liberation are Nelson Nana Mahomo’s two widely acclaimed films Phela Ndaba (End of Dialogue) and The Last Grave at Dimbaza and his M.A. Thesis at Massachusetts University on the Pan Africanist Congress. The films were shot secretly right inside apartheid colonial South Africa and smuggled out of the country for information to the outside world. An important thing that characterised Veteran statesman Nelson “Nana” Mahomo was his spirituality. This, he maintained until his departure to eternity on 1st June 2014. He was born in 1930 and 84 years at the time of his death. It is probably his deep spirituality that sustained him against the missiles of all his enemies.

He fought for the liberation where his people would have their standard of living uplifted, where no children would lack money to acquire education and where Africans would have a larger portion of the economy as this vast majority in their country and where finally, there would be equitable redistribution of land as demanded by African kings and by the pioneers of the modern liberation struggle. Yes, it can be said that Nana Mahomo’s vision like that of his President Robert Mangaliso Sobukwe may be delayed. But it shall never be destroyed because it stands for authentic liberation of the majority of the people of this country. Fighters for truth and justice do not die. They remain a dynamo of inspiration and courage, no matter how dark the situation looks.

May The Mahomo Family, his children, his friends and all his Pan Africanist fellow visionaries be reminded and consoled by the fact that: “The tragedy of life does not lie in not reaching our goals, but in having no goals to reach. It is not a calamity to die with ideals unfulfilled, but it is a calamity to have no ideals to fulfil. It is not a disgrace not to reach the stars. But it is a disgrace to have no stars to reach.” NELSON NANA MAHOMO HAD STARS TO REACH! MAY HIS SPIRIT RISE IN GLORY!

By Dr. Motsoko Pheko
The writer is a historian, political scientist, lawyer, theologian and author of several books such as THE HIDDEN SIDE OF SOUTH AFRICAN POLITICS, THE TRUE HISTORY OF ROBBEN ISLAND MUST BE PRESERVED and 1OO YEARS NATIVE LAND ACT 1913 – Womb of African Poverty And Marikana Massacre.

Zephaniah “The Lion of Azania” Mothopeng

During the apartheid era – from 1948 when the National Party came into government until 1994 when a new political dispensation was ushered in – the settler regime treated Zephania Lekoane Mothopeng (1913 – 1990) as the number one enemy of the state. The strength of his Pan Africanist convictions, his moral courage and personal values of democracy and intellectual honesty, put Uncle Zeph through the crucibles of character that made his leadership to stand out in the national liberation struggle.

On 27 April 2014, the Jacob Zuma administration cited Mothopeng as a recipient of a lowly medal under Orders of Luthuli to celebrate the twenty years since the new phase of constitutional democracy in South Africa. Arguably, Zuma made this award as a grudge acknowledgement. He had no other choice. The struggle history is written in blood, sweat and tears, and it is personified in the life and times of Uncle Zeph Mothopeng. In treating him this way, the new government is however deliberately having Mothopeng marginalised in the same way that the settler state intentionally suppressed information about his patriotic deeds. This behaviour has since grown into a blind spot for academic researchers of the struggle period. Even modern talking heads (pundits) in the mass media tend to treat Uncle Zeph Mothopeng disdainfully as if he never happened.

This treatment is cynically in compliance with the secret Bethal Trial in which the racist state preferred to hold court proceedings in camera against Uncle Zeph and seventeen of his co-accused, to prevent the public from having access to the struggle objectives and the modus operandi of the Pan Africanist Congress of Azania. The state opposed an accessible, open court. In his lifetime, Uncle Zeph was widely acknowledged as the second most senior personality in the PAC leadership after Robert Mangaliso Sobukwe.

His life in the anti-apartheid struggle is described as “an epic of suffering and endurance”. Developing in stature from among the founders of the Congress Youth League in the mid-forties, he went on to lead the teachers’ campaign against the Bantu Education bills in 1953 and was expelled from teaching by the state. He defended the 1949 Programme of Action against the rise of the Charterists from 1955 when they took control of the African National Congress. He led the processes that brought about the formation of the PAC in 1959, and he was at the forefront of its ground breaking Positive Action campaign against the pass laws on 21 March 1960. Positive Action was defined by Pan Africanists as the application of non-violent mass action in the form of strikes, boycotts and non-collaboration with the oppressive authorities. Uncle Zeph played a leading role in the PAC underground movement that started the armed insurrection through mass-based organisations like Poqo, AmaJakopa and others in 1961-64. He also pledged overt support for the Black Consciousness movement in the early seventies, and is credited for masterminding the popular uprisings of 1976. Upon his release on grounds of ill health in 1988, the new struggle generation called him the Lion of Azania.

His contemporaries in the leadership of rival organisations seemed to all agree that Mothopeng was the most tortured among them: In April 1996 Govan Mbeki testified at the TRC that while in detention in 1962 at the Pretoria Central Prison under the 90 day law, he witnessed torture wounds on Mothopeng’s body, and had heard him writhing in agony in his cell at night. Mothopeng fearlessly continued to register his protest against the security police. Mbeki was four cells down from Mothopeng.

Harold Strachan, a progressive journalist, wrote that while in detention he saw Mothopeng in an inner courtyard, tied all over in a straitjacket and rolling around on the floor, screaming at the top of his lungs. No other detainee or leader at the time was at the receiving end of this type of hot stick, beastly torture and violation of human rights.

The indictment in the secret Bethal Trial catalogues Uncle Zeph’s revival of the PAC on Robben Island maximum prison from 1963; his position as a nodal point for covert activities of the banned PAC’s internal operatives and the mission in exile; and overt alliance with youth, students, women, workers, rural folks, business, political formations and faith-based communities.

The deputy attorney general of the Transvaal, PG Haasbroek, in leading the prosecution, argued against an open court and convinced the judge to hold a secret trial. He said his 165 witnesses would be imperilled and ‘have their throats cut’ since the PAC was known for getting rid of its traitors and defectors. The court ruling was that no person without a press card from the Commissioner of Police would be admitted to report on the Bethal Trial.

The Newspaper Press Union, an organisation of newspaper owners, colluded with the police to selectively issue the press cards out to hacks, to the exclusion of black reporters. The South African Press Association (SAPA) and the Argus stable newspaper, The Star, withdrew their journalists from covering the Bethal Trial, saying it was costly to send staff 200km from their offices and provide allowances for food and accommodation. They became part of the conspiracy of silence against the PAC.

A political scientist from the Rand Afrikaans University, Chris Johannes Van Der Merwe, gave expert witness that the PAC’s official ideology meant ‘that in the future the wealth in the present settler-colonial society will be owned and consumed by all the people, first according to their individual productivity and ultimately in accordance with their actual needs.’ This, he argued, was a brand of communism espoused by the Peoples Republic of China. He said the PAC had chosen armed revolution as its principal form of struggle, and people’s war as the highest form of that struggle. In this way, the RAU academic justified the reasons for a secret trial.

When Uncle Zeph read out a statement refusing to plead before a whites-only judiciary, Justice Curlewis stopped him in his tracks and then struck the statement off the court records, adjourning the court for the day. These incidents started the eighteen months long proceedings. The transcripts of the court records are more than 7000 pages long, excluding exhibit documents. It’s a must-read for anyone interested in a version of the story of the PAC from 1963 to 1976.

Evolving from being outlawed in 1960, the PAC focused its renewed energy on transforming itself into a revolutionary Party with an advanced scientific theory and methods of practise. It could no longer be everything to everybody. It also reformulated the Army into the Azanian Peoples Liberation Army (APLA), adapting Mao Zedong’s guerrilla warfare strategies. Working in tandem with mass-based organisations in a patriotic United Front was also part of the strategic objective. The philosophy of Pan Africanism, as a basis for unity, accommodated all persuasions and schools of thought to work together for the emancipation of African people from white domination and colonial subjugation at home and in the diaspora, and to attain the right to self-determination in order to assume state power and improve their quality of life. It opposes colonial borders and advocates for a single unitary government for Africa.

Forever the able choirmaster, Uncle Zeph crafted together all the discordant, promising and best voices into a harmonious national symphony orchestra singing from the same score sheet. Even those who were laid back or trapped in the stagnant past, he patiently brought them into the fold. To those who broke down during torture and were forced to become state witnesses against him and his comrades, including in other unrelated cases, he extended a hand of forgiveness and reconciliation. Uncle Zeph was a true and trusted democrat.

In detention under the draconian Section 6 of the Terrorism Act, four Party operatives linked to the Bethal Trial were murdered by the security police. Samuel Malinga – underground operative and courier between the PAC leaders in exile, Uncle Zeph in Soweto, and Mangaliso Sobukwe in Kimberley. Aaron Khoza – ex-political prisoner and activist working with youth in Kagiso Township. Dr Naboth Ntshuntsha – an intellectual with a keen sense of the mass line and a PAC leader in the Soweto underground unit. Bonaventure Sipho Malaza – student leader at Masupatsela High School in Kagiso.

Johnson Nyathi accused number fourteen, survived death after being thrown from a four storey security police building in Krugersdorp. He charged officers Schoeman and Smith for the deed, in which they were assisted by black policemen, but the matter was dismissed by the courts. He attended the trial with crutches and plaster of Paris on both of his legs.

A pack of notorious torture specialists and seasoned policemen were assigned from security branch head office at Compol building in Pretoria to deal with potential witnesses and the accused during detention. Spyker Van Wyk already had the blood of Imam Abdul Haron on his hands. The Imam was martyred whilst in detention for PAC underground activities in Cape Town in 1969. The other officers were Gert Visser, Andre Van Heerden Beukes, Theunis Adriaan Steyn, Cornelius Botha and their leader Major Erasmus.

Dealt out worse treatment by the security police, a coterie of brave women comrades stood out, whom the courts also regarded as accomplices and hostile witnesses. These are Frozzy Shandu ka Mbatha – who criss-crossed the length and breadth of the country with former Robben Island prisoner and political commissar returned from the PAC headquarters in Tanzania, Saki Mafatshe; Cindy Radley – a teacher at Alexandra High School ridiculously detained under Section 6 of the Terrorism Act for having been introduced to Mark Shinners and Bennie Ntoele; Lenah Mawela – a beautician and fashion model responsible for transporting recruits for military training abroad and taking members of the Soweto Students Representative Council leadership to Swaziland and Botswana; Victoria Makheta – who led a special PAC underground communications unit and was forced to testify against her common law husband, Moffat Zungu; and, Mado Dorcas Mosweu – an adult literacy practitioner and colleague of both Dan Matsobane and Uncle Zeph at the Wilgespruit Fellowship Centre and the Urban Resource Centre respectively.

Contrarily, some fairly credible PAC members, with the experience of joining the Party from inception in 1959 and participating in its early campaigns, shamelessly turned their backs on Uncle Zeph and the other trialists, and willingly gave damaging evidence in favour of the state. The prosecution had said that the PAC’s oath of allegiance had taken the place of religious vows among its hard core members. It was difficult to get defectors. They however found in this group their true partners in crime.

Enoch Mngomezulu, the first witness, was seen during breaks getting briefings from security branch police. He was the Zondi branch chairperson in 1959. In 1962 he was found with a name list of underground leaders in the Transvaal, leading to mass arrests. He then served six years in prison from 1963. He admitted to betraying the leadership’s trust in him. He formed a faction to divide the Party with Selby Ngendane in prison. Mngomezulu blatantly sold out Sam Malinga and John Ganya to the police.

Pascot Vakalisa revealed details of the source of funding for the underground activities. He connected Malinga and Ganya to their several visits to Sobukwe. Vakalisa and Mngomezulu were old friends.

Joas Baker Mogale confessed to having led an anti-communist group within the PAC on Robben Island. With Mngomezulu, Vakalisa, and others, they belonged to a faction that followed Selby Ngendane. They refused to identify with the PAC’s Marxist views. He testified against Mark Shinners and Bennie Ntoele. Mogale said the majority of PAC members identified with Uncle Zeph’s leadership until his release and with member of the Presidential Council, John Pokela, when he arrived on the Island in 1967.

John Moeketsi Mahapa pointed Ganya out at an identity parade. He sang like a canary and worked with the police in Krugerdorp against his own comrades. Mahapa had belonged to the Orlando East branch, and on Robben Island prison he was with the so-called Inner Core grouping under Ngendane’s guidance. They refused to acknowledge the rural folks arrested for Poqo activities as bonafide PAC members. They were also opposed to the teachings of Uncle Zeph on revolutionary Pan Africanism. According to Mahapa, Ngendane taught them about African Nationalism and the concept of Five Social Butterflies. He denied even having attended the wedding ceremony of Mark Shinners up the street from his place in Orlando. The defence submitted a photo of the wedding ceremony in which he appears.

The others in this league included Mountain Mathebula, Joseph Mogashoa, Silas Ntengo and Stephen Kwapeng. They had become disgruntled with the struggle after the 1963 swoop on the PAC underground. They looked up to Ngendane, who had a fierce communist phobia, and according to Mothopeng in the court records, ‘was a stubborn man who wanted to have the last word in a debate’.

Bathembu Bethuel Lugulwana of the Comrades Movement in Cape Town knowingly testified against Vuyisile Dlova, Mpazamo Yonana, Julius Landingwe and Zolile Ghost Ndindwa.

Young Masupatsela High students testified against Uncle Zeph and Mike Matsobane. Adam Kunupi and Papuis Rasegomela Seroka both gave evidence that at a meeting organised by Matsobane in Kagiso around April 1976 Uncle Zeph briefed the more than fifteen participants on the impending strikes that would be started by school children and spread throughout the country. The PAC would take over the leadership of stay-away and boycotts to weaken the economy. The date was not fixed for these uprisings but an alarm would ring. This will be the beginning of the end for white rule. The witnesses told the court that Mike Matsobane in closing the meeting said the tree of liberation is watered by blood. Then on 16 June 1976 in Soweto, Uncle Zeph’s prediction happened.

