Off the hook on a charge of Murder - Oscar Pistorius

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).

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

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.

bush-obama-1

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.

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/

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).

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

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).

Robert Mangaliso Sobukwe: Founding President of the PAC of Azania

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.

hectorpieterson

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.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 805 other followers