Connect with us


What Will Jacob Zuma’s Departure Cost SA?



What are South Africans prepared to sacrifice in order to get rid of President Jacob Zuma?

This question lies at the heart of the current speculation that Deputy President Cyril Ramaphosa is in talks with Zuma about a deal that will allow him to leave with “dignity”. Since this deal is being thrashed out behind close doors, the particulars are still unclear.

If Zuma’s demands are met, South Africans stand to lose a great deal. The deal-striking creates the fundamental question of what entitles Zuma to make any demands at all.

He is clearly not in a position to demand any golden or platinum handshake. But South Africans seem fairly tolerant of Zuma’s audacity in making demands even though he has been thoroughly discredited over the past 12 years.

In its news bulletin on Zuma’s possible exit, Al Jazeera listed many of Zuma’s most publicised transgressions, starting with his 2006 rape case.

I remember South Africans commenting at the time he became president: “He might be president, but he will not be MY president.”

Zuma lacked moral authority and enjoyed only thin legitimacy from early on. Over the years his power has been maintained not by popular legitimacy but through his corrupt networking.

The pervasive corruption most probably compromised the decisions of the members of the ANC national executive committee itself. In most healthy democracies Zuma would have been a dead man walking. In SA he is the ultimate political survivor — the Teflon president who bounces back from any personal or political scandal.

The feverish attempts to strike a deal with Zuma have important implications for SA as a constitutional state that purports to be based on democratic principles such as accountability, respect for the rule of law and human rights.

It is the principle of accountability that distinguishes SA from a dictatorship or an authoritarian regime. It is almost certain that civil society organisations and others in the human rights community will be ready to challenge a deal that is in any way unconstitutional.

If Zuma refuses to leave in the absence of a deal, South Africans are stuck between a rock and a very hard place.

One has to balance the damage to our constitutional values against the damage Zuma will almost inevitably wreak if he stays in office.

One way around this dilemma could have been for the nation and the press to shame the ANC NEC and its unwillingness to remove Zuma. It can be argued that this unwillingness taints the NEC as much as the corrupt government officials exposed in The President’s Keepers.

The principles of transparency and public participation in democratic governance are also relevant. The fact that much of the deal-striking is happening behind closed doors compromises the principle of transparency and excludes the citizenry out of this crucial moment for SA.
It is inevitable that the current deal-striking evokes comparisons with Mugabe’s recent ousting and the accompanying deal-making. The Zimbabwean military’s deal with Mugabe included paying him $10m and a salary for life.

The deal with Zuma is also likely to include an offer of money. In light of our recent corrosive history of corruption, it can be asked whether Zuma should essentially be paid to leave office when he has already looted and bankrupted the country on many levels.

Like Mnangagwa, Ramaphosa has described the cleaning up of corruption as one of his key priorities. SA’s high standing in the international community rapidly evaporated under Zuma.

Because of the deal-striking accompanying Zimbabwe’s transition, it can be argued Mnangagwa did not seize political power with clean hands — and that Ramaphosa looks likely to emulate his behaviour. Ramaphosa’s ability to keep things clean starts with the nature of the current deal.

Ramaphosa and the top brass of the ANC should be careful not to replace corruption with corruption. The Zuma exit package might prove too expensive for SA.
SOURCE: Business live


Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


President Museveni Warns UN Security Council On Somalia



President Yoweri Museveni has called upon the United Nations Security Council not to repeat previous mistakes made in Somalia.

The President made the remarks today at the Summit of Heads of State and Government of Troop Contributing Countries (TCCs) to the African Union Mission in Somalia (AMISOM) held at Speke resort Munyonyo Hotel in Kampala.

“If we do things right, chances are Somalia will be much better anytime soon. Let us avoid new mistakes,” he said.

President Museveni convened the Summit in the wake of the challenges AMISOM was facing, characterized by a mismatch between the mission ideals and resources.

It also followed the adoption of the UN Security Council resolution 2372 of 30th August 2017 whose main thrust was the phased reduction and drawdown of AMISOM troops by 2020.

President Museveni mandated the African Union Commissioner, Mr. Moussa Faki Mahamat to communicate to the UN Security Council the decisions and recommendations of the Kampala Summit.