Mike Sello Matsobane organised the youth into the Young African Religious Movement, as a platform to raise awareness of the inequalities in society. The bible could be used for good purposes and contextualised in advancing the national freedom struggle. He interacted with the South African Council of Churches, mobilising the then Anglican Dean of Johannesburg, Desmond Tutu, to participate in social activities in Kagiso. He revived the PAC underground and worked with Uncle Zeph in the Urban Resource Centre.

Mark Shinners, Bennie Ntoele and Saki Mafatshe, in the greater Pretoria area, painstakingly started afresh from where they left off in 1963 after serving ten years each in prison on Robben Island. They familiarised themselves with new developments in the Party and led the development of a cell system with units of up to three. They learnt not to repeat the mistakes of the sixties with bigger units making room for enemy infiltration. They distributed banned literature with disguised covers and titles such as Uhambo Lomhambi, Izibongo Zamakhosi, Buka ya go Buisa, and Modisa ea Molemo. These were the PAC’s Basic Documents, Policies and Programmes of the PAC (1972), Azania News, Azania Combat and New Road of the Revolution.

Mafatshe skipped the country but came back after a year to establish pockets of dynamizing groups and underground cells to work on Party building and continue recruiting for the Army. He travelled to all the major cities and areas where PAC operatives stayed in the four provinces distributing literature and giving political instructions. On the advice of Uncle Zeph, he was based in Lobatse, Botswana, where he worked with Black Consciousness leaders like Bokwe Mafuna, Welile Nhlapho and Jeff Baqwa, but was disappointed when the envisaged united front with Azania Tendency formations broke down. The police dragnet inside South Africa that hunted Mafatshe high and low failed to nail him down. He was the real Scarlet Pimpernel character who was never caught.

Like Mafatshe, Vuyisile Dlova established a network of underground operatives in the Transkei and Western Cape and linked them up with contacts in the Witwatersrand and the PAC in Swaziland and Botswana. Dlova interacted with the Black Consciousness structures and with select study groups following the ideas of the All Africa Convention. The Bethal Trial records portray his sweeping swift movements throughout the country linking up with leaders of the underground cell units, providing logistics support. He also evaded the police and was sent to exile.

Working with John Ganya, they had operated with Sabelo Phama (Victor Gqweta), Ngubeni April kaNkophe, and university lecturers like Mbulelo Mzamane and Kwesi Kwaa Prah in Botswana. Ganya was arrested using a nom de guerre at a safe house in Dinokana near Zeerust, after travelling clandestinely to and from the PAC headquarters in Dar es Salaam, Tanzania. He worked with Ntshuntsha and Sithembele Khala to politically guide the rising militants behind the Soweto 1976 uprisings.

During the trial, Ganya was not allowed inside the court because he ‘interfered with witnesses or took a threatening attitude and made it impossible for the continuation of the case’. Ganya believed that the court was an instrument of the oppressors, led by a white presiding officer naturally biased against the accused in a case like that in Bethal. The security

branch police had tortured him severely with no protection from the magistrate who visited detainees under the Terrorism Act. On why he did not trust good cops, he said: “A mouse will never go along with a cat, no matter how liberal and nice the cat was. The mouse will always expect to be caught by the paws of the cat.”

Giving defence testimony, Uncle Zeph stamped his belief that Pan Africanism was for him “a way of life, an entire outlook with political, social and economic sides to it. Pan Africanism had grown to become a philosophy of life. All the states in Africa must eventually unite into one country and one government – that would be the best thing for the African people and for the continent.”

The Mothopengs were family friends with the Sobukwes. SASO leader, Mapetla Mohapi, brought a message from Robert Sobukwe to Uncle Zeph in June 1975, at a leadership conference held in Hammanskraal that Prof urgently needed to see him. He then arranged two trips, with the assistance of news reporter Joe Thloloe, to pay a visit to Sobukwe in Kimberley. On 22 July 1975 at a lunch hosted by Prof’s friend, Ahmed Laher, Sobukwe asked him to tell the world that the security branch police poisoned him on Robben Island. Sobukwe said he was taken to the hospital when he reacted to the poisoning, and kept away from contact with his family and legal representatives. When the illness subsided, he was then banished to Galeshewe in Kimberley. Sobukwe’s health was deteriorating as a result of the poisoning. State witness and Drum magazine photographer, Mike Mzileni, accompanied Uncle Zeph to the Kimberley.

The Bethal Trial named Sobukwe as the chief co-conspirator to overthrow the state. There were 87 other co-conspirators. The interview by journalist, Les Payne, conducted with Sobukwe on 27 November 1976, and re-published in Azania Combat in the January to April 1977 edition, quotes the PAC president saying, “Soweto has been a lesson in overcoming the fear of the gun. Now we too can get the gun, and it appears that confrontation is inevitable.” Sharpeville was a lesson in overcoming the fear of prison.

Towards the end of the trial, Judge J Curlewis mockingly refers to the visit to the Swazi king, Sobhuza, by the PAC’s Acting President after which the Bethal Trial’s named co-conspirators based in Swaziland were arrested. These are Joe Mkhwanazi, Joe Moabi, Pitika Ntuli, Bicca Maseko, Dan Mdluli, and APLA high command members Garson Ndlovu and Enoch Zulu. The Swaziland authorities expelled them from the country after a long spell of detention without trial.

In this essay we try to demonstrate with cold facts how the PAC – led by Uncle Zeph, his co-accused, and co-conspirators – spread its tentacles into the broader society, side by side with mass organisations, sharpening the life and death contradictions with apartheid settler-colonial regime. In return the racist authorities clamped down on the Party and regarded its leadership as enemies of the state. No doubts about it, counter-intelligence forces infiltrated the Party and sowed seeds of division at every level to liquidate the growing influence of the PAC. As a result, there has been a stunted growth of the Party. This setback affected the progress of the struggle, but could not completely stop it. The PAC in present times needs to renew itself and continue with the national mandate of leading the African Revolution. The new generation of Party membership and students of geopolitics would need to access as clear and truthful history of the PAC as possible in order to carry their rich inheritance with them into the future. None should have the excuse to say, we did not know.

By Jaki Seroke
The writer is a strategic management consultant, chairperson of the Pan Africanist Research Institute (PARI) and a former Secretary for Political Affairs in the PAC (1992-1994).

References:
1. The Bethal Trialists, with their ages in 1978 in brackets, were: 1. Zephania Mothopeng (65) – founder member of the PAC and chairman of the inaugural conference; 2. John Ganya (48) – mineworker and senior cadre of the PAC underground; 3. Mark Shinners (37) – PAC leader and strategist based in Pretoria; 4. Bennie Ntoele (38) – PAC leader and underground operative in Mamelodi; 5. Hamilton Keke (42) – PAC leader in Border area of the Eastern Cape; 6. Sithembele Khala (24) – Orlando West high school delegate at the SSRC and operative of the PAC underground unit; 7. Alfred Ntshalinthsali (47) – Swaziland national and taxi driver; 8. Julius Landingwe (30) – Black consciousness leader and organiser of the National African Youth Organisation; 9. Zolile Ghost Ndindwa (26) – Cape Town based Black Consciousness leader; 10. Moffat Zungu (28) – chief photographer at the World newspaper; 11. Mhlophe Goodwill Moni (24) – student leader in the Western Cape and PAC operative; 12. Jerome Kodisang (26) – APLA guerrilla trained in Uganda, Sudan, Egypt and Libya; 13. Sello Mike Matsobane (36) – PAC leader and founder of the Young African Religious Movement; 14. Johnson Nyathi (32) – long standing PAC operative and Kagiso community leader; 15. Themba Hlatswayo (21) – Chairperson of the SRC in Kagiso and PAC underground operative; 16. Molatlhegi Tlhale (22) – student representative council leader in Kagiso; 17. Rodney Tsholetsane (20) – student leader in Kagiso; and, 18. Daniel Bizza Matsobane (31) – SASO member and adult literacy head at Wilgespruit Fellowship Centre.
2. SAIRR, Security trials 1958 – 1982. Box 4 – Bethal Trial. In the Supreme Court of South Africa, South-Eastern Local Division, 1978. http://www.historicalpapers.wits.ac.za/?inventory/U/collections&c=AD2021/R/V
3. Pogrund, Benjamin. (2000): War of Words – Memoir of a South African Journalist. New York. Seven Stones Press.
4. Hlongwane, Khangela Ali. The Lion of Azania – the Biography of Zephania Lekoane Mothopeng. (Unpublished manuscript)

Police forcefully remove one of the residents
source: http://www.iol.co.za

The manner in which the evictions of the Nomzamo /Lwandle informal settlement or shack dwellings was carried out is a reflection of the political and economic system embraced and practiced by the ruling elite or class in this country. The treatment of the poorest of the poor, the have-nots and the dispossessed is not surprising although shocking. Some of us were not surprised though shocked and disgusted by the brutality with which this was done because the interests of the rich and privileged were questioned or challenged and had to be protected including the status quo on the land issue , which is the underlying problem to housing in this country.

This is also a reflection of lack of decisiveness by the ruling elite whose hands are tied by a constitution that does not protect or defend the interests and aspirations of the poorest of the poor, the have-nots and the dispossessed of this country who are also the indigenous people of this country. The Nomzamo situation highlights the acute issue of landlessness of the majority indigenous in this country and the concomitant homelessness. This situation is corroborated by the recent publication of the latest land audit that shows that “private individuals and foreigners own close to 80 percent of South African land” (Pretoria News, Friday, Saturday September 6, 2013, Front Page).

There is no land for housing for the poor. This is admitted by some of the municipalities. In some municipalities, there is no land or space for cemeteries. The case in point is Soshanguve where they have been using the Mabopane cemetery because theirs is full and there is no land nearby. If any is available, it is either owned by a van der Merwe or a van Vuuren and the government cannot do anything about that because it is private property protected by the constitution (Property Clause 25).

The situation in this country is said to be unique or special. Sobukwe, the founder-leader of the PAC, rejected this ‘South African Exceptionalism’ because South Africa is an integral part of the African continent and is the outcome of colonialism – classical or settler colonialism (Remember the Berlin Congress of 1884-1885). As a result of this ‘exceptionalism’, the struggle for liberation in this country has not meant liberation of our land occupied by the settlers who are not prepared to share it with the landless majority.

The ruling elite have been made to believe but also believe and in turn have made the poor believe that any change in land ownership will affect food security. They even go to extremes by misrepresenting what has happened in Zimbabwe without admitting that the future generations there are secured with regard to land ownership whilst we, our children and their children have nothing and will have nothing. The Zimbabweans are now hands on with regard to the use of land for food production and food security whilst we depend on others for food security. One may also ask the question food security for what and for whom? For export and for the rich and privileged who have the means! This explains the Nomzamo situation where we have seen women and children crying painfully and in desperation because the only homes they had were demolished by heartless agents of those who own the land and the country in the name of private property.

After causing destruction, mayhem, suffering, fear, loss of personal belongings, interruption of children’s schooling and creating homelessness for the already homeless and exposing them to severe winter cold weather, the representatives of the ruling elite come around to shed crocodile tears and also accusing one another for the tragic situation they have caused. Then they tell the people to go back to what is now a waste land whilst others are temporarily accommodated in overcrowded community halls and other public facilities where there is no privacy let alone enough toilettes. They have been stripped of their human dignity. In the meantime, the government is telling the suffering displaced, helpless people and their innocent children to wait whilst they are looking for an alternative land (ba loma ba fodisa).

This clearly shows how poor people have become political football of parties that represent the rich and the privileged. This also explains the type of freedom we got. Our freedom needs to be freed or liberated if we truly want to claim to be really free. It is not surprising to hear voices saying not yet UHURU. Without control and ownership of our land and its resources below and above ground we are lying to ourselves, lying to others and lying to the world about the human rights and freedoms we claim to enjoy in this country. All these are academic, meaningless and have no substance for the poor and are enjoyed by the rich and the privileged who have forgotten who they are, where they came from and how they came to be where they are.

The last word remains with the poorest of the poor, the have-nots and the dispossessed of this country. Their time will come and they will remember what happened to them at Nomzamo informal settlement and other parts of this country.

Izwe Lethu! I-Africa!

By Molefe ‘Ike’ Mafole
The writer is a Member of the PAC of Azania (PAC) and the Azanian People’s Liberation Army (APLA) Military Veterans Association. He can be contacted on 072 630 2206.

Kenny Motsamai

The “New South Africa” boasts of being a “democracy.” Indeed, in some areas that are not fundamental to democracy such as homosexual marriages, “sex workers”, “abortion on demand”, and an education system that allows a pass mark of 30%, this “democracy” is excelling. But on fundamental political issues, that includes equitable redistribution of land and its riches according to population numbers and treatment of former freedom fighters who gave their lives to destroy apartheid colonialism in South Africa, the “rainbow nation” democracy is an unmitigated disaster.

Through its International Convention on the Suppression and Punishment of the Crime of Apartheid, the United Nations declared apartheid a crime against humanity. The crime of apartheid is akin to the 1948 Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide. According to this Convention, genocide is a crime whether committed in time of peace or of war. Article II of this Convention states, “Genocide means any of the following acts committed to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group such as: Killing members of the group; Causing serious bodily or mental harm calculated to bring about physical destruction in whole or in part….”

During the African liberation struggle against apartheid and colonialism in South Africa, even prominent Christian leaders such as Archbishop Desmond Tutu called apartheid “a theological heresy.” But during the sitting of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission (TRC), young men who fought against this crime and heresy were paraded before this TRC on the same pedestal as the perpetrators of the crime of apartheid, to justify their acts. It was demanded of them to prove that they were “politically motivated” to fight against apartheid. The victims of apartheid, a crime against humanity were sacrificed on the polluted altar of appeasement.

The TRC ignored the principles applied at the Nuremberg and Tokyo International Tribunals which tried the Nazis. The TRC did not distinguish those who fought a crime against humanity and those who were its cause and had fought and killed thousands of the victims of apartheid in order to perpetuate this crime against humanity. This was appeasement to the forces of apartheid colonialism backed by certain Western countries to protect their own economic interests in “New South Africa.” The victims of apartheid, a crime against humanity suffered gross injustice and violations of human rights. They were sacrificed on the polluted altar of false “reconciliation” which was devoid of reciprocity on the part of the perpetrators of the crime of apartheid. The political liberation of the African people that had been recognised internationally as legitimate was criminalised, mutilated and manipulated to suit secret deals, political capitulation and betrayal of land robbed colonised Africans.

Many freedom fighters appeared before the TRC without lawyers as they could not afford legal expenses and many were already in jails. According to the Law of Evidence, especially in criminal cases, the burden of proof lies with the person alleging the offence. At the TRC the burden of proof that the accused had done no wrong was placed squarely on the victims. It was demanded of them that they must prove that their activities were “politically motivated.” Their revolutionary activities including “repossession” were dismissed as “armed robbery.” The facts of colonial history in South Africa clearly show that the African people were dispossessed of their land and its resources. That is why the Pan Africanist Congress, in particular, though the Azanian Peoples’ Liberation Army (APLA) included repossession in its military programme.

African Kings of this country who fought the wars of national resistance against European colonial invasion and aggression implemented the policy of repossessing their land and its resources. King Moshoeshoe of the Basotho Nation articulated this policy of repossession very clearly. He wrote:
“When we drive colonialists’ cattle, sheep and horses in war, or before their fearing faces, they call that stealing. When they drive ours, they call it by soft names. They say they…replace their stolen property” [even though they arrived without property from Europe]. King Moshoeshoe elaborated, “To us, capturing the enemies’ property in war is one way of self-protection. More than that, by our laws, all property reared and nurtured on stolen land from us remains our property.”

The situation in South Africa is that as a result of Africans fighting the crime of apartheid against humanity; the “Rainbow Nation” has had political prisoners for the last twenty years. They were sentenced to barbaric prison sentences amidst the loud cheers of “reconciliation.” For example, Kenny Motsamai is serving two life prison sentences plus 19 years, Solomon Malijoana 3 life prison sentences, Petros Tshabalala two prison sentences plus 155 years. This was justice and democracy cruelly crucified in the midst of “rainbow nation” celebrations of the “best constitution” in the world. What made this situation worse was that a number of perpetrators of the crime of apartheid were pardoned at the “Truth and Reconciliation Commission.” A few examples are Barend Strydom, Craig Wiliams and Dirk Coetzee. Strydom killed eight African people at Pretoria Church Square in 1992. De Wet Krizinger killed three African bus passengers at Mamelodi in January 2000. Three AWB apartheid members planted the Worcester Christmas Eve Bomb in 1996.

What has been even more atrocious is that even before the TRC was established there are reports that the apartheid colonialist regime gave amnesty to more than 3500 of its forces. The regime shredded more than 44 metric tons of documents revealing dark secrets and atrocities committed. They included a programme of developing nuclear technological capacity for military purposes to terrorise African States it could not win to its apartheid colonial side. The nuclear plant was situated at Vulindaba near Phelandaba.

After I raised the matter of political prisoners in the South African Parliament for many years, where I was then serving, President Thabo Mbeki authorised the matter of pardoning political prisoners to be re-opened. Indeed, it was opened under President Kgalema Motlhanthe in 2008. The matter was to be dealt with swiftly. It did not. It dragged on until after President Jacob Zuma’s first term in office. When the list of pardoned prisoners was released long ago, I wrote to President Jacob Zuma through the Ministry of Justice and Constitutional Affairs and stated:
“Your Excellency, Presidential Pardons announced by yourself have not cured the defects of the “Truth and Reconciliation Commission” (TRC). A number of APLA former freedom fighters against apartheid, the former military wing of the Pan Africanist Congress are still languishing in the prisons of “New South Africa” under ANC rule – a purported African government. Only 34 APLA political prisoners have received Presidential Pardons. This is very unfortunate. This process was the last hope for former freedom fighters that the TRC awarded with imprisonment for their anti-apartheid and anti-colonial activities in this country.”

What has prompted me to write this article is my recent visit to some former members of the Azanian Peoples Liberation Army (APLA) in prisons. The justice system of this country has failed them. Let me give only two examples to illustrate this point. In a letter to one of these political prisoners Percy Kutu Chepape, dated 2nd February 2012 an official of the Head of the Secretariat: Political Pardons Special Dispensation Process, wrote:
“Dear Mr. Chepape (97358533 (Groenpunt Prison), The purpose of this letter is to inform you of the current status of your application and the process that will be followed in finalising your application……As you are probably aware, the Constitutional Court in the case of Rayn Albutt and Others v President of the Republic and Others, CCT54/[2010] ZACC 4, requires that a process of victim participation be instituted before the President makes a final decision….
Upon receipt of the representations from victims and interested parties, their representations will be submitted to the relevant applicants who will have 30 days to submit their replies to the Secretariat….All applicants will be informed of the decision of the President as soon as it is known. If representations regarding your matter is received from victims and interested parties, a further communication will be addressed to you setting out what is required from you….”

Sipho Banabas Ngomane (97354546) received a similar letter dated 2nd February 2012. I visited Chepape and Ngomane in prison on 19th May 2014. They have not heard from the Department of Justice and Constitutional Development since the 2nd February 2012. “The Invitation to victims and interested parties to make representations regarding certain Pardon Matters” was published over two years ago. But Chepape and Ngomane still have not heard about any objections to their release, if any. Is this how the justice system should operate in a democratic country? The legal dictum long declared that “Justice delayed is justice denied.” These political prisoners are now illegally imprisoned even by the standards of “New South Africa” which in the first place imprisoned freedom fighters who fought against the vile system of apartheid declared a crime against humanity by the United Nations.

How many African families or interested people were consulted over the perpetrators of Sharpeville, Langa, Soweto and numerous other massacres of Africans by the apartheid colonialist regime? For two years some APLA members who were announced as having been pardon by President Jacob Zuma are still sitting in jails! How long does this consultation take?

Only on 12 June 2014, the STAR newspaper in Johannesburg reported that the Minister of Correctional and Justice Services Michael Masutha was considering to release from prison Clive Derby-Lewis the killer of Chris Hani. Hani’s widow Mrs Limpho Hani had not been informed of this move by the ANC government. She herself angrily complained about this. The sensitivity to consult families of African victims does not seem to be as meticulously observed as when victims of white families are involved. Justice and democracy in “New South Africa” reveal more appeasement to whites than equal treatment as would be expected from a country which claims to have the “best” constitution in the word.

Under the ANC government, the apartheid colonial President P.W. Botha who ordered the massacre of Africans not only in South Africa, but in neighbouring countries such as Lesotho, Angola, Mozambique, Botswana, Zimbabwe and Zambia; refused to appear before the Truth and Reconciliation Commission, yet when he died his family was offered a state funeral. Why is it so easy to forgive those who practised apartheid and so difficult to forgive those who were victims of apartheid and colonialism? In a democratic society, justice is for all human beings regardless of their colour, political affiliation, class or religion.

In passing let me point out that the injustice to political prisoners has spilled over into national honours such as state funerals. The ANC Government offered state funerals to former apartheid presidents and to many of its members when they died. But recently on 14th June 2014, a great woman political fighter for freedom in South Africa who was one of the early pioneers of liberation struggle in this country was offered a “Provincial state funeral” in the Easter Cape Province. All others to date were offered state funerals in the true sense of this kind of funeral as understood the world over. This giant woman is Mrs ‘Mamotseki Epainette Mbeki, formerly Moerane. Her husband Govan Mbeki spent eighteen years on Robben Island with Nelson Mandela without compromising the legitimate demands of the African liberation struggle in this country. Mrs Mbeki in her own right served the liberation struggle of her country with distinction. She was a national freedom fighter, not a provincial or regional fighter. In fact, she is the oldest freedom fighter in South Africa. She died at the age of 98 years still fighting for justice. She was also a shining pioneer of African education. Her being offered a “provincial state funeral” is a conundrum of conundrums.

The time has long come for the ANC leaders to prove that Prof. Edward Feit was WRONG when he wrote, “Reviewing the story of the ANC, it would seem that all the times they were more concerned about non-violence against whites than against their own people” (The Journal Of Modern African Studies Volume 8 Number One 1970). Many young freedom fighters languishing in the prisons of “New South Africa” must be release. They were not the cause of the conflict. The cause of the conflict was colonialism and racism called apartheid in South Africa. In their struggle for the liberation of their country, they were guided by following principles derived from international law which applied to their struggle such as The Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries of December 1960, United Nations General Assembly Resolution 1514, especially paragraph 2 and Article 1 of this United Nations Resolution which reads: “The subjection of peoples to alien subjugation, domination and exploitation constitutes a denial of fundamental human rights, is contrary to the Charter of the United Nations and is an impediment to the promotion of world peace and co-operation.”

The “New South Africa” has played a double standard over members of APLA and others that it has imprisoned for fighting against apartheid. The late President Nelson Mandela called for release of political prisoners in Zambia and in Indonesia. He appealed to Zambia President Frederick Chiluba to pardon former President Kenneth Kaunda. He persuaded Indonesia’s President Suharto to release rebel leader Xanana Gusman. He requested Zimbabwe President Robert Mugabe to set free three agents of the ‘dirty tricks’ of the South African apartheid regime. The “New South African” government took a great deal of interest in crimes against humanity in Yugoslavia, Burundi, Rwanda, Bosnia etc. The ANC government sent judges such as Judge Richard Goldstone to take part in tribunals in these countries. Charity begins at home. Former freedom fighters that are languishing in the prisons of the “rainbow nation,” must be released forth. Their “crimes” are certainly far less than the apartheid crime which the United Nations declared a crime against humanity.

By Dr. Motsoko Pheko
The writer is a former representative of the victims of apartheid at the United Nations in New York and at the UN Commission and Human Rights in Geneva well as a former Member of the South African Parliament. He is the author of several books on history, politics, law and theology.

It is 38 years since the students uprisings sparked off at SOWETO and spread to other African Townships all over the country when these students said enough was enough and revolted against the imposition of Afrikaans as a medium of instruction in African schools. The students who had declared war and were on the warpath against the apartheid slave education based on racial discrimination and racial segregation buttressed by the white supremacist ideology were joined and supported by the entire oppressed nation including parents, teachers, civic organizations, community based organizations, church organizations, church leaders, workers, above ground and underground structures of the banned liberation movements.

Those students who survived the massacre and the brutality of the racist war machine, escaped to exile, joined and swelled the ranks of the liberation movements. These are the students who came back home as guerrillas to fight the apartheid security forces and the entire state machinery that terrorized the entire oppressed nation and the neighbouring Frontline States that gave shelter to the freedom fighters and supported the liberation of the oppressed African people of South Africa. 38 years now those young students are men and women (adults) and leaders in many areas of endeavor but the system they fought against, sacrificed, suffered and even paid with their lives for is yet to be radically changed and destroyed, especially economically and socially.

The apartheid economic and social structure has remained intact and is characterized by concentration of wealth and property in the hands of the white minority now joined by the post-1994 African political, bureaucratic and business elites and the new African middle class, the so-called “Black Diamonds” who constitute the “les nouveaux riches” are enjoying the fruits of freedom whilst the masses of the poorest of the poor, the have-nots and the dispossessed are still wallowing in abject poverty and squalor 20 years since national freedom was attained on the 27 April 1994.

As we commemorate the 38th Anniversary of the students’ uprisings triggered at SOWETO and spread nationwide, the quality of education they fought for, is far from being achieved as seen in the conditions in schools in the African communities in the townships/ghettoes and rural areas. There is no need to belabor this point except to say that there can be no quality education without the change of the existing material conditions in these schools, without committed and quality teachers supported by an efficient and effective administration and this implies the need for capable administrators who have authority of competence and can inspire discipline and respect in the school system, otherwise the education system will continue to be dysfunctional and thus betray what the 1976 school children who are now adults fought for, suffered, sacrificed and died for as we enter the “Second Transition”.

There can be no excuse not to effect radical transformation of the existing neo-colonial system if we claim or pretend to stand for the poorest of the poor, the have-nots and the dispossessed of this country. There can be no real change or transformation if we keep on tinkering and not decisively dealing with the underlying causes of poverty, unemployment and inequality. The underlying causes as many people have repeated so many times are systemic and structural. Unless the ruling elites move away from the neo-liberal paradigm and its concomitants buttressed by the ultraliberal constitution in place in this country, there shall be no radical transformation of the economic and social structure or existing property relations.

Firstly, the sunset clauses and related legislations must be abandoned so that the ruling elite can act without constraints or restraints. If they do not act decisively to change the existing apartheid economic and social system or existing property relations of course more radical parties will emerge and will one day take over and bring this about and this will be done with more anger as poverty, unemployment and inequality shall have deepened and worsened and these conditions shall have radicalized the demands of the poor. We hope the Second Transition will rid itself of the compromises that deferred the expected changes that the poor and the have-nots looked forward to post 1994. The ruling elite must also rid itself of idealism based on empty promises and formal rights and freedoms which are meaningless to the poor.

The poor must have food on the table; they must have decent or adequate shelter; their children must receive quality education; quality health care and above all there must be peace and security in their communities or environment. These communities must be free and be protected from the anarchy and mayhem that are prevailing in many locations in this country such as in Cape Town where drug peddling, drug abuse, alcohol abuse and gangsterism are the order of the day; people living in fear and total insecurity; schools being disrupted and school children afraid to attend classes and teachers afraid to teach while there are security forces seemingly being part of the problem or afraid to face the gangsters or drug dealers or barons.

The generation of 1976 showed the way when they challenged the apartheid system with courage and determination. They never retreated and compromised in the face of the most ferocious and brutal force unleashed against them and the arrest and elimination of some of the leaders of the uprisings. They never looked back until national freedom was achieved. Where is that courage and fearlessness today? To effect radical changes or transformation in this country today we need the courage of those students who are adults today and some of whom are leaders in government and other public and private institutions or maybe they have joined the middle class or the “Blaque Diamonds/Black Diamonds” (i.e. les nouveaux riches) and have forgotten what they fought for in 1976 because they are now comfortable now and not prepared to risk what they have and their status or positions.

The courage that is needed today is to make decisions for the interests of the poor and not for the interests of neo-colonialists who own our land and its wealth below and above ground. We need courage not to appease and not to be apologetic. Whatever radical transformation that must be undertaken must be based on distributive justice. This means those who have must be prepared to sacrifice part of what they have so that there is equitable distribution which will permit equal access or equal opportunities for all otherwise the sacrifices made and sufferings endured in 1976 shall have been in vain for the poor whose children lost their lives, some still unaccounted for and others maimed for life. We know that owning classes like ruling classes never voluntarily abdicate ownership or power without resistance thus leaving the only alternative being confiscation or expropriation. This will be the only route to follow if the ruling elite are serious about radical transformation of the existing property relations inherited from the apartheid system.

Izwe Lethu! I-Africa!

By Molefe ‘Ike’ Mafole
The writer is a Member of the PAC of Azania (PAC) and the Azanian People’s Liberation Army (APLA) Military Veterans Association. He can be contacted on 072 630 2206.

Robert Mangaliso Sobukwe: Founding President of the PAC of Azania

Programme Director, distinguished guests, Memorials help a nation to preserve its history and pass it on accurately from generation to generation for knowledge storage. Thank you for inviting me to give a memorial lecture on Mangaliso Robert Sobukwe, this giant Pan Africanist leader.

The title of my lecture is: “A LEADER WHO WALKED THE POLITICAL TALK TO THE FINISH”. Prof. Mangaliso Robert Sobukwe is a leader who walked the political talk to the finish. In the Biblical language, he ran the race and kept the faith. He went through a glorious contest with distinction. This is a man that the apartheid colonialist regime so silenced that even his closing speech in Court Case Number 173/60 was expunged from the Court record. Researchers and film makers thirsty to find his voice in radio stations have searched in vain. The enemy destroyed anything he ever said audibly. He was a banned person to his grave.

As a young man Mangaliso Robert Sobukwe was an omnivorous reader. At school, right up to the University of Fort Hare, he was an outstandingly brilliant student and a great thinker. He grew up to be a person endowed with profound intellect, revolutionary vigour and deep spirituality. He had exceptionally disarming humility towards everybody, friend and foe alike. Unashamed of his humble beginnings from which he came, he declared, “I am the son of Sobukwe born in Graaf-Reinet that land of goats….” Leadership is responsibility and duty to serve the people. Leaders who are servants of the people defend the poor and the powerless and work in their interests. They are not afraid to stand against the mighty. They reject the false philosophy that “might is right.” Might has been found wrong many times.

In the politics of South Africa Sobukwe introduced a new style of leadership. Leaders were to be in front. Indeed, he himself showed the way and many followed him, especially to Robben Island. Of leadership, he declared, “True leadership demands complete subjugation of self, absolute honesty, integrity and uprightness of character, courage and fearlessness, above all a consuming love for one’s people.” He never called a spade a big spoon. He refused to compromise the birth right of his people – land repossession.

Let me give you a few thoughts of those who observed Sobukwe’s life on the impact of the politics of this country, Africa and internationally. After the Sharpeville Uprising exploded like a huge bomb on apartheid South Africa; Lewis Nkosi, a highly respected journalist described Sobukwe as “…a tall, distinguished African prisoner, a university lecturer and political leader who at the age of 36 has a rare distinction of having scared the South African government out of its wits….” Nkosi elaborated: “Sobukwe helped to orchestrate a crisis that panicked the South African regime and nearly brought about the kind of political situation which too often makes the transfer of power overnight.”

A.P. Mda who was the President of the 1912 ANC Youth League after the death of Antony Muziwakhe Lembede and was then a prominent lawyer said, “ I found that Sobukwe believed that a leader must have total commitment to the struggle of the African people for national emancipation, no matter what hardships maybe or what the obstacles maybe.”

When the University of Ahmadu Bello in Nigeria conferred an honorary degree of Doctor of Laws on Sobukwe posthumously, the Dean of this University chanted, “Honourable Chancellor, I present to you this courageous African revolutionary, this strong believer in the principles of Pan Africanism, this great fighter for the liberation and unity of all African peoples, this symbol of the struggle against apartheid and colonialism; for the posthumous conferment of the honorary degree of Doctor of Laws….”

Sobukwe understood that the struggle in South Africa was fundamentally an anti-colonial struggle, not a mere civil rights struggle against apartheid. Apartheid was the symptom of the disease brought about by the Berlin Act of 26 February 1885 which enabled Europe to partition Africa into its colonies, robbed African people of their countries and used the riches of Africa to develop Europe and under-develop Africa. He knew how land dispossession of the African people came about in South Africa and that a doctor who treats the symptoms of a disease and not the disease itself is bound to fail. He recognised all African kings who fought against the colonial land dispossession of the African people in South Africa. Some of these are “Uphaqa njelanga, Inyathi yasenhlakanhlakeni, Unokuzila ukudla kwamagwala. Amagwala adlu bubende.” That is King Cetshwayo – the architect of the Battle of Isandlwana – where African spears triumphed over the guns of a well-armed British army. In today’s Eastern Cape, King Hintsa fell in the Sixth War of national resistance against British colonialism in 1834. The colonial soldiers were commanded by a British Colonel Harry Smith. He still has a town in “New South Africa” named after him. Another one called Ladysmith is named after his wife.

In July 1959, Sobukwe paid tribute to all African Kings. They were the first freedom fighters in this country against colonialism. Among other things Mangaliso Sobukwe said: “Sons and Daughters of Afrika, we are going down the corridor of time renewing our acquaintance with the heroes of Africa’s past – those men and women who nourished the tree of African freedom and independence with their blood, those great Sons and Daughters of Afrika who died in order that we may be free in the land of our birth. We meet here today, to rededicate ourselves to the cause of Afrika, to establish contact beyond the grave, with the great African heroes and assure them that their struggle was not in vain. We are met here Sons and Daughters of the beloved land to drink from the fountain of African achievement, to remember the men and women who begot us, to remind ourselves of where we come from and restate our goals. We are here to draw inspiration from the heroes of Thababosiu, Isandlwana, Sandile’s Kop and numerous other battlefields where our forefathers fell before the bullets of the foreign invader….”

A generation that is ignorant of its past has no past and no future. A generation that does not know its past does not know even its present. It therefore, cannot understand its present and plan its future intelligently. The past has determined how the present must be handled. Sobukwe got his politics and His history correct. He did not forget that if a realistic and just society is to be created in South Africa, the facts of the political history of this country must not be swept under the carpet. Have you ever read the Union of South Africa Act 1909 and the Native Land Act 1913? These are two pieces of legislation that created South Africa. The Native Land Act 1913 legalised the unjust distribution of land and its riches. It created massive poverty and alarming economic inequalities affecting the African people today. This same law is today hidden in Section 25 (7) of the South African Constitution under a new name – “property clause” while, the country’s majority people is propertyless. Millions live in filthy shacks not fit even for pigs. These shacks often catch fire or flood killing many people.

The rulers dangle before the dispossessed of this country “land claims” from the crumbs of 13% allocated to the African people in 1913 and 1936. They are now offered to buy back the property of their ancestors through a dismally failed policy of “willing seller and willing buyer.” But even this, is merely their land which was further seized from 13% through the Group Areas Act of 1950. Indeed, the country Sobukwe fought for is like the one which Prophet Isaiah described in Chapter 1 verse 7 of this book, when he wrote, “Your land is desolate…Your land, strangers devour in your presence.” – “Izwe lakini liyihlane…umhlaba wenu udliwa ngabafokazi phambi kwenu.” Sobukwe knew that this would happen if some liberation struggle leaders in this country would confuse the symptoms – apartheid; for the disease colonialism itself.

The apartheid colonialist regime feared Sobukwe. Johannes Balthazar Vorster, the regime’s Minister of Justice called Sobukwe a “Heavy Weight Boxer” when compared to his political opponents in South Africa. Sobukwe understood the essence of the African liberation struggle too clearly to be misled or compromised. He is the only political leader in the history of South Africa who was imprisoned on Robben Island without even a mock trial. After serving a three-year prison sentence at Stofberg Prison for leading the Sharpeville Uprising, he was imprisoned on Robben Island in solitary confinement. He was guarded by five prison warders with two fierce Alsatian dogs. In the entire history of the world no parliament ever made a law to govern one man. But in South Africa, the “Sobukwe Clause” was legislated hurriedly by the apartheid colonial Parliament to do precisely that. Commenting on the “Sobukwe Clause,” the apartheid regime’s Minister of Justice, Johannes Balthazar Vorster said: “Then we come to the Sobukwe Clause….I appreciate that the principle of this clause is drastic….It is imprisonment that is concerned with the security of the state. It does not relate to any other crime….I have respect for the attitude of Member for Houghton [Helen Suzman]….But I want to say to her…if her amendment were to succeed and Robert Sobukwe were released we would have a fine to do in this country.” Some Members of the apartheid parliament visited Sobukwe on Robben Island after some years. They voted that Sobukwe must be kept in Robben Island Prison because he had not changed. A member of parliament who was in the group that visited Sobukwe said: “I asked Sobukwe, have you considered changing your ideology?” He replied: ‘Not until the day of the resurrection.’

Sobukwe was a Pan Africanist visionary. He preached Africanism and Pan Africanism in South Africa when these concepts were frowned upon by his political opponents as “anti-white.” But of course, today there is the Pan African Parliament. There has been the Organisation of African Unity. It has been succeeded by the African Union. It is very clear that if Africa does not unite, she will not defeat the onslaughts of a new form of colonialism threatening Africa’s people. Situations such as Libya, Central African Republic, Somalia, Mali, South Sudan, Boko Haram in Nigeria show that no African state can go it alone.

Sobukwe was an ideological brother and comrade of Pan Africanist luminaries such as Kwame Nkrumah, Julius Nyerere, Modibo Keita, Ahmed Sekou Toure, Patrice Lumumba etc. He was a strong advocate of a United States of Africa. He declared, “Besides the sense of a common historical fate that we share with other [African] countries, it is imperative for purely practical reasons that the whole of Africa unite into a single unit….Only in that way can be solved the immense problems that face the Continent.” Sobukwe died on 27 February 1978. He had envisaged that “By the end of 20th century, the standard of living of the masses of the African people would undoubtedly have arisen dramatically….” He pointed out that “The potential wealth of Africa in minerals, oil, hydro-electric power and so on, is immense. By cutting out waste through systematic planning a central government can bring the most rapid development.”

There is an unfounded criticism against Sobukwe by his opponents. For instance, the author of Long Walk To Freedom has written: “I was keen to discuss policy issues with Sobukwe, and one of the matters I took up with him was the PAC slogan ‘Freedom in 1963.’ It was already 1963 and freedom was nowhere to be seen.” It is not clear whether this was just the usual slanting of facts. The official slogans of the PAC have always been “Izwe Lethu!”or “Africa for Africans, Africans for humanity and humanity for God!” Anyway, this is what Sobukwe wrote in the Drum Magazine March 1959: “Nobody disputes our contention that Africa will be free from foreign rule. What is disputed by many, particularly the ruling white minorities is that she will be free ‘within our life time or by 1963 or even by 1973 or 1984. However, the African nationalist movements which met in Accra in 1958 put 1963 as the target for freedom for all of Africa.” There were only 8 African States when Sobukwe said this. But by 1963, there were 32 African States and the formation of the Organisation of African Unity on 25 May 1963. By 1984 only South Africa remained an apartheid colony.

Sobukwe was never naive about the hardships of the liberation struggle he led. Long before the Sharpeville Uprising, Robben Island Prison, Armed Struggle that was initiated by him and his colleagues such as P.K. Leballo, Zephania Mothopeng and Nyathi Pokela; Sobukwe had warned: “There is plenty of suffering ahead. The oppressor will not take this lying down. But we are ready, come what may.”

Without Sobukwe’s leadership, the United Nations would never have been seized with the Problem of South Africa for over 30 years. As Frantz Fanon the author of The Wretched of The Earth writes, it was through the Sharpeville Uprising led by Sobukwe which made the vile system of apartheid known internationally. Without this Uprising, there would never have been a United Nations Special Committee Against Apartheid. This world body would never have declared apartheid a crime against humanity. As a result of Sobukwe’s leadership the United Nations in honour of the martyrs of Sharpeville Uprising, declared March 21 International Day For The Elimination Of Racial Discrimination. Without Sobukwe’s actions, there would never have been Robben Island Prison. Robben Island Prison was primarily meant for Sobukwe and PAC members. That is why they were the first to be imprisoned on Robben Island from 12 October 1962. That is also why neither Sobukwe nor any PAC leaders and members were transferred to comfortable prisons such as Pollsmoor and Victor Vester.

Was Sobukwe a “racist”? In a court of law in which he and his 23 colleagues were convicted of leading the Sharpeville Uprising, he stated that he believed in one race only. Asked, “Do you imply that the Africans,… and the whites of this country belong to this race?” He replied, “Correct.” It is Sobukwe’s organisation that coined the phrase “non-racial” in South Africa. The others were multi-racialists. Sobukwe said there was enough racism in South Africa to multiply it. The experts of English language those days said, there was no such word in English. Today the constitution of this country talks of non-racial society. Unfortunately, no English experts ever afterwards came forward to thank Sobukwe and his movement for giving the English language a new word – non-racialism. They just quietly put it in their dictionaries.

Sobukwe was a pace setter in the politics of South Africa. When he formed a military wing of his Party, others did the same. When he went to Robben Island they followed him there. Let me give one example. When he appeared in court on 4th April 1960, he reminded the Magistrate: “Your Worship, it will be remembered that when this court began we refused to plead because we felt no moral obligation whatsoever to obey laws which are made exclusively by a white minority….But I would like to quote what was said by someone before, that an unjust law cannot be justly applied….We stand for equal rights for all individuals….We are not afraid of the consequences for our actions and it is not our intention to plead for mercy. Thank you, Your Worship.”

Two years six months, after Sobukwe had addressed a colonial court in this mood, a rival political leader in 1962 followed on the hot pace that Sobukwe had set. He said, “I challenge the right of this court to hear my case, Firstly I fear that I will not be given a fair trial. Secondly, I consider myself neither legally nor morally bound to obey laws made by a parliament in which I have no representation.” (Old Synagogue Court Pretoria 15 October 7th November 1962)

Sobukwe was far ahead of his political opponents. His revolution began with the destruction of the enslaving pass laws – the Dom Pass which had conditioned the African people to regard their colonial masters as demigods. They suffered the terrible disease of inferiority complex. For Sobukwe the Dom Pass symbolised men who could never become owners of products and masters of their destiny. They were mentally damaged by the system of apartheid and colonialism and had helplessly accepted their inferior status in the land of their ancestors. Today, when you look at the mineral complex of our country, both these issues directly contest white minority ownership of land and mineral resources.

Sobukwe worked on distinct fronts as thought leader. These were:
1. Africans must be owners of the means of production;
2. Africans must be owners of land and minerals; and
3. Africans must declare their freedom from mental slavery by thinking, working and behaving like free men and women without the continuing mental chains of the Dom Pass that Sobukwe and his colleagues paid a high price to destroy through the Sharpeville Uprising.
These are still the biggest challenges faced by our country. Without attainment of these three objectives, there will be worse Marikanas. At some stage the slave conditions of employment, especially in mines and farms and unjust distribution of land and its resources according to population numbers, will create more uprisings. Sobukwe became the main target for the racist colonial regime because of these objectives. They knew just how the economic consequences would be for their colonial paradise that economically excluded the indigenous African population.

Sobukwe was a man with deep spirituality. He was an inspiration not only as a political leader, but also as a spiritual man. He found fortification, solace and courage in his Christian faith. He defied the demigods of white supremacy who wanted to destroy the image of God in Black people. He refused to bow to the forces of tyranny. In turn they destroyed him physically. But they could not destroy him spiritually. While people were sending him messages of sympathy for his suffering in Robben Island for no sins of his, he in turn was encouraging them. There is this letter he wrote to one of his Party members. It read: “I came across some beautiful sentiments, the other day, and I intend to pass them on to you because I know you will appreciate them as I did. This man Gilbert is commenting on 1 Samuel 12:24.” He says, “The Christian fears God, but for that reason he does not fear men. The Christian believes in God, but for that very reason he will not have men tell him what he may believe or not believe. The Christian is dependent on God and that is why he is independent of men. The Christian is humbled before God as his Maker and Lord, and that is why he cannot bow to human masters.” ‘I say Amen to every word,’ Sobukwe concluded.

The deep spirituality of Dr. Mangaliso Robert Sobukwe is manifested also in his favourite English poem.
“To every man upon this earth…
Death comes soon or late…..
And how can man die better? …..
Than facing fearful odds….
For the ashes of his fathers ….
And for the temples of his Gods?”

Prof. Ivan Sertima, a Pan Africanist scholar in the Diaspora was correct when he wrote: “When a star dies, it does not vanish from the firmament. Its light keeps streaming across the fields of time and space, so that centuries later we may be touched by a vision of the fire and brilliance of its former life. The lives of truly great men are just like that.” Dr. Mangaliso Robert Sobukwe is that kind of star. Freedom is not free. Its price is sacrifice. Sobukwe walked the political talk against fearful odds, with extra-ordinary patriotism and consuming love for Africa. God Bless Africa and her Sons and Daughters.

By Dr. Motsoko Pheko
The writer delivered the Sobukwe Memorial Lecture on 12 July 2014 at the Methodist Black Consultation held in Springs, Ekurhuleni, near Johannesburg.

Smoke billows from buildings following an Israeli airstrike on the Gaza Strip source:http://www.presstv.ir

Nothing is as ahistorical and unconvincing as the statement that God gave Palestine to the Jews. This statement is a crude fabrication of the scriptures by the Nazis and Zionists to proffer a justification for the colonisation and occupation of Palestine. There is no God who can dispossess a people of their country and give it to other people.

The recent bombing of the Palestinian people out of their homes is an orchestrated plan carried out by Zionists and it is occurring for the second time in sixty years. It happened the last time in the late 1940’s. The Plan to establish a Zionist state in Israel gained impetus during the tenure of office of former British Prime Minister Benjamin Disraeli in 1877 and was put into motion at the Zionist Congress held in Basel, Switzerland on 29 August 1897 called by Theodor Herzl and funded by the Rothschild family.

In How Britain’s Biggest Racists Created Zionism, Mark Burdman wrote:
“There is one man who can properly be regarded as the father of Zionism and Nazism: Benjamin Disraeli. To omit Disraeli from a central place in the 19th century development of Zionism, as agent historian Barbara Tuchman once said, “would be as absurd as to leave the ghost out of Hamlet.” As Prime Minister under Victoria in the 1870s, Disraeli was the overseer of Britain’s imperial design to secure a “homeland” for Jews as a British outpost in the Middle East, and a secret document authored by Disraeli became the manifesto for early Zionism in Europe. That much is admitted on the public record”.

In 1877, the British Prime Minister wrote a blueprint for a Zionist state in Palestine under British rule; the man who is officially known as the “spiritual father of the country” in Israel today is Theodore Herzl. Herzl, the prophet of political Zionism, went by the code-name “Tancred”; he ably personified the race-cult ideas of Disraeli and the Anglican “Jewish restorationists” of 19th century England.

Herzl was bred in Vienna, the intellectual swamp of the decomposing Hapsburg Empire. There the British intelligence service and allied House of Austria also recruited Adolf Hitler, for the Nazi variety of anti-Semitism. Like Hitler, Herzl was an extreme neurotic, a Bohemian playwright, who hated Jews. Laughed at, derided, denounced, and assured that he was insane by almost all Jews he came in contact with, Theodore Herzl was embraced by the racialist myth-makers of the British Empire, becoming a principal agent for their policy: a drive to “purify” the Aryan and Semitic “races” alike by ridding Europe of “the Jew.” The document was published anonymously and put into circulation in Vienna. It can be accessed on this link http://wlym.com/campaigner/7812.pdf .

Herzl was Disraeli’s protégé’. In his Complete Diaries, Herzl clearly spells out the modus operandi of the Zionists, one of which was to drive all Arabs out of Palestine by means of violence. But overtly the Zionists did not reveal their true intentions. The intentions of the Israeli government are clear; to drive out as many Palestinians as possible and usurp their land. Hamas is used as a pretext to realize the objectives of Zionism. Zionism, like Apartheid, is a racist ideology.

Hamas is portrayed as an anti-Semitic organization and by extension the ANC as one writer pointed out in The Business Day of 14 July 2014 because it is perceived to be supporting Hamas. Who or what is an anti-Semite? African-American scholar, Dr Charles Finch wrote that the word “Semitic” itself has varied connotations depending on the point to be proved or world-view to be reinforced. Thus, depending on who’s using it, the term can denote a race, an ethnic group, or a language, or some combination thereof. The Palestinians are also classified as Semites. So are they against themselves? The Israelis are perceived as being against the Palestinians. They are therefore also anti-Semitic.

The ANC government, unlike the tjoep stil Democratic Alliance, should be commended for having spoken out against the atrocities perpetrated by the Israeli government against the Palestinians although this is too little too late. It should have recalled its ambassador from Tel Aviv and expelled Israel’s envoy from this country. In fact, the ANC government should not have established diplomatic relations with Israel in the first place from the advent of the “new” government because Israel propped up the Apartheid government militarily and helped it with its nuclear weapons programme. There are well documented reports that the Apartheid government’s twenty-four nuclear warheads were transported to Israel before “democratic” elections. Israel also helped the Apartheid government bust sanctions.

The ANC government, like almost all governments on the African continent, is a client state of the US and/or France. Consequently, it won’t sever diplomatic relations with Israel because Israel is the US’s spoiled brat and South Africa is kowtowing to the US. Israel, like the Apartheid government, is a settler colonialist state and was established in 1948 by Europeans. The ANC government’s position should be that, based on historical records, Israel is an occupying force in Palestine and a colonial outpost for western imperialism in the Middle East. It is the aggressor and should therefore cease hostilities unconditionally.

By Sam Ditshego
The writer is a Senior Researcher at the Pan Africanist Research Institute (PARI).

A Liberian soldier stops people at a security checkpoint set up to clamp down on people traveling due to the Ebola virus, on the outskirts of Monrovia, Liberia, Thursday, Aug. 7, 2014. Soldiers clamped down on people trying to travel to Liberia’s capital Thursday from rural areas hard-hit by the Ebola virus hours after the president declared a national state of emergency. Source: http://news.msn.com/

I first heard about the Ebola virus while I was in Canada in the early 1990’s. At the time, I was already writing about AIDS. The disease that was said to be caused by this virus was described as haemorrhagic fever and the strain of the virus was described as Ebola Zaire. They said those affected bled from all the orifices.

As stated in the opening paragraph, Ebola was first mentioned in the early 1990’s or earlier. One morning in North America this writer was watching NBC television programme hosted by Bryant Gamble. During the course of the programme, a white American guy Richard Preston was interviewed about Ebola and he had written a book titled The Hot Zone. A clip featuring him wearing protective clothing appeared in which it was purported to have been recorded in African caves where he was researching about the Ebola virus.

Alternative media sources report that this particular strain that is responsible for the current outbreak of the pandemic in West Africa is not Ebola Zaire. It is a new strain and maybe more dangerous than the Zaire variety. The symptoms are the same but the new strain seems difficult to contain. It is airborne. It does not spread through body fluids as health officials, governments and the mainstream media have been telling us. The rate at which this strain has spread is unprecedented. It can spread between different species of animals, for example, from monkeys to pigs.

The US’s Center for Disease Control (CDC) says this virus is 97% similar to the Zaire strain. It should also be noted that there doesn’t seem to be a consensus on what to call this new strain. One study referred to it as “Guinean EBOV”, another as “Guinea 2014 EBOV Ebola virus” and others still refer to it as Zaire. As stated above the media has embarked on a red herring.

As reported in top secret.com, media coverage is now focusing on the experimental Ebola treatments being given to two American Ebola patients who contracted it while caring for victims in Africa – the site of the world’s deadliest outbreak. But that Ebola treatment, created by a leading bioengineering scientist from the University of Arizona who “joked” about wiping out humanity with a “better” genetically engineered virus during a post-lecture Question and Answer session, focused on over-population issues, citing the Hollywood film ‘Contagion.’ It continued to point out that as Truthstream Media previously reported, on February 2, 2012, Dr. Charles Arntzen, head of The Biodesign Institute for Infectious Diseases and Vaccinology, responded to a question pertaining to whether feeding the 8 billion people of the world was worth it, or whether population reduction should be pursued. The scientist quipped: “Has anybody seen ‘Contagion’? That’s the answer! Go out and use genetic engineering to create a better virus… 25 percent of the population is supposed to go in Contagion.” One of the writer said, “I know some of you will say, ‘he was just joking around’. But we know there are some mad scientists out there who actually believe this. They believe it, and they have the financial backing to seriously consider doing it (Bill Gates, George Soros, etc.). Whatever this scientist’s (Dr. Charles Arntzen) motivation, I find it highly disturbing that he would joke about such a thing. It also betrays the contempt for humanity that many scientists hold.

The site http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread1025707/pg1 captures Dr Arntzen in a YouTube video clip making those foreboding and blood-curdling remarks. The above comments are from one of the writers of Truthstream Media. He/she says many scientists have contempt for humanity. Apparently Contagion is a Hollywood movie whose story line is depopulation of people from the so-called Third World, especially Africans, Asian and Latin Americans. Those Hitler and the Nazis referred to as “useless eaters”.

Former President of the World Bank (1968 – 1981) Robert McNamara who hailed from the US once said that reduction of excess population in this thermo-nuclear age can be achieved through war, famine and inoculation of disease. He was one of the authors of The Global 2000 Report which called for the elimination of 2-billion people by the year 2000. Killing people in the “Third World” for their resources is one of the cornerstones of US foreign policy. I refer readers to former US Secretary of State Henry Kissinger’s National Security Memorandum (NSM) 200 which states that, “The U.S. economy will require large and increasing amounts of minerals from abroad, especially from less-developed countries. That fact gives the U.S. enhanced interests in the political, economic and social stability of the supplying countries. Wherever a lessening of population can increase the prospects for such stability, population policy becomes relevant to resources, supplies and to the economic interests of the United States.”

Of course, we know that the “economic interests of the United States” means the interests of U.S. corporations and Multinationals. NSM 200 is available at the U.S. National Archives (Source: Rwanda: The True Forces behind Genocide in Africa Author: Mosalagae Ditshego). This article first appeared in The Final Call in 1994. The Final Call is the newspaper of The Nation of Islam led by Louis Farrakhan. These diseases, wars and famines are orchestrated. This Ebola pandemic is a biological warfare against Africans but your leaders are wimps, chickens to tell the West like it is. Our scientists and medical doctors are conniving and colluding with African leaders because they beg for research funding from them. Young African scientists and medical doctors with courage must join the war against imperialism, man-made diseases and famines imposed through genetically modified organisms.

By Sam Ditshego
The writer is a Senior Researcher at the Pan Africanist Research Institute (PARI).

The opportunities for investment by US business people have been there ever since Africa overthrew colonialism and became independent states but the old US with a colonial and imperialistic mentality is irrelevant to Africa. The US policy of dictating how Africans must rule themselves, of harbouring colonial conspiracies about “regime change” and lecturing African countries on “democracy” can be considered parochial, arrogant and insulting to Africa’s people.

That respectable African statesman, Tanzanian President “Mwalimu” Julius Nyerere was right when he said, “We, in Africa have no more need of being ‘converted’ to socialism than we have of being taught ‘democracy’. Both are rooted in our past – in the traditional society which produced us.” Prof. Chukuwuma Soludo, a leading African economist, once observed that, “at issue, is whether or not Africa can be allowed latitude to conduct trade and industrial development for its own development [other than for the benefit of the West].” He has intoned that with the European Partnership Agreements (EPAs) for example, a major difference is that unlike the Berlin Conference of 1884-85, these agreements are today signed by a free people under supposedly democratic governments, but the true context remains that Africans again, still remain with neither a voice nor choice in these new economic dispensations.

It is therefore unsurprising that African commentators are questioning some merits of the Obama US-Africa Summit. If the US-Africa Summit is about economic matters and trade, why has it not been organised by American businessmen with the involvement of African ministers of trade and economic affairs, as well as their expert advisors? Why is it not being held in Africa where the economic war against poverty and underdevelopment is being fought and needs to be won? Why must it be the African heads of state – many of whom are not economists – that are invited to the Obama US-Africa Summit for economic issues? And pointedly, what actually is new about this summit?

To begin with, if this summit signals an unprecedented change in American foreign policy towards Africa, the exclusion from invites of some African heads of state, such as Zimbabwe’s Robert Mugabe and Sudan’s Omar Hassan Ahmad Al-Bashir, not only arouses doubt, but opens the ever-festering wounds of colonial domination, and in pan-African political thought-leader circles, there is already talk that the African leaders invited to attend the summit must tread carefully and refuse to be used as tools in the age-old imperialist game of “divide and rule.”

There are calls that the African Union must not allow its members to be discriminated against by foreign powers and that the selective invitations not only undermine the broader continental interests, but render as irrelevant one of the continent’s major tenets, which is that African leaders must speak with one African voice. It is unabashedly imprudent for America to want to deal with some African heads of state and not with others in this day and age where issues and disagreement must be resolved with the involvement of all parties.

The other point that must be observed is that America is not a continent. It is a country, albeit an important one. It is contemptuous of President Obama to invite Africa – an important continent – as if it were some “Banana Republic.” Africa must be respected and African heads of state must not compromise the respect for Africa. As Prof. Ngungi wa Thiongo has put it, “Africa is a huge continent, the US, China and India can be contained within it. This means that Africa has the most natural resources – including land for agriculture and mines for almost every mineral. These, including her human resources, have played a central role in the evolution of capitalism from its mercantile through its industrial to its current global finance dominance – all to the advantage of the West, and to the disadvantage of the people of Africa.”

Many African leaders, now and before, have routinely been irritated by the condescending treatment Africa has received from some Western countries including the US. At one point, the late Egyptian President Gamal Abdel Nasser elucidated: “We [Africans], are a sentimental people. We like a few kind words better than millions of dollars given in a humiliating way.” Another great African mind, the late President Ahmed Sekou Touré of Guinea once bluntly stated: “An African statesman is not a naked boy begging from rich imperialists.” Fast-forward to 2014, and the attitude of the US towards Africa largely remains un-reassuring and rather disturbing. The African leaders who met with President Obama at US Africa Head of States Summit, could only serve justice to their people if they had boldly and resolutely scrutinise and interrogate the US about why they (the US) have actually called the summit. This was their chance to seek answers to many events experienced at the hands of America in Africa.

When talking about moving Africa forward, both economically and politically, America has advanced the issue of African youth. One of its agendas – training “Young Africa’s Leaders” – saw, just this June, some 500 African students reportedly arrive in the US to be trained in several American universities on “African Leadership”. These students, who the Americans call “Africa’s Most Promising Leaders”, are wholly funded by the US government. As the African leaders sit around the table with the American government at the Summit, one would expect them to query why, and further question if President Obama would, for example, offer similar programmes to the Russians or Chinese. African leaders should be wary of the long-term intentions and impact of the US’s “training” of African leaders on Africa’s behalf.

The spectre of Africa being ruled by proxy or puppet leaders trained to serve not African interests, but those of their masters, can never be taken lightly or be ignored. African youth is a very important continental asset. Without the youth, there is no tomorrow, they are the future custodians and trustees of this continent. And as such, they must be meticulously trained for leadership in accordance with the deepest aspirations, interests and needs of African people. To allow a situation where African youths are trained by foreign powers with vital economic and other interests in the continent, is like parents who give their children to strangers to bring them up. This issue is therefore of vital importance to raise as African leaders meet up with the world’s lead superpower. What we require is a partnership of equals.

In this day and age, technology talks. And if this summit is truly “unprecedented”, one area that needs vigorous consideration is that of the massive transfer of high technology for the economic development and technological advancement of Africa. African governments should be lobbying to learn from the US, and through the transfer of technology and skills, obtain the required technology that will fast-track the development of the continent. The onus is on African heads of state to find solutions to questions of technology and skills transfer. One way that might be explored, is to seek an exchange of Africa’s raw materials, especially minerals and oil, for the continent’s needed technology, as opposed to cash, goods or services. Africa will only become wholly self-reliant if technological advancement is part of its economic development trajectory. If the intention of the US was to use the Summit as a forum for realising Africa’s economic advancement, for mutual benefits, then technology transfer should be at, or near, the top of the agenda. Practically all development analysts would argue that Africa needs to be assisted in this manner.

All nations of the world, especially the Western world, must awaken to the fact that the 21st century requires the creation of an interdependent world. The US and its allies must be told that they need to subscribe to this ideal because the Eurocentric view of the world is not the only view. The Africentric/Afrocentric view must also be accepted and respected, more so now that the US for the first time in its history has seen the need for a Summit between the US and Africa countries. Economic, cultural and military domination by one nation or a group is not a solution to the problems of this world. No nations should operate as if the UN and its Charter are insignificant. No nation must look only at its own interests and ignore the fact that all other nations of the world have their own national interests. Hopefully, this is a premise on which the US Africa Summit is anchored.

Africa must unite and speak with one voice. As they freely agree to be part of the Summit, the message should be that they come as a solid unit, as a collective. African leaders must always engage with the world on the basis of interdependence, not dependence, especially economically. This message must be clearly spelt out at the Summit. African Heads of States should not present Africa as a bankrupt, indebted continent, bringing nothing to the Obama table but a begging bowl. The African continent has reached a pivotal point regarding the social and economic liberation of her population. The peace dividend is more essential today than at any moment in Africa’s history. Stability and self–determined economic policy are critical anchors of African countries’ development path, particularly given the worrying incursions of terrorist groups.

China has a huge stake in the African regional economies, with massive investments in infrastructure, development loans, venture capital and other inputs. Current GDP figures illustrate that the Africa region is one of China’s primary trading interests. The era of economic incursion belongs in the past and the 21st century demands foreign investors who understand the fundamentals of partnership. This requires that African countries define and receive their fair share while international investors receive theirs as well. African countries cannot continue to be passive bystanders, while unscrupulous investors deplete Africa’s riches, leaving little or nothing in their place for Africa to benefit from. In the past some investors contented themselves with merely paying for labour and leaving no lasting heritage. African governments must declare this kind of exploitative investment as belonging to the oldest archives and evoke existing labour, environmental and trade regulations to support this position. All must be done on a level playing field and characterised by mutual respect.

By Dr. Motsoko Pheko
The writer is a former representative of the victims of apartheid at the United Nations in New York and at the UN Commission and Human Rights in Geneva as well as a former Member of the South African Parliament. He is the author of several books on history, politics, law and theology. This article was first published by the New African magazine at http://newafricanmagazine.com on 5 August 2014 and has been slightly edited.

EFF Leaders – Floyd Shivambu and Julius Malema (in Red Overalls) Source: http://www.timeslive.co.za

On 21 August 2014 there was an interesting spectacle at the National Assembly of the South African Parliament when President Jacob Zuma was asked to account, about the public money he used for the upgrades at his Nkandla homestead, as required in the Public Protector’s report. President Zuma engaged in doublespeak and egg dancing as he is wont. But Economic Freedom Fighters Members of Parliament would not have any of that and parliament erupted into pandemonium as a consequence of President Zuma’s verbal gymnastics and prevarication.

On 22 August 2014, the SABC’s Morning Live television show played a clip in which Speaker of Parliament, Baleka Mbete said that EFF Members of Parliament have no respect for parliament. That’s rich coming from the Chairperson of the ruling party. Does the ANC itself have respect for parliament?

The preamble and Section 181 and 182 of the Constitution clearly spell out the constitutional and legislative mandate of the Public protector. It reads in part thus: The Constitution establishes the Public Protector as one of the several independent institutions that are to strengthen and support democracy. The Public Protector is accountable to the National Assembly and must report on activities and performance of functions to the National Assembly at least once a year. No person or organ of state may interfere with the functioning of the Public Protector. All organs of state are required by the Constitution to assist and protect the Public Protector and other constitutional institutions to ensure the independence, impartiality, dignity and effectiveness of these institutions. They are further forbidden from interfering with the functioning of the Public Protector and other constitutional institutions.

Unpacking some of the functions and duties of the Public Protector and other pertinent points would be in order.

On the issue of strengthening and supporting constitutional democracy, the question we must ask is how did the actions of EFF Members of Parliament weaken and undermine democracy by demanding answers from President Jacob Zuma only to be prevented from doing so by the partisan interjection of Speaker of Parliament? How do the actions of President Zuma strengthen and support democracy by ducking and diving? He has failed to uphold the constitution of this country by playing hanky-panky on the remedial action sought by the Public Protector. President Zuma must honour his constitutional obligations. If Parliament can’t bring pressure to bear on President Zuma to respect the jurisdiction of the Public Protector and hold him to account then it has no reason to sit. Suspending the seating of Parliament temporarily and calling in the police to Parliament, a place meant for debates, to protect a dishounarable and wayward Head of State exposed the dark underbelly of the ANC.

The Public Protector is accountable to the National Assembly and must report on its activities and functions to the National Assembly at least once a year. The Public Protector has fulfilled her constitutional and legislative duties on the Nkandla scandal on a shoe-string budget for that matter. What was left for President Jacob Zuma to do was to account to Parliament what happened to millions of Rands of the tax payers’ money as required or demanded by Members of Parliament, not only of the EFF but of other political parties as well. The ruling party can’t rely on its parliamentary majority (voting cattles), delaying tactics and the partisan Speaker of Parliament in order to circumvent issues of national importance while they are willy-nilly looting state coffers with impunity and brazen affront.

No person or organ of state may interfere with the functioning of the Public Protector. This constitutional provision was clearly violated by those Cabinet Ministers who formed part of the security cluster – Nathi Mthethwa, Siyabonga Cwele and Jeff Radebe. They intimidated the Public Protector by threatening her with prosecution should she make her report of the Nkandla scandal public. They also attempted to approach the courts to seek a court interdict and accused her of leaking the report to the media all of which came to naught. One wonders if they are or were familiar with The Public Protector Act 23 of 1994.

The previous Speaker of Parliament Max Sisulu constituted a Parliamentary Committee to look into the Public Protector’s report which was dissolved by ANC MP’s prior to the May 9 national elections perhaps with the hope that it will go away. Unfortunately it hasn’t gone away and has come back to haunt the ANC. The dissolution by the ANC in parliament of the committee that was constituted by former Speaker Sisulu is one of the delaying tactics employed by the ANC to buy time.

The Public Protector’s report was finally presented to the Special Investigating Unit apparently by Zuma. The SIU which had previously said it had completed its investigation into the Nkandla scandal somersaulted and reported that it hadn’t completed its investigations. When President Zuma was requested to respond to the Public Protector’s report he said he was waiting for the SIU to complete its investigations. The SIU is not a constitutional body; it is a statutory body whose head is appointed by Zuma himself. Moreover, the SIU has shown itself to be pliant and manipulable. Its findings in this matter are neither here nor there.

In another matter involving Zuma, the handing over of the spy tapes as ordered by the Supreme Court of Appeal has not been honoured. There is stone-walling, especially by President Zuma. He has also instituted a bogus arms deal commission of inquiry whose outcome is predetermined. This is done at the tax payers’ expense. He undermines our intelligence. Not only is he undermining our intelligence but he is also cocking a snook at the legislative assembly, the judiciary and the executive. He has become a law unto himself. Given this state of affairs why should members of the parliamentary opposition observe parliamentary decorum?

By Sam Ditshego
The writer is a Senior Researcher at the Pan Africanist Research Institute (PARI). He can be contacted on 078 178 3623.

Off the hook on a charge of Murder – Oscar Pistorius
Source: http://a.abcnews.com

There is a Setswana idiom which says Motho o tshwarwa ka mafoko, kgomo e tshwarwa ka dinaka. This means a person reveals or speaks his/her deep or inner secrets through talking (through his mouth) and when one wants to slaughter a cow/bull, one would handle it by its horns – grabbing the bull by its horns so to speak (For non-Setswana speakers, Motho is a person and kgomo is a cow or bull, mafoko are words and dinaka are horns. Go tshwarwa as in the first phrase means to get caught and in the second phrase it means to be grabbed or handled). It is through speaking that a person can reveal whether or not they are honest and truthful. In a court of law this is done through evidence in chief and cross examination.

This writer raises this issue because in her judgment in the State vs Oscar Pistorius, Judge Thokozile Masipa said the mendacity of the accused does not necessary mean he was guilty. The question is: what is the purpose of a cross examination? State Prosecutor Advocate Gerrie Nel repeatedly and correctly said he was testing Pistorius’ and other witnesses’ evidence through cross examination. Cross examination is the best known and oldest technique of obtaining the truth from witnesses and accused persons.

In the State vs Oscar Pistorius, the state was faced with a case in which there were two people who knew what had happened – Reeva Steenkamp and Oscar Pistorius. The latter killed the former in cold blood “believing there was an intruder or intruders” and he should have been able to tell the court a plausible account of how the events unfolded that fateful day. However, his evidence was incredible but credible nonetheless to Judge Masipa and probably her assessors.

Judge Masipa agreed with Advocate Nel that Pistorius was a poor witness, argumentative, evasive, mendacious and always thinking about the implications of the questions put to him. The Judge didn’t think Pistorius was play-acting but Advocate Nel thought he was and asked Pistorius more than once why he became emotional when he couldn’t answer tough questions or when he realized that he was contradicting himself. A person becomes evasive usually in order to conceal the truth. A witness who claims to have mistakenly taken the life of an innocent person and acted the way Pistorius did in the witness stand should have raised the concern of any presiding judge but Judge Masipa was nonchalant. Judge Masipa’s indifference emboldened Pistorius to be arrogant and petulant. Why, in the interests of justice and fairness, did Judge Masipa not request the cantankerous Pistorius to respect the court? Or did she?