Troop Contributing Countries to the African Union-led Mission in Somalia (AMISOM) include Burundi, Djibouti, Ethiopia, Kenya and Uganda.

According to the Troop Contributing Countries (TCCs), the timeframes and troops levels under the UN Security Council Resolution 2372 are not realistic and undermine the capacity of AMISOM to deliver its mandate and would lead to a reversal of the gains made by AMISOM.

The Somalia National Army (SNA) and AMISOM have recovered more than 80% of Somalia but despite the notable achievement, the situation remains fragile with Al Shabab and other terrorist groups in the Horn of Africa country remaining a threat to Somalia, the region and to international peace and security.

The TCCs, therefore, urged the UN Security Council to reconsider resolution 2372 on draw down of the mission, restore AMISOM to previous troop levels and stay any further reduction of AMISOM troops in order to allow recovery of territory still under control of Al Shabab and other terrorist groups. The TCCs also called for ample time for integration, reorganization, training and mentoring of the Somali National Security Forces (SNSF).

The TCCs also requested the partners to support the enhancement of the capacity and training of the Somali National Security Forces (SNSF) to maintain peace and security in Somalia and the integration exercise of the Federal Member States’ Forces into the Somali National Army (SNA) and to enhance their support to the Federal Government of Somalia so as to stabilize the political situation in the country and also the strengthening of administration structures and systems in areas liberated from Al Shabab.

The AU’s Commissioner, Mr. Faki Mahamat said that the continued presence of AMISOM in Somalia is crucial and a welcome commitment as well as an offer from partners to support AMISOM and the Federal Government of Somalia in their stabilization efforts.

President Mohamed Abdullahi Mohamed of the Federal Republic of Somalia thanked President Museveni for taking the decision to deploy troops to Somalia ten years ago and his commitment to achieve peace in Somalia.

“I believe AMISOM is succeeding but we have a long way to go. We need to collaborate and continue funding to defeat Al Shabab,” he said.

The First Vice-President of Somalia, Gaston Sindimwo; Minister of National Defence of Djibouti, Ali Hassan Bahdon; Kenya Cabinet Secretary of Defence, Ambassador Raychelle Omamo and the Ethiopian Ambassador to Uganda, Tolesa Shagi Moti, attended the Summit.

Representatives of international partners from Algeria, China, Germany, Italy, Japan, Qatar, Russia, Saudi Arabia, South Korea, the United Arab Emirates, France, Sweden, Turkey, Britain, the United States, the United Nations and the European Union were at the Summit.



Continue Reading


ANALYSIS: Behind Kenya’s Political Turmoil, a Tale of Fathers and Sons



The two men were political allies.
But they had a falling out over the direction of newly independent Kenya — especially over land and power — and became bitter adversaries.
Now their sons are fighting a modern adaptation of the same battle as they vie to lead the country, pushing one of Africa’s youngest and most vibrant democracies to the brink of a constitutional crisis.
“History is not exactly repeating itself,” said Maina Kiai, a human rights lawyer in Kenya, describing the eerie political parallels between past and present, “but it certainly is rhyming.”
Politically, Kenya is deeply — and evenly — divided between Uhuru Kenyatta, the president, and his longtime political rival, Raila Odinga. In last year’s election, Mr. Kenyatta won slightly more than half the votes, and Mr. Odinga slightly less. Those results were tossed out in a historic decision by the Supreme Court, which cited widespread irregularities.
The court ordered a do-over of the polling, which Mr. Kenyatta won. But Mr. Odinga has not accepted the result, and even “inaugurated” himself as “the people’s president” at the end of January.
In recent weeks, supporters on both sides have hardened their claims that their man is the only legitimate leader.
Mr. Odinga’s followers threaten to secede from the country if his main demands — dialogue and a path to new elections this year — are not met. Mr. Kenyatta’s followers say the opposition leader committed treason by staging his mock inauguration to undercut the legitimacy of the real one.
It didn’t start out like this.