Judge Masipa strangely seems to think that Pistorius was the only distraught person about the death of Reeva Steenkamp but not her parents, family and friends. She based her findings on the impressions of Dr Stipp who she described as an independent witness but whose adverse evidence against Pistorius she didn’t accept. She ruled out the possibility and the fact that Pistorius could have been devastated by the guilt of having caused the death of Reeva. She seems to think that Pistorius couldn’t lie and is deserving of justice more than Reeva and her parents. She believes the mendacious story that Pistorius wanted to protect Reeva and himself. How could he protect a person whose whereabouts he didn’t know? If he knew Reeva’s whereabouts he couldn’t have shot and killed her with a hail of bullets in the toilet cubicle.

Judge Masipa agreed with Advocate Nel that Pistorius had other options such as going out through the patio door thereby avoiding to confront what he perceived to be a danger. Advocate Nel went further and said if Pistorius opted to avoid a confrontational approach, Reeva could be alive today. She conceded that Pistorius acted in haste, recklessly and negligently. She also said that there were issues which would remain in the realm of conjecture such as why Reeva never responded when Pistorius shouted that she should call the police and why Pistorius shot four instead of one bullet. Pistorius was cross examined for days and Judge Masipa had ample opportunity to ask him why he shot four bullets instead of one and why he discharged his firearm even when he couldn’t hear Reeva’s response.

A judge or magistrate is allowed to seek clarification through asking questions. There is a probability that Reeva did scream as some witnesses testified but their testimony was not accepted because of the timeline. There is no person, especially a woman, who can remain tjoep stil in the face of imminent danger and possible death knowing quite well how trigger happy and irascible Pistorius is. Pistorius gave evidence that, “the discharging of my firearm was precipitated by a noise (in the bathroom) believed to be the intruder or intruders coming out of the toilet to attack Reeva and me”. Judge Masipa, at this stage Reeva was still alive and Pistorius was about four to three metres away according to ballistic evidence. Do you believe Reeva didn’t utter a word? Anybody who believes such bunkum can believe anything. It is preposterous that a person, especially a female, facing imminent danger and possible death can remain dead still.

Before he heard the noise in the bathroom, Pistorius had his firearm pointed at the bathroom door and he had walked a few metres from his bedroom. He told the court that he shouted to the supposed intruder or intruders “to get the f*** out of my house” before he discharged his firearm which clearly indicates that he had time to reflect. Discharging of his firearm wasn’t a spur-of-the-moment action as Judge Masipa would have us believe. It is debatable that he didn’t know that Reeva was in the toilet. It is the state’s contention that he knew that Reeva was in the toilet while Judge Masipa thinks he didn’t know. In this matter it’s Pistorius’ word against Reeva’s and as we all know “a dead (wo)man tells no tales”. Judge Masipa should have made sure that Pistorius’ evidence sheds light on the issues she said in her judgment will remain a matter of conjecture by answering the state Advocate’s questions without equivocation and being quarrelsome.

Whether or not Pistorius knew Reeva was in the toilet, the fact remains that he knew there was somebody in the toilet and therefore should have been convicted with Dolus Eventualis as a compendium of legal opinion have suggested. If he didn’t know there was someone in the toilet why would he shout, “get the f*** out of my house”?

Judge Masipa either couldn’t bring herself to convicting Pistorius for reasons best known to her or she interpreted the law erroneously, therefore the state should seek leave to appeal so that this matter can be decided by the Supreme Court of Appeal. An appeal would do justice to the Steenkamp family. Moreover, listening to various radio talk-shows there is a groundswell of support for this case to be adjudicated by a higher court.

By Sam Ditshego
The writer is a Senior Researcher at the Pan Africanist Research Institute (PARI).

Minister of Arts and Culture: Nathi Mthethwa
Source: http://www.iol.co.za

Last week there was a debate in the National Assembly about Heritage Day. All the heroes and heroines were mentioned except those of the PAC and to some extent BCM. There was no mention of Robert Sobukwe, Zeph Mothopeng, Urbania Mothopeng, Jeff Masemola and Onkgopotse Tiro. However, an Agang MP did mention Steve Biko.

Minister of Culture, Nathi Mthethwa, didn’t mention Anton Lembede and the 1949 Programme of Action. He mentioned African Claims and skipped the1994 Programme of Action and jumped straight to the Freedom Charter. Mthethwa mentioned the South African Native National Congress founding member, Pixley ka Isaka Seme, at whose law firm, Lembede articled as a lawyer in the mid 1940’s before his sudden death in 1947. Not only that, Lembede was the founding President of the ANCYL in 1943 and a revolutionary and intellectual par excellence. He was the brains behind the formation of the ANCYL and its leading spokesman. The mere mention of Seme and African Claims should have reminded Mthethwa of Lembede. I wonder if these MP’s know how ridiculous their speeches sound when they claim to be speaking about our heritage and deliberately omit some important aspects of that heritage.

Mthethwa mentioned Frantz Fanon and Aime Cesaire, but what has he read about and from these intellectuals? His speech was probably written for him because if it wasn’t then he should have known that in The Wretched of the Earth, Fanon mentions the Sharpeville massacre which was organized and led by Sobukwe and the PAC. The parliament from where Mthethwa was speaking was the same one which passed The Sobukwe Clause. The first death sentences of PAC and POQO members were confirmed by that parliament despite international outcry. Surely this can’t escape the memory of Mthethwa and Speaker Baleka Mbete.

What I found interesting was when EFF MP Mbuyiseni Ndlozi rose on a point of order and asked if it was acceptable or even democratic for one DA MP to talk about Greek when there was a discussion on Heritage Day or something to that effect. Then IFP MP and leader Prince Mangosuthu Gatsha Buthelezi also rose to remind Ndlozi that the word democracy itself came from Greek.

I wonder if Ndlozi and Buthelezi were aware that there were Greek words of African origin. Most people think that all the languages borrowed words and concepts from Greek and that it can’t be the other way round. This reminds me of an article I wrote for the Sowetan published on March 24, 1997 titled “Origin of word Africa not Greek”.

For example, habeas corpus existed in ancient Egypt long before Greece came into existence, (CA Diop: African Origin of Civilisation: Myth or Reality). When Pythagoras went to Egypt, he carried a letter of introduction from Polycrates of Samos to King Amasis, who in turn gave him letters of introduction to the Priests of Heliopolis, Memphis, and Thebes, (George GM James: Stolen Legacy).

When MP Ndlozi was reminded by Buthelezi that the word democracy originated from Greek he was lost for words instead of having retorted that there were also Greek words of African origin as my article mentioned above clearly demonstrates. Ancient Egyptian heritage is our heritage.

We can’t celebrate our heritage selectively by extolling the virtues of ANC heroes and heroines only. Recounting our past selectively is not history but his-story.

By Sam Ditshego
The writer is a Senior Researcher at the Pan Africanist Research Institute (PARI).

Source: http://www.presstv.ir

History reveals that Britain (United Kingdom) has never protected indigenous or non-British interests – whether in Africa, Australia, India or New Zealand and so on. The British have always opposed and suppressed the interests of other nations, if their interests were in conflict with those of the “British Empire.” The 18 September 2014 Scotland Referendum was no exception. When the “Yes” campaign vote in Scotland for national independence gathered momentum, all the three main political parties in Britain began their own massive campaign of intimidation against the people of Scotland, especially a few days just before the referendum.

Labour Party leader Ed Miliband told the BBC that the “the pro-independence campaign had an ugly side.” Prime Minister David Cameron painted a bleak picture such as the use of the British pound by Scots people if they voted “Yes”. Queen Elizabeth II though claimed to be “neutral” and said she hoped that “the Scottish voters would think carefully”. The International Monetary Fund (IMF) also poked its nose into the affairs of the Scottish people. Its Deputy Spokesman W. Murray said, “A Yes vote would raise a number of important and complicated issues that would have to be negotiated.”

But what is clear is that the “Yes” vote by the Scottish people would have been a double edged sword if the United Kingdom tried to punish Scotland for its independence after their “Yes” vote. This would be due to the following reasons:
(a) The United Kingdom nuclear missiles are based in Scotland;
(b) UK would lose its royal regiment of Scotland;
(c) The U.K. would be a new country with less power and prestige internationally if Scotland voted “Yes” in the
referendum;
(d) Wales and Northern Ireland might re-think their status within the powerless territorially reduced United Kingdom;
(e) The pro-republic sentiment in Australia and Canada to break ties with the English monarch would gain momentum;
(f) The British Commonwealth would sooner than later collapse;
(g) The United Kingdom U.N. Security Council would be insecure; and
(h) The Irish people did not suffer any currency problem when they dropped the British pound.

As expected, the United Kingdom encouraged the “No” vote in the Scotland Referendum to protect its own interests, not those of the people of Scotland. The September 2014 Scotland Referendum brings to mind how the United Kingdom then called “Great Britain” protected its national interests in Africa at the expense of the African people, especially in South Africa.

The United Kingdom protected its colonial interests by military power in Africa, using the most barbaric methods and intrigues. For instance, in Kenya the agents of the British government castrated the anti-colonial Kenyan fighters opposing colonialism. They called them “Mau Mau” and murdered hundreds of them and seized large parts of their fertile land.

They practised colonial brutality in Rhodesia (Zimbabwe) sentencing to death the spiritual female leader of the Zimbabweans, Ambuye Nehanda and the Rev. John Chilebwe in Nyasaland (Malawi) for leading the anti colonial struggles in their own countries. They exterminated the indigenous people of Australia, New Zealand and Canada to protect British colonial interests. After many wars of national resistance against British colonialism led by African kings such as Hintsa, Cetshwayo, Moshoeshoe, Sekhukhune and Makhado, Britain through its guns over the spears of the African people seized the African country and handed it over to its colonial settlers.

Through the Union of South Africa Act 1909, a British Statute of the United Kingdom, on 20th September of that year, Britain gave legislative powers to its colonial settlers. Section 44 of that imperial law, among other things reads, “That the qualifications of a Member of the House of Assembly shall… be a British subject of European descent”. Within three years of this racist draconian law the colonial parliament with the connivance of the British government passed the colonial law allocating five million indigenous African people 7% of their own land called “Native Reserves”. This 7% of the African concentration camps became a reservoir of “cheap native labour” for the farms and mineral mines which were now owned by the colonial settlers and their “mother country” – the United Kingdom. The 93% of the African country and land and its riches was handed to the 349837 settlers. This is the peculiar concept of “British justice” that is still boasted of with much British national pride today.

Sooner than later, South Africa became a British colony to go by the title of “Dominion,” because it was not the custom of the English to rule “white people” as a colony. This was argued in imperial circles. It was advocated by people who are today self-appointed teachers of “human rights” and “democracy” in Africa.

In 1931, British colonial lawyers Gilbert Dold and C.P. Joubert argued that the Westminster Statute of 1931 had conferred “independence” and “sovereignty” on South Africa. These lawyers wrote, “The Statute of Westminster 1931 under the skilled statesmanship of General Hertzog, Prime Minister of the Union of South Africa…made rapid progress from its subordinate position to that of a free, independent and sovereign state within the British Commonwealth” (I .I. Lukashuk, HRC Vol.135 1972 page 237).

Section 2 and 3 of The Colonial Laws Validity Act 1865 by the British Parliament contained a “repugnance clause.” Is it not puzzling that despite this clause, both the Union of South Africa Act 1909 and the Native Land Act 1913 and the whole concept of “Dominion” were racist? This was long before Daniel F. Malan coined the word apartheid in South Africa in 1948.

In October 1930, Piet Grobler, a settler colonial Minister of Lands had already stated, “The supremacy of the white man’s rule in South Africa was essential if he was to retain his birthright or his civilisation.” How could a colonial settler utter such words without being rebuked by the United Kingdom Government?

Things were getting worse for Africans under the United Kingdom colonial government in South Africa. A.S. Harris in his article “A Plea For Even-Handed Justice”, wrote: “In none of the [British] colonies are there laws punishing white men for sexual intercourse with coloured women while the Statute Book is full of enactments punishing black men for intercourse with white women even with their consent.” Harris continued stating that “A case recorded recently of a Boer farmer being acquitted in the face of the strongest evidence of guilt of outraging a native girl, while a native boy…for mere solicitation of a white girl is shot dead and the act is applauded by the white community” (MHUDI: Sol T. Plaatje page 6, Heinemann Educational Books Ltd London 1982.

The British Government spoke with two tongues when it came to protecting African human rights in its South African Colony. Were its representatives displaying mere duplicity and hypocrisy stemming from racism?

On 29th February 1906, Winston Churchill speaking in the British Parliament said, “We are provided with a most sure foothold for intervention on behalf of natives. A self-governing colony is not entitled to say one day ‘Hands Off’, no dictation in our internal affairs.”

Colonel Seely, Under Secretary of State for Colonies declared, “No scheme of unity in South Africa to be satisfactory which does not provide some safeguard for the great native population. It would be immoral and wrong for this country to wash her hands of the whole native problem….she has a responsibility to the natives; they are under our direct control: they are under that shadowy vision of the ultimate imperial authority, the kingship, and more real vision of his Majesty the King to protect them in their ancient rights and privileges, and we must not fail them. I am happy to say that those who are meeting together in South Africa realise our obligation….the number of South Africans taking a reactionary view in the native question is rapidly diminishing, and they realise that we cannot stand by with our folded arms while a scheme is devised which may militate against the rights of and privileges and safety of the native races that dwell under the king’s sway” (Anti-Slavery Reporter February 1906).

Yet after the Pan Africanist Congress of Azania (PAC) had led the Sharpeville Uprisings which resulted in the massacre of 84 Africans and 365 wounded throughout South Africa; the British government resisted the United Nations comprehensive economic sanctions on the South African apartheid colonial regime.

In the 1976 Soweto Uprising of 16 June, 176 people were killed and an estimated 700 wounded. They were mainly young people. The United Kingdom stood by its protection of its economic interests with its colonial settlers and opposed economic sanctions against apartheid South Africa. Yet as we speak, the United Kingdom has been crushing a developing country like Zimbabwe with economic sanctions and not long time ago invaded Saddam Hussein’s Iraq on false pretence that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction.

As a consequence of British colonialism in Azania (South Africa), even in so-called “New South Africa” or “rainbow nation,” the 2012 population census has revealed that an average African – headed household earns R60313 per year or R5051 a month. A white headed household earns 365,340 a year or R30, 427 per month. Educationally only 2% of the 41 million African population had university degrees.

Africans were colonised by Britain centuries ago. They are still allocated 13% of their own country. The African population is 79.2%. Their land dispossession is entrenched in Section 25 (7) of the “new rainbow nation” Constitution. This law is the new name for the Native Land Act 1913.

In today’s Lesotho in Southern Africa, Britain signed a treaty to protect the Basotho people against rampaging Boer colonial settlers called “Afrikaners.” They came largely from Holland and France. This British treaty is known as Sir George Napier Treaty of 1843. It was meant to protect the Basotho from rapacious colonial land grabbers. When however, the economic interests of the British coincided with those of the Boers, the British colonial government supplied guns to the Boers while making sure the Basotho got no arms or very little. Consequently, over 50% of the Basotho land is today part of economically white controlled South Africa.

“The outstanding theme of Lesotho’s economic history in the last hundred years is the transition from granary to labour reserve,” wrote Dr. Colin Murray. “In the middle period of the 19th century, the Basotho vigorously exported grain to other Africans and to white settlers on the highveld, and from 1870, to the burgeoning diamond camps.”

Dr. Murray concluded by stating that “In the 1970’s Lesotho is a net importer of grain and most rural households are primarily dependent for their livelihood on the earnings of migrant labourers employed in the mining and manufacturing industries of South Africa” (Time Is Longer Than The Rope by Edward Roux 16).

Writing about Lesotho in 1939, Edwin E. Smith observed that “A very large part of fertile area of Basutoland (Lesotho) as recognised by Sir George Napier in the [British] treaty of 1843 was now in the hands of white settlers [in the Orange Free State, parts of Eastern Cape and Gauteng]” (The Mabilles of Basutoland by Edwin W. Smith, Hodder and Sloughton 1939, pages 96-97).

In broad daylight and under the flag of the British Empire, colonial settlers grabbed “the whole of the agricultural part of Lesotho proper, leaving the mountains to the Basotho.” This is how I. Schapera puts it in The Bantu-Speaking Tribes Of South Africa, page 346 Maskew Miller Ltd 1966, edited by himself.

Of course, King Moshoeshoe of the Basotho Nation was not amused by this kind of “British protection. Writing to Sir George Grey, a British colonial governor in the Cape colony in South Africa, King Moshoeshoe declared, “I gave whites permission of living in my country… but they have never obtained any right to property to the soil from me, had I granted that, such a right should have been contrary to the law of the Basotho nation which allows no such alienation.” Deeply disappointed with the way the United Kingdom administered its “British justice” especially towards Black people, King Moshoeshoe proclaimed that “The white men seem to be bent on proving that in politics Christianity has no part….It may be you, Europeans do not steal cattle, but you still whole countries; and if you had your wish, you would send us to pasture our cattle in the clouds….Europeans are larger thieves…they are stealing black man’s land in the Cape [colony] to here [Orange Free state, land of the Basotho] and call it theirs” (Moshoeshoe Profile I by Ntsu Mokhehle, page 26 Khatiso Ea Lesotho 1976).

Britain has never protected non-British interests. It is no wonder that after 307 years, a sizeable number of the people of Scotland demanded their national independence. It is not surprising that the United Kingdom politicians intimidated the Scottish voters for a “No” vote. The “Yes” vote would have hurt the United Kingdom more than SCOTLAND if Britain decided to punish the Scots for winning the referendum for their national independence.

By Dr. Motsoko Pheko
The writer is author of several books including: APARTHEID: THE STORY OF A DISPOSSESSED PEOPLE and SOUTH AFRICA: BETRAYAL OF A COLONISED PEOPLE. During the liberation struggle in South Africa he represented the victims of apartheid and colonialism at the United Nations in New York and at the UN Commission On Human Rights in Geneva. He is a former Member of the South African Parliament.

source: http://www.mellofmjamaica.com

The mainstream media and African governments are failing the people on their coverage and reporting on the outbreak of Ebola in West Africa. What irritates me more is the attitude of some radio talk-show hosts who think they know a lot when they know bugger all. Moreover, they always want to have the last word on all the topics in order to stifle debate.

For example, on Saturday morning (11 October) I sent an sms to one of the commercial radio shows in South Africa which read, “Africans are gullible. Ebola was manmade and airborne and that the US is using the disease for its soldiers to occupy Africa.” The radio host pooh-poohed the views I put forward and commented that I must be joking. I immediately sent a follow up sms which he ignored. On the 14th October 2014, a popular morning SABC radio show that is aired between 6.00hrs and 9.00hrs hosted the Minister of Health Dr Aaron Motsoaledi, a Professor and an epidemiologist and the topic of discussion was Ebola. I sent an sms which read, “the media’s and government’s focus on Ebola is wrong and misleading. Focus should be on the US’s Bio Weapons laboratory in Sierra Leone where Ebola originated”. That sms was not read. My letters to the editor on the same subject are not published.

How many radio talk-show hosts, journalists and editors on the African continent, especially in South Africa, know about the death of World Health Organisation (WHO) spokesman, Glenn Thomas, who worked for WHO at the US Bio Weapons laboratory in Kenema, Sierra Leone? For the record, WHO is funded by the Rockefellers. Glenn Thomas was killed on board Malaysian plane Flight MH17 which was shot down over Ukraine. Do they know why he was killed? Glenn Thomas worked at the US’s Bio Weapons laboratory in Kenema, Sierra Leone where it is reported that it’s where the new strain of the Ebola virus was created. Thomas was going to present a lecture at an AIDS conference in Melbourne, Australia, and who knows what he was going to reveal over there? It has been reported that Glenn Thomas died with other 108 (a hundred and eight) AIDS researchers on board Malaysian Flight MH17.

The report I read further reveals that six key people in the AIDS research world were also killed in the MH17 crash, including Joep Lange and his wife Jacqueline van Tongeren from the Armsterdam Institute for Global Health and Development. The report continues to state that Lange was called a giant in the AIDS research field which means he knew that the HIV vaccine is a bioweapon causing AIDS and would, therefore, have understood the implications of unleashing Ebola not just on Africa but on the world through experimental vaccines as the Welcome Trust has recently demanded. Welcome Trust is described as a global charitable organisatiion involved in biomedical research and “investigating” health and disease in humans and animals. I suggest ‘investigating’ should be read to mean experimenting.

How many talk-show hosts, editors and journalists in South Africa know that it was because of the Ebola outbreak that the Sierra Leone government ordered that facility to be closed down and ordered Tulane University to stop Ebola testing and the US Bio Weapons laboratory at Kenema in Sierra Leone to be relocated in response to growing anger from locals? Kenema Government Hospital has links to the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation and George Soros Foundation. The US biodefence scientists have been working on viral fevers such as Ebola for decades at the Sierra Leone government hospital. It is known that this lab has been working on developing various strains of Ebola for more than forty years at that bioweapons lab. This Sierra Leone lab was quickly shut down to avoid police investigation. George Soros who is a friend of Sierra Leone President, Ernest Bai Koroma, is a huge investor in the Ebola triangle of Sierra Leone, Liberia and Guinea.

Why don’t the know-it-all radio talk-show hosts, editors and journalists especially in South Africa, inform their listeners and readers that the Pentagon and Tekmira Pharmaceutical Corporation funded clinical Ebola trials on healthy adults just before the outbreak occurred? Why don’t they report that WHO and Centers for Disease Control documents show that most of the Ebola outbreaks have so far occurred in hospitals?

How many talk-show hosts, journalists and editors have read or know about Dr Leonard Horowitz’s best selling book titled “Emerging Viruses: AIDS and Ebola: Nature, Accident or Intentional?” Or Gordon Thomas’ “Secrets and Lies: A History of CIA Mind Control and Germ Warfare?” The US has been cooking chemical and biological weapons at Fort Detrick since the 1950’s. When these talk-show hosts, editors and journalists are confronted with such information they resort to the narrative that says it belongs in the realm of conspiracy theories. Frankly such an argument is banal and manifests denial and massive brainwashing on the part of those who advance it as their defense.

The media and African governments are covering up for the US government and WHO instead of confronting the issue of the genesis of Ebola head on and telling the US government and WHO not to use Africa as a testing ground for germ warfare experiments and desist from using Africans as guinea pigs. Sierra Leone should be told not to relocate the US Bio Weapons laboratory from Kenema to elsewhere rather it must close it down forthwith.

By Sam Ditshego
The writer is a Senior Researcher at the Pan Africanist Research Institute (PARI) and writes in his personal capacity.

ANC MP, Dr. Mathole Motshekga
source: http://www.citypress.co.za

Are ANC Members of Parliament justified to say they have been elected by the majority of the people of this country and, therefore, they must always have their way in parliament and its committees? The answer is ‘no’ for obvious reasons which may not be so obvious to some people, especially those who understand democracy as the right of majorities to rule. That is a simplistic approach. There is a more complex and adequate one which I will touch on in subsequent paragraphs.

To begin with, did the ANC get the majority of votes? They got more votes from some of the registered voters. According to the IEC, the number of registered voters as of November last year was 24.1 million out of 31.4 million eligible voters, according to Statistics South Africa census. Out of the number of registered voters the ANC garnered 10 million votes including stolen ones, if the chicanery during the last elections in Gauteng is anything to go by.

If we do simple computing of the figures from the IEC and Stats SA, it means 14 million registered voters did not vote for the ANC, ceteris paribus, including 7 million eligible voters who did not even bother to register to vote. This means that objectively 21 million people did not vote for the ANC. The ANC, therefore, is not representing the majority of voters in South Africa. So where do ANC leaders and MP’s get the idea that they received an overwhelming majority of votes. Do they understand what overwhelming means?

Even if the ANC had received 21 million votes and the rest of the other parties got the difference, it would not be in the best interests of democracy for the ANC to disregard the voice of the parties in parliament with fewer votes than itself. It would be tantamount to confusing democracy with majority rule. Democracy is rule by populations. The concept of democracy has its equivalent in indigenous languages such as Setswana. I use Setswana as an example because I speak Setswana. The phrase that best captures the concept of democracy in Setswana is the one that says Kgosi ke Kgosi ka batho which means “a King is there because of the people”. It means the King takes or is supposed to take the cue from the people. And the phrase that demonstrates freedom of expression is the one that says, Mmua lebe o bua la gagwe which means every person has the right to speak even when there are those who differ with him/her or don’t like what he/she has to say.

When an issue is deliberated at The Kgotla or King’s Court or people’s assembly, everybody who wants to speak is given an opportunity to speak. A consensus is not reached because the majority holds a particular view. It is reached on the wisdom of deliberations of even a single person. Why are debates and deliberations in our parliament and their committees not following this principle? Why should all the decisions be based on majority rule? Stephen Macedo argued that “majority rule is not a fundamental principle of either democracy or fairness, nor is it required by any basic principle of democracy or fairness. Rather, it is one among a variety of decision rules that may, but need not, advance the project of collective legitimate self-rule based on political equality. Majority rule is a decision rule that has some nice properties, for example it is decisive when there are only two options, but its virtues, both practical and moral, are easily and frequently exaggerated” (‘Against Majoritarianism: Democratic Values and Institutional Design’ Boston University Law Review, Vol 90).

It can be argued that single party governments make decisive policy making and clarity of responsibility much easier, while coalitions are more likely to produce more representative policies and more inclusive decision making. By the same token, major shifts in government policy are easier to achieve under single-party governments, while coalitions are more likely to see issues discussed and debated before any changes are made.

It should be clear by now that this submission addresses itself to what is happening in the national assembly and its committees. An ad hoc committee on Nkandla in which the ANC wants to use its majority to dictate how the ad hoc committee should conduct its probe into South African President Jacob Zuma’s inappropriate spending of tax payers’ money to build his private residence. The Public Protector has ordered Zuma to pay back part of the money spent on his private residence. Zuma appeared on 21 August 2014 to answer questions in parliament which he didn’t and was protected by the Speaker of Parliament in a partisan way. That session ended up in chaos.

The sloppiness and ineptitude of the Speaker of Parliament, Baleka Mbete in conducting the business of parliament led to disruptions in one of the sittings on the 21 August. The disruption in turn led to disciplinary hearing against the EFF. The ANC again used its majoritarian arrogance and the EFF presented an indictment of the whole procedure and left. ANC MP’s tried to prevent opposition MP’s from calling witnesses but failed.

During the ad hoc committee hearings on Nkandla, ANC MP’s in that ad hoc committee wanted to use their majority to circumvent the hearing in a bid to protect Zuma. They even refused to entertain a suggestion by opposition parties to call legal experts to help with interpretation of the constitution which they (ANC MP’s) deliberately misinterpreted. The shenanigans of ANC MP’s led to a walkout by opposition MP’s. ANC MP’s are now deliberating by and amongst themselves. This is called shadow boxing for those who understand the sport of boxing.

The ANC invokes the 10 million voters who voted for it and say because they won more votes, they can do anything and everything to protect their errand and wayward President. I am not sure that the 10 million votes they got was a blank cheque or license to protect perfidy. Many voters openly say they did not vote for Zuma but for the ANC. It is about time that this country incorporates presidential elections in its electoral system and substitutes the closed list proportional representation system with an open list proportional representation system so that voters should not vote for the party but for individuals in political parties. The party list system leads to abuse of the system.

When opposition MP’s resort to legal recourse and win, ANC MP’s invariably criticize the judiciary saying it does not respect the principle of separation of powers. There are institutional designs that the ANC with its majoritarianism flout which scream for judicial intervention. There is nothing wrong with judicial review in a democracy. As Macedo correctly observed, “judicial review of legislation offends no basic principle of democratic political morality. Giving power to judges and other political officials insulated from some partisan political pressures may help political communities better achieve their democratic aspirations. Deliberation on hard questions of institutional design is not advanced by wrongly identifying democracy with majority rule.” The concept of a ‘majority’ should not be used as justification to flout democratic principles.

By Sam Ditshego
The writer is a member of the Pan Africanist Research Institute (PARI).