From left, Jaramogi Oginga Odinga, left, and Jomo Kenyatta, second from left, with other leaders in Nairobi giving a news conference in December 1963 on the eve of Kenya’s independence

Jomo Kenyatta, the father of the current president, was a Kenyan freedom fighter, the living embodiment of African nationalism, and, therefore, the British colonial government’s most hated man. He spent the last decade of Kenya’s colonial rule in prison.
Jaramogi Oginga Odinga, the father of Raila Odinga, negotiated independence with the British. The colonial rulers wanted Mr. Odinga to lead the new Kenya, but Mr. Odinga had other ideas: He demanded Mr. Kenyatta’s freedom — and his appointment as Kenya’s first head of state.
“Kenyatta would not have been released, and he wouldn’t have been made prime minister, if it hadn’t been for Odinga’s backing,” said Daniel Branch, a professor of history at the University of Warwick and an expert on post-colonial Kenyan politics. “The two men always admired each other.”
Willy Mutunga, who was chief justice of the Supreme Court from 2011 to 2016, believes Mr. Odinga was motivated by more than mere admiration. “I think he genuinely believed that the country was going to be better off with somebody who had become a legend,” he said.
And so, in 1964, when Kenya became a republic, Jomo Kenyatta became its president, and Jaramogi Odinga vice-president.

Jaramogi Oginga Odinga, unveiling a statue of President Jomo Kenyatta in 1964. Mr. Kenyatta is sitting at right. Credit Bettman, via Getty Images

Not long after, though, things fell apart.
The elder Mr. Kenyatta became a pro-Western capitalist, entrenching the wealth of his family and his ethnic community from his presidential perch. The elder Mr. Odinga advocated sharing state resources — especially the land the British settlers would leave behind — among Kenya’s many ethnic communities.
“There was a dramatic departure between Odinga’s father and Kenyatta’s father,” said John Githongo, a longtime civil rights activist and a former federal civil servant. “In a sense, that old fight is ongoing now.”
That fight was, and remains, partly about land, and partly about power.
Mr. Kenyatta wanted to sell the British settler lands to Kenyans of means, and to concentrate political power in the presidency.

Mr. Odinga wanted to redistribute land among those marginalized by the colonial government, and to have a decentralized power system that would allow neglected regions more autonomy and a share of the state coffers.
These differences ultimately undermined the founding fathers’ alliance. In the end, Mr. Kenyatta set up a buyback scheme, which meant the land “went more or less to the political elites,” said Odenda Lumumba, the chief executive officer of the Kenya Land Alliance, a national land rights group based in Nyanyuki. “The political elites, to protect themselves, attracted their ethnic tribes around them.”
Mr. Kenyatta brokered land deals that benefited his fellow Kikuyus, and his own family. His government blocked repeated efforts by Parliament to limit land ownership, and his family amassed vast tracts of land, tea and coffee plantations, and stakes in ruby mines, among other riches, according to a 1978 dossier that the C.I.A. declassified last year.
In 1966, Mr. Odinga split with Mr. Kenyatta and started a new political party. It was banned three years later, and Mr. Odinga was jailed for more than a year.
After Mr. Kenyatta’s death in 1978, his handpicked successor, Daniel Arap Moi, banned other political parties, largely to keep Mr. Odinga out of politics.
His government also cracked down on dissent, harassing and jailing opposition figures and democracy advocates, censoring the press, canceling the passports of perceived “enemies” of his government — all moves the younger Mr. Kenyatta has reinstated, in these last weeks, as he battles with the younger Odinga.

By the time Kenya held its first competitive election, in 2002, political leadership had passed from Kenya’s founding fathers to their sons. Mr. Moi, who had run the country for 24 years, had groomed Uhuru Kenyatta as his successor, and Raila Odinga picked up his father’s fight after he died in 1994.
In that election, Mr. Odinga’s party won, and Mwai Kibaki became president. But by 2013, Mr. Kenyatta defeated Mr. Odinga in a presidential election. Now he has won re-election — twice.

President Daniel Arap Moi, second from right, talking with Uhuru Kenyatta, right, after a meeting of the ruling Kenya African National Union party in 2002. On the far left is Raila Odinga.

It can feel, some here say, more like a family dynasty than a democracy.
“Mr. Kenyatta is the fourth president of Kenya,” said Mr. Mutunga, the former chief justice. “He is also the son of the first president, the political protégé of the second president, and the godson of the third president.”
Many here say Mr. Kenyatta’s interests look similar to his father’s.
“Uhuru Kenyatta represents, in some respects, the continuation of an old order,” said Mr. Githongo, the civil rights activist. “And Odinga has always represented a change from that.”
Mr. Kenyatta’s family’s land holdings have ballooned, to an estimated half-million hectares, or about 10 percent of the country, and corruption in his administration is rife. His first administration decentralized some of power shored up in Nairobi, but complaints about the financial support for Kenya’s new counties are widespread.
Many say budgets are slow to come, or never appear. Concerns about the central government’s fiscal responsibility became so bad last year that the United States suspended $21 million in aid to the Ministry of Health, citing corruption and poor accounting.
Mr. Odinga’s central political argument today is that over generations, many Kenyans have been left by circumstances — their geographic location, their ethnic groups, their landlessness — on the outside of power. He speaks often of marginalization and disenfranchisement, of economic grievances and historical injustices, code words that tap into decades’ worth of disappointments and frustrations first articulated by his father.
“What has always happened is the instrumentalization of grievance,” said Patrick Gathara, a political analyst in Nairobi. “People know they’re being treated unfairly, but politicians put a veneer. They substitute their problems for the people’s problems.”


SOURCE: New York Times


Continue Reading


South Sudan: Government Lacks Will to Work for Peace – Opposition



The Intergovernmental Authority on Development (IGAD) on Friday adjourned the South Sudan peace talks for three weeks. An IGAD envoy did not say why, but opposition parties questioned the government delegation’s commitment to finding solutions.

Opposition parties, civil society activists and faith-based groups have been attending the regional bloc’s meeting in the Ethiopian capital, Addis Ababa, for two weeks to discuss the road to peace in South Sudan.

Ismail Wais, IGAD’s special envoy for South Sudan, told delegates from the various South Sudanese stakeholders that his office would communicate a date for the resumption of the peace talks, dubbed High Level Revitalization Forum (HLRF).

“Today we shall postpone phase two of the forum,” he said. “But before we do so, I would like to take this opportunity to sincerely congratulate all of you for your patience and dedication to the revitalization process.”

Wais did not specify reasons for suspending the peace talks. However, nine opposition parties represented at the talks issued a statement accusing the South Sudan government delegation of lacking the “political will” to address core issues blocking the road to peace in South Sudan.

“We came to participate in the HLRF with an open mind and negotiate in good faith to usher peace to our people,” the statement said. “Unfortunately, our brothers and sisters in the government came to Addis Ababa to maintain the status quo and to accommodate the opposition group into bloated government.”

Speaking to VOA’s South Sudan in Focus from Addis Ababa, Kwaje Lasu, secretary-general of the South Sudan National Movement for Change, said the government delegation was not willing to end the violence in South Sudan.

Lasu also noted that when the so-called declaration of principles — the road map for the peace negotiations — were negotiated, “the government of South Sudan refused to sign” it.

South Sudan In Focus requested an interview with Michael Makuei, South Sudan’s minister of information and the government’s spokesman, but has not spoken to him yet.
Troika statement

The troika countries of Norway, the United States and Britain — the countries that funded and facilitated the 2015 South Sudan peace deal — issued a statement Friday throwing their weight behind the efforts of IGAD to end violence in South Sudan.

‘While useful dialogue has taken place over the past two weeks, there is much more for the parties to do if the HLRF is to make meaningful and sustainable progress towards peace,” the statement said.

The troika called on South Sudan’s various parties to reconvene as soon as possible, without preconditions, to address the security and governance arrangements essential for peace.

“We urge all parties to take steps to maintain the momentum of the process and refrain from comments or actions that could make returning to dialogue more difficult,” the statement said. “We urge the parties to agree that a negotiated arrangement for an inclusive transitional government that reflects South Sudan’s diversity is needed.”

The troika’s statement renewed its firm view that elections in South Sudan could not be viable in 2018, given the continuing conflict, lack of security, displacement of one-third of the population and severe food insecurity affecting half the population.

The opposition groups refused to discuss IGAD’s proposed power sharing arrangement, which would give 51 percent control President Salva Kiir’s party and 49 percent to the various opposition groups.

Lasu said the opposition parties were advocating for a lean and effective transitional government in South Sudan.


Source: VOA


Continue Reading

like us


%d bloggers like this: