Edward Webster | University of the Witwatersrand
The goal of one united South African nation living prosperously under a constitutional democracy remains elusive. This is in spite of the constitution boldly declaring that
<blockquote>South Africa belongs to all who live in it, both black and white, united in our diversity.</blockquote>
The central issue raised by the struggle against racial injustice, colonialism and imperialism – what is referred to in South Africa as the National Question &#8211; reemerged dramatically three years ago. It started as a demand for the removal of the statue of arch imperialist and colonialist, Cecil John Rhodes, from a prominent position at the University of Cape Town. It rapidly grew into a powerful movement in support of decolonisation. The National Question, it appears, remains highly relevant and unresolved.
In a new book, The Unresolved National Question: left thought under apartheid a number of authors set out the multifaceted origins of the idea.
<h2>Political traditions</h2>
Four main contested political traditions have shaped this debate.
The first is the Marxist-Leninist tradition, which goes back to the Soviet Union in the 1920s and the debates between Lenin, Stalin and Manabendra Nath Roy of India.
At the centre of these debates was the idea of two distinct stages in the struggle for national liberation, a national democratic stage and then a socialist stage. This strategic approach was adopted by the Communist Party of South Africa &#8211; now the South African Communist Party (SACP), in 1928/1929. It later developed into the idea of South Africa as a colonialism of a special type.
The second is the Congress tradition, associated with the African National Congress (ANC) and its iconic leaders, Albert Luthuli, Oliver Tambo and Nelson Mandela. At the heart of this tradition is the idea of one non-racial nation. Historian Luli Callinicos shows how Mandela and Tambo steadily widened their concept of the nation to include all races.
<img loading="lazy" decoding="async" class="alignleft wp-image-285841 size-medium" src="http://cnbc.africa/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/Tambo_Mandela-300x200.jpg" alt="" width="300" height="200" />
Professor Robbie van Niekerk, a South African expert on social policy, traces the roots of the ANC’s economic and social thought to the 1943 Bill of Rights of African Claims and the 1955 Freedom Charter. In these documents “the nation” can only be fully realised through the universal extension and provision of public goods by a democratic state. Or, as Luthuli put it, the new government should have as its objective the creation of a democratic welfare state with redistributive social policies in health, education and welfare.
The third is the Trotskyite tradition. This goes back to the thirties in the Western and Eastern Cape and is associated with the Unity Movement. This approach is developed in the book by the late Marxist historian and then activist Martin Leggasick. Leggasick and his colleagues were to form the Marxist Worker Tendency of the ANC developing Trotsky’s notion of the “permanent revolution”. Revolution, they argued, developed continuously and unevenly on a world scale, rather than proceeding through discrete chronological stages. Legassick was eventually expelled from the ANC.
Finally, there is the Africanist tradition identified with Robert Sobukweand the Pan Africanist Congress of Azania (PAC).
As political scientist Siphamandla Zondi makes clear, Africanism is a much broader tradition than the PAC. For the Africanists, the nation state is a product of Western modernity and colonialism. At the centre of the tradition is the notion of “epistemic disobedience”. The decolonisation of knowledge and its production are seen as a “rebellion against the neocolonised order of things”
<h2>Continuity and rupture</h2>
In the book, we discuss the debates that emerged after the banning of South Africa’s national liberation movements in 1960. We suggest that a process of continuity and rupture takes place. On the one hand, movements emerge that attempt to break with the past. These include:
<ul>
<li>the ethnic nationalism promoted by the apartheid government through its Bantustan policy,</li>
<li>the black consciousness movement associated with Steve Biko,</li>
<li>the emergence of a strong feminist movement,</li>
<li>the creation of a powerful workers’ movement with an emphasis on the primacy of the working class, and</li>
<li>a surprising outcome of the national democratic struggle &#8211; a “liberal” constitution.</li>
</ul>
But in spite of these new ideologies and movements, there is a great deal of continuity with past political traditions. Two examples illustrate this process of continuity and rupture.
The first one is the championing of ethnic nationalism and the endorsement of traditional Bantustan leaders after 1994.
We introduce the idea of the ethnic nation in the book through a chapter by Dunbar Moodie. He examines the debates that took place in the Afrikaner Broederbond. These show how liberal Afrikaner nationalist intellectuals, such as NP Van Wyk Louw, argued that Afrikaners cannot deny Africans what they claim for themselves, namely the right to self determination. Hence apartheid architect Hendrik Verwoerd envisioned the idea of the Bantustans culminating in a federation of “independent ethnic nations” in southern Africa.
The chiefs and tribal authorities that were created by apartheid were authoritarian, deeply undemocratic, and often corrupt. Yet they survived into the post-apartheid era.
The second example is the constitution and its Bill of Rights. There are those who believe that these rights, especially the socio-economic rights, such as the right to education and housing, provide the key to resolving the National Question.
Indeed, Jeremy Cronin and Alex Mashile, from the SACP, argue that under Thabo Mbeki the National Question was reduced to the deracialisation of monopoly capitalism. The goal of the national democratic revolution became the consolidation of a capitalist democracy by opening up South Africa to global markets and promoting a black capitalist class.
<h2>Resolving the National Question</h2>
What became clear in our conversations about the book that the National Question cannot be resolved solely through the country’s constitution. Much as it contains the potential for a far more radical transformative project than traditional liberalism, it cannot resolve the National Question.
The resolution of the National Question will require the resolution of what has been called the “social question”. This is a historic demand for the redistribution of wealth and the right of all citizens to education, health and welfare. Without addressing the legacy of land dispossession, economic exclusion, long term unemployment and racialised inequality, the National Question will remain unresolved.
The article is drawn from a recently published volume of research based essays titled The Unresolved National Question: left thought under apartheid. It was edited by Edward Webster and Karin Pampallis and published by Wits University Press.

Why the dream of a prosperous, united nation continues to elude South Africa

By Martin van Staden
The African National Congress’ suggestion that the number of provinces should be reduced from nine to six comes as a shock. Fortunately, our Constitution and the Rule of Law do not make abusing the levers of power that easy.
It would be unfair to the ANC to imply that this is simply corruption and cheap gerrymandering to avoid losing Gauteng in 2019, as this policy was adopted back in 2007 before the Western Cape fell into the Democratic Alliance’s hands. But the ANC, the oldest and perhaps most experienced democratic political parties on the African continent, must surely be aware that wanting to reduce the number of provinces – and thereby rob the Official Opposition of its democratic mandate in the Western Cape – would be perceived as an outright attack on our constitutional democracy.
A postulate of the constitutional principle of the Rule of Law is that the law and policy must be certain and predictable insofar as it is practically possible. With the electoral – indeed, political – uncertainty currently facing South Africa, it would be reckless to fiddle with the configuration of provinces or municipalities at this stage in our history. This conduct invites uncertainty and unpredictability and is thus arguably a violation of the Rule of Law and thus the Constitution.
<h4>Legal games played by Apartheid government</h4>
South Africans would do well to remember the legal games the Apartheid government engaged in to ensure it got its way, before endorsing the ANC’s plans. Indeed, up to 1956, coloured South Africans enjoyed limited franchise in the Cape Province, but then the National Party passed legislation increasing the size of each province’s Senate representation and thereby giving the government the requisite amount of votes in Parliament to amend the South Africa Act and remove the coloured franchise.
Thankfully, however, for the government to actually decrease the number of provinces, it would need to go about a process to amend the Constitution. Section 74(3)(ii) provides that two-thirds of the National Assembly and six provinces in the National Council of Provinces must approve alterations to “provincial boundaries, powers, functions or institutions”; and section 74(8) provides that the provincial legislatures in question will need to approve such alterations.
When the government is closer to the people and people have more opportunities to participate in the daily governing of their lives, a country is more democratic. This inevitably means devolution of power to lower levels of government, like provinces and municipalities. Where there is a centralisation of power, either by taking powers from lower levels or by reducing the number of lower levels of government, democracy is being eroded.
<h4>Appropriate action to send resources in the right direction</h4>
If the ANC is truly concerned about a “concentration of resources” at the provincial level while service delivery ordinarily happens at local government level, more appropriate action might be to ensure the resources go where they are meant to go. But the real burdensome ‘middleman’ in this relationship is not the provinces, but the national government, which is the furthest away from the people.
Centralisation of power in fewer locales and, at worst, at the national level, does nothing but chip away at real democracy. It assumes all South Africans are alike, live under the same circumstances, and thus have to be governed in the exact same way. While the Rule of Law does demand equal application of the law, this does not mean all law needs to be the same everywhere.
Which laws work best under which circumstances can only be determined if South Africa embraces the cooperative federal model as envisioned by the Constitution. This would be radical transformation indeed.
Martin van Staden is Legal Researcher at the Free Market Foundation and Academic Programs Director of Students For Liberty in Southern Africa. Find out more at <a href="http://dmanalytics2.com/click?u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.martinvanstaden.com%2F&amp;i=1&amp;d=3Uqobov8RHK8ecY3_gBODg&amp;e=Jill.DeVilliers%40abn360.com&amp;a=8anQTERaQWOIdsMxWJ5hsQ" data-dm-link-id="1">www.martinvanstaden.com</a>.

Op-Ed: Reducing the number of S.A’s provinces is an affront to the Rule of Law and democracy

<div style="display: block; position: relative; max-width: 640px;">
<div style="padding-top: 56.25%;"><iframe style="width: 100%; height: 100%; position: absolute; top: 0px; bottom: 0px; right: 0px; left: 0px;" src="//players.brightcove.net/1571595826001/default_default/index.html?videoId=5526475368001" allowfullscreen="" border=0 frameborder=0></iframe></div>
</div>
Nigeria&#8217;s National assembly has concluded the first leg of the amendment process on the 1999 constitution. Shehu Sani, Senator representing the Kaduna State Central district spoke to CNBC Africa to discuss these reforms.

Nigerian Senator Shehu Sani speaks on amending the constitution

<div style="display: block; position: relative; max-width: 640px;">
<div style="padding-top: 56.25%;"><iframe style="width: 100%; height: 100%; position: absolute; top: 0px; bottom: 0px; right: 0px; left: 0px;" src="//players.brightcove.net/1571595826001/default_default/index.html?videoId=5492719357001" allowfullscreen="" border=0 frameborder=0></iframe></div>
</div>
While a recent employment index report reflects a moderate improvement the job creation by manufacturing and non-manufacturing companies, Mary Dinah, founder and CEO at Joblink Foundation joins CNBC Africa now to discuss Nigeria&#8217;s job market.

Job prospects in Nigeria’s recovering economy

<div style="display: block; position: relative; max-width: 640px;">
<div style="padding-top: 56.25%;"><iframe style="width: 100%; height: 100%; position: absolute; top: 0px; bottom: 0px; right: 0px; left: 0px;" src="//players.brightcove.net/1571595826001/default_default/index.html?videoId=5491151053001" allowfullscreen="" border=0 frameborder=0></iframe></div>
</div>
Amid a wave of agitations across Nigeria, the clamour for a restructuring of the country&#8217;s federal system has gained momentum and some Nigerians have said there is a need to rejig the constitution.

Calls to restructure Nigeria on the rise

Is the South African government unconcerned about the devastating unemployment in the rural areas that the National Minimum Wage (NMW) will cause? If the government generally is unconcerned, perhaps Deputy President Cyril Ramaphosa should give the matter some earnest thought because he will be blamed.
In circumstances of mass unemployment, it is inhumane for the government to pretend that the jobless do not exist. It is even more inhuman to adopt legislation and regulations that have the effect of prohibiting the unemployed from working.
If the government were to introduce legislation that made it illegal for any worker to work for less than R20 per hour or R3,500 per month, and threatened them with fines or imprisonment if they should do so, such legislation would be considered evil. Legislation that makes it illegal for an employer to pay workers less than R20 per hour or R3,500 per month has the same outcome, but under this scenario, the employer is the transgressor. That law is no less evil but the legislators responsible regularly escape the blame.
Why are the unemployed South Africa’s forgotten people? Research is carried out and a furious debate occurs about increasing the wages of low-wage workers, but, for those who earn zero, there is silence. Does government consider the problem so difficult to solve that it has decided to wish away the unemployed and pretend they do not exist?
<h3>Constitutional rights of the unemployed</h3>
There is good reason to argue that the NMW will be unconstitutional in terms of some or all the sections 9(1) “equality before the law”, 9(2) “equality includes the full and equal enjoyment of all rights and freedoms”, 10 “the right to have their dignity respected and protected”, 12(1) “the right to freedom and security of the person”, 12(1)(a) “not to be deprived of freedom arbitrarily or without just cause”, 22 “every citizen has the right to choose their trade, occupation or profession freely”, and 23(1) “everyone has the right to fair labour practices”.
The freedom denied the unemployed under the NMW is their freedom of contract; the right to take care of themselves and their families by working for employers under the best conditions and for the highest wages they can find. They are deprived of the right to make these important and critical decisions for themselves because their right to contract with employers is blocked by the labour law prohibitions imposed on employers.
The NMW, to be introduced by May 2018, will prohibit employers from paying employees less than R20 per hour or R3,500 per month. This prohibition will slam shut the jobs door in the faces of the young, the old, the inexperienced, and anyone else who, for some reason, is prepared to work for a low wage to gain work experience, to earn something rather than nothing, or, simply, to have something to eat. 

<h3>Costly labour laws are barriers to employment 
</h3>
Dealing with the requirements of the Labour Relations Act and its ancillary legislation costs money. Every additional cost imposed on employers means less money available to pay existing staff or to take on more workers.
Large firms hire human resource specialists to deal with the legislative and regulatory demands of the laws. In small firms, much of the valuable time of owners and senior staff is absorbed by labour matters. When employers have factored these costs into their calculations, they are compelled to conclude that it makes economic sense to take on workers who will impose the least cash and management costs on the firm relative to their productive capacity.
Given the dynamics of business, and especially the care required in doing business in our current no-growth economy, firms are being super careful in the hiring of staff. Forcing firms to pay higher wages does not bode well for anyone at the bottom end of the jobs scale, let alone the 9.3 million who are already unemployed.
<h3>The National Minimum Wage will devastate the rural areas</h3>
The tragic consequences for the inhabitants of the US territories of Puerto Rico, American Samoa and the Northern Mariana Islands, who in 2007 were forced to fall in with the raising of the US national federal minimum wage from $5.15 an hour in 2006, to $7.25 by 2009 should act as a warning to the South African government. There was a huge difference between the per capita GP in the territories and that in mainland USA. The calamity that hit those territories provides a clear example of the devastation the NMW will cause in areas of South Africa where the average GDP per capita is significantly lower than in the more affluent areas of the country. Employers in small towns and rural areas of the country will not be able to afford the minimum.
The reason given for replacing the existing minimum wages that have been set based on “ability to pay” is that a national minimum wage will be “easier to police”. So, making life easier for officials means that employers in impoverished areas of the country will be compelled to pay the same minimum as employers in the country’s large cities. An idea that will have brutal consequences for low-income people, whether employers or employees.
In American Samoa, by 2009, with only 30% of the scheduled increases applied, overall employment was down 30%, with 58% job losses in the tuna-canning industry and real per capita GDP down 10% from 2006 levels. During the same period, the Northern Mariana Islands experienced 35% job losses and per capita GDP down by 23%. The compulsory increase resulted in a minimum wage that was 75% of the Puerto Rican median wage. Unemployment increased rapidly and GDP per capita declined by almost 7% between 2007 and 2013.
<h3>Young victims of legislative barriers</h3>
Stats SA reported in its most recent quarterly that, “Of the 433,000 people who joined the ranks of the unemployed, approximately 58% were young people aged 15-34 increasing the youth unemployment rate by 1,6 percentage points to 38,6%”. It is predictable that firms, in view of the current poor economic condition, will be wary of taking on new staff. Bias against hiring inexperienced and potentially less productive workers will be heightened by the looming NMW, which they will factor into their calculations.
The NMW already represents a huge barrier to the employment of recent and future school leavers and the already-unemployed. Many young people, trying to overcome years of deficient schooling, will be hit by the NMW regulatory barrier and consigned to the ranks of the “forgotten”, along with the other 9.3 million.
Author: Eustace Davie is a director of the free Market Foundation. The views expressed in the article are the author’s and are not necessarily shared by the members of the Free Market Foundation.

Op-Ed: The S.A. government cannot wish away the unemployed

BAMAKO (Reuters) &#8211; Mali&#8217;s government said on Wednesday it was delaying a July 9 referendum on constitutional amendments that would reinforce presidential powers and create new regions under an accord signed in 2015 with northern separatists.
The changes have been the subject of protests in the capital Bamako and more marches were set for Thursday across the West African country. Crucially, three parties in the governing coalition asked for a delay.
<blockquote>&#8220;The council of ministers has decided to delay until a future date the referendum initially set for July 9,&#8221; a government statement said after the meeting headed by President Ibrahim Boubacar Keita. It gave no reason for the delay and set no new date.</blockquote>
Mali is struggling to contain militancy in its north, where rival militias frequently clash and Islamist groups carry out attacks on civilians, Malian soldiers, U.N. peacekeepers and French forces there.
Islamist militants, some linked to al Qaeda, seized northern Mali in 2012 on the back of a separatist rebellion before being driven out of major cities and towns by a French-led military intervention a year later.
The government signed the peace deal that aimed to end the separatist movement by parties including the Coordination of Azawad Movements, which is led by ethnic Tuaregs. Under that deal, new regions are to be created under the constitution.
(Reporting by Adama Diarra and Tiemoko Diallo; Writing by Matthew Mpoke Bigg; Editing by Mark Heinrich)

Mali government says to delay constitutional referendum

What kind of financial system is sure to collapse if the central bank cares about people’s well-being?
The <a href="http://www.pprotect.org/library/investigation_report/2016-17/Report%208%20of%202017&amp;2018%20Public%20Protector%20South%20Africa.pdf">recommendation</a> by South Africa’s Public Protector that the Reserve Bank’s mandate change, says much about Busisiwe Mkhwebane, none of it flattering. It says just as much about mainstream economic debate &#8211; and none of that is flattering either.
Mkhwebane recommended that the central bank’s constitutional mandate, which makes protecting the currency its primary goal, be changed to one which requires it to “promote balanced and sustainable economic growth while ensuring that the socio-economic well-being of the citizens are protected”. She also said the constitution should require the bank “to achieve meaningful socio-economic transformation”.
This triggered a wave of protests, as well as an announcement from the <a href="https://www.resbank.co.za/Lists/News%20and%20Publications/Attachments/7852/PRESS%20RELEASE%20FOR%20SARB%20.pdf">South African Reserve Bank</a> that it would take the matter to court. The <a href="https://probonomatters.co.za/south-african-reserve-bank-says-public-protector-is-overreaching/">Reserve Bank</a> had no option. The constitutional court has ruled that the Public Protector’s findings are binding unless they are challenged in court. Her recommendation wildly exceeded what she is allowed to do by the constitution – or democratic good sense &#8211; and the Reserve Bank could not allow it to stand.
Democratic constitutions are changed by large majorities of the people or their elected representatives – not by individuals. By making a binding recommendation that the constitution be changed, Mkhwebane signalled that she either doesn’t understand – or does not care – for democracy.
Her report is also very useful to a faction of the governing party which wants to <a href="https://theconversation.com/pursuing-a-30-year-old-bailout-is-sending-south-africa-on-a-wild-goose-chase-79792">deflect charges of state capture</a> by claiming that white monopoly capital already controls the state. There are real questions about the fitness for office of a Public Protector whose report seems more interested in protecting connected politicians and business people than with taking the people’s will seriously.
But the reaction did not stop at insisting that Mkhwebane has no business telling the people what the constitution should say. Much of it objected not only to her saying what the Reserve Bank’s mandate should be, but to anyone at all doing that.
<h2>An important debate</h2>
The prize for the wildest reaction went to the commentator who declared that Mkhwebane’s ideas on the Bank’s mandate were <a href="https://mg.co.za/article/2017-06-21-the-holocaust-denier-the-public-protector-and-the-reserve-bank">inspired</a> by someone who denied that the Nazi genocide happened. Others stopped short of tarring constitutional change with the same brush as mass murder but were united in claiming that to suggest that the Reserve Bank’s mandate be broadened is “<a href="https://www.timeslive.co.za/ideas/2017-06-21-public-protectors-bizarre-instruction-harms-our-wellbeing/">economically illiterate</a>” and deeply damaging.
Absa, who was the subject of a separate finding by the public protector on the issue of a <a href="https://probonomatters.co.za/the-public-protector-in-her-own-words-on-the-bankorpabsa-matter/">controversial bailout</a>, asked a court to rule that her proposed change posed a “<a href="https://www.timeslive.co.za/sunday-times/business/2017-06-21-in-full-absa-goes-to-court-over-public-protector-report/">serious risk to the financial system</a>”. For its part the rating agency Standard &amp; Poor’s, happy as ever to police the boundaries of economic correctness, warned that any interference with the Reserve Bank’s independence could trigger new downgrades.
To insist that anyone who proposes changing the Reserve Bank’s mandate is economically damaging and stupid is as contemptuous of democracy and dangerous to the economy as Mkhwebane’s excess. It is undemocratic because it seeks to close down policy debate by declaring that only one view of the Reserve Bank’s mandate can ensure a healthy economy. It is dangerous because it blocks the search for economic remedies by seeking to bully even those who propose only mild changes to what the country now has.
The idea that the Reserve Bank should have a broader mandate is neither radical nor dangerous. The most famous central bank, the <a href="https://www.federalreserve.gov/aboutthefed/structure-federal-reserve-system.htm">US Federal Reserve</a>, has a broader mandate. Its dual mandate requires it to seek maximum employment as well as price stability.
The <a href="http://www.rba.gov.au/monetary-policy/">Australian</a> equivalent’s mandate includes “maintenance of full employment and economic prosperity and welfare of the people”. <a href="https://www.ecb.europa.eu/ecb/html/index.en.html">The European Central Bank</a>, famed for its love of austerity, has a mandate to seek “sustainable growth”.
And the <a href="http://www.bankofengland.co.uk/Pages/home.aspx">the Bank of England’s</a> website says that, subject to its goal of price stability, it aims to support the government’s economic objectives.
In South Africa, not only has the view that the central bank’s mandate is too restrictive been repeated periodically but it may well have been implemented for a while. In 2010, then finance minister Pravin Gordhan <a href="https://www.moneyweb.co.za/archive/pravins-letter-to-gill-marcus/">wrote</a> to then Reserve Bank governor, Gill Marcus, proposing a mandate which included growth and employment. Marcus <a href="http://m.fin24.com/fin24/Economy/Inflation-debate-not-over-20100219">reacted positively</a>, which suggests that the bank acted on Gordhan’s letter. The financial system survived.
The US, European and Australian financial systems have also not collapsed. Their mandates have not triggered a downgrade and no one has accused these societies of economic illiteracy.
So either double standards are being applied or we are being told that restrictive central bank mandates are essential only if countries are in particular parts of the world (such as Africa) and governed by particular types of people (Africans).
And why does a change in the Bank’s mandate undermine its independence? A central bank loses its independence if politicians (or anyone else) can tell it what to do, not if its mandate changes.
For all its flaws, the Public Protector’s proposal would retain the Reserve Bank’s independence, leaving it to the bank to decide what promotes the “well-being” of the people or “transformation”.
<h2>Closing down debate is common</h2>
None of this means that the Reserve Bank’s mandate must change. Or that central bank independence must go. But it does mean that no one should be discouraged from debating the issue, as people routinely do in other democracies and market economies. What, besides that prejudice which we prettify by the term <a href="http://www.encyclopedia.com/history/dictionaries-thesauruses-pictures-and-press-releases/afropessimism">Afropessimism</a>, explains the insistence that we may not debate what is freely discussed in most other places?
Closing down debate in this way is common in South Africa. It also lies behind complaints of policy uncertainty which does not mean, as it does elsewhere, that government keeps changing its mind and sending mixed messages – the macro-economic framework has been stable for more than two decades. It means, rather, that some people – who some others may take seriously – raise policy ideas the economic mainstream does not like.
This demand that people can say anything they like about economic policy as long as the mainstream likes it too offers a misleading view of the economy. It says that there is nothing wrong with it except political interference and that it will flourish if politicians simply leave alone what is done now.
The <a href="https://theconversation.com/business-needs-to-change-and-stop-blaming-others-for-south-africas-ills-64942">contrary evidence</a> is offered by mainstream organisations such as the International Monetary Fund and the South African Reserve Bank itself which have shown that the current economic rut is a product of problems in the private economy as well as what government does.
This means that the economy must change. This, in turn, requires new ideas. They will not emerge unless everything is up for debate and ideas are not silenced because they trigger the fears and prejudices of a few.

Op-Ed: South Africa’s central bank row points to dangerous levels of intolerance

CAPE TOWN (Reuters) &#8211; South Africa&#8217;s parliament said it had received a request from the Public Protector&#8217;s office that the central bank&#8217;s constitutional mandate be changed.
Public Protector Busisiwe Mkhwebane, the head of the South African anti-graft agency, wants the central bank&#8217;s mandate changed from maintaining currency and price stability to acting in the interests of ordinary citizens.
&#8220;Parliament will consider the report through its usual internal processes and determine an appropriate course of action,&#8221; a statement from the assembly said.
(Reporting by Wendell Roelf; Writing by James Macharia; Editing by Larry King)

South African lawmakers get proposal to change central bank’s role

After consultation with its legal team, Absa has decided to approach the High Court in order to have the report of the Public Protector that was released on Monday 19 June 2017 reviewed and set aside. This is due to the numerous misrepresentations and factual inaccuracies which are used as the basis for its findings, and what we submit are the report&#8217;s clearly irrational and unreasonable legal conclusions.
Absa respects constitutional institutions and has to date done everything possible to cooperate with the Office of the Public Protector during the course of this investigation. However the report leaves Absa with no choice but to seek recourse in the courts as provided for by the Constitution when an affected party disagrees with the findings of the Public Protector.
The office of the Public Protector appears to have either effectively ignored or misunderstood Absa’s detailed submissions, which were made to it on two occasions. A copy of our February 2017 submission has been released to the public.
We also note that the Public Protector’s remedial actions include a directive to Parliament to amend the Constitution in order to change the mandate of the South African Reserve Bank. We are advised that the Public Protector Act does not empower the Public Protector to direct that constitutional amendments be made. Her recommended amendments pose a very serious risk to the financial system and they cannot be allowed to stand.
It is noteworthy that the report’s findings and remedial actions in relation to Absa are mainly premised on the conclusions of the Davis Panel of Experts, which delivered a comprehensive report on the same matter in February 2002. The Public Protector also uses the statement of the Heath Special Investigating Unit as a further basis for her conclusions on Absa.
In the case of the Davis Panel, the Public Protector’s final report misrepresents or misconstrues its findings. While it concluded that the manner in which the assistance was provided to Bankorp was unlawful (ultra vires), the Davis Panel unequivocally found that Absa is not liable to pay because it paid fair value for Bankorp.
The Davis Panel Report reads as follows:
“The Reserve Bank’s assistance conferred benefits on Sanlam’s policy holders, its pension fund beneficiaries and on the minority shareholders of Bankorp. That is contrary to public perception published in the media, and contrary to the conclusions of the Heath Special Investigative Unit. Those perceptions and conclusions have incorrectly asserted that major benefits were received by the shareholders of Absa.”
It goes on to say:
“The Panel is of the view that Absa paid for the continued assistance of Bankorp by the Reserve Bank and could not be regarded as beneficiaries of Reserve Bank assistance package. Absa paid fair value for Bankorp. Due to the complex nature of the impact that the various packages might have had on the value of capital invested in Bankorp, it is difficult for the Panel to assess with accuracy, the extent of the benefits derived by Bankorp shareholders. 
Evidence supports the conclusion that Sanlam, the major Bankorp shareholder was aware that it would have received no value, or less value, for its shareholding absent Reserve Bank assistance.”
While the Public Protector’s final report accepts large parts of the Davis Panel Report as a basis for its findings and remedial actions, the report fails to explain why the rest of the Davis Panel’s findings on Absa are not accepted. In this respect, the Public Protector’s report appears irrational. The Public Protector’s final report not only omits the rest of the Davis Panel’s finding, it also does not explain how it comes to the diametrically opposite conclusion that Absa’s shareholders unduly benefited, rather than Sanlam’s policy holders and pension fund beneficiaries – which is what the Davis Panel found.
It is also noteworthy that in the provisional report that was leaked in January 2017, the office of the Public Protector had relied on the alleged testimony of former SA Reserve Bank Governor Dr Chris Stals. In that report, it was claimed that Dr Stals had testified that the Bankorp/Absa loan was at an interest rate of 16% instead of 1%, and that he had produced a contract to support this. Dr Stals strongly refuted the claim in the media shortly thereafter.
The alleged testimony of Dr Stals and the document he was said to have produced are conspicuously absent from the final report. In the final report this basis is abandoned and instead it selectively relies on a report that in any case found that Absa is not liable.
Ahead of our submissions to the Public Protector, we requested access to documents in her possession that had a material impact on our position. That request was unjustifiably refused. The Public Protector’s report’s assertion that its findings are not in dispute, when Absa was never given insight into, let alone the opportunity to dispute what is supposedly contained in those documents, is therefore contested.
In any event the information upon which the report bases its findings is not new. It was at the disposal of the Public Protector’s office before the findings in the provisional report were made. It appears that this information was not regarded as relevant at the time.
The misconceptions and inaccuracies in the report are profound and damaging to Absa’s reputation. We have instructed our lawyers to immediately prepare an application to the High Court to have the report&#8217;s findings and its remedial actions (including the remedial action concerning the intervention of the Special Investigative Unit and the amendment of the Constitution) reviewed and set aside.
We firmly maintain our position &#8211; supported by uncontroverted evidence – that Absa met all its obligations to the SA Reserve Bank in full by October 1995.

Absa to seek High Court review of Public Protector’s report

Regulation of smoking has always been an interesting area of consideration when it comes to freedom, with both those who are in favour of regulation and those who are against it making arguments based in the theory of individual liberty. Those who favour regulation assert that non-smokers’ right to health is being violated and those against assert that smokers’ freedom of choice is being violated.
Whatever the case, any regulation should adhere to the precepts of the rule of law absolutely, and adhere as far as it can to the demands of economic reality. 
In South Africa, I have had much experience with this. Our constitution uniquely recognises the rule of law explicitly as a founding provision, meaning all the jurisprudential principles of the concept are part of our constitutional law. Government, however, has often opted to ignore these sometimes-debatable principles, refusing to conduct or publicise impact assessments or to consult the public on various policy choices.
The Caucasian state of Georgia is considering adopting a stringent new anti-smoking law which has recently begun being fast-tracked through Parliament, and it seems, unfortunately, that the rule of law is not being adhered to. 
According to The Financial, if the proposed law is adopted, tobacco companies “might not have the right to advertise anymore; tobacco might not be allowed to be sold in many places; smokers won’t be able to smoke in public places; and the industry will generally be isolated. Tobacco companies might not have the right to use their logo and brand identity anymore…”
This proposal for plain packaging means that cigarette packages will have the same colour, shape, and size as determined by government, and that trademarks and logos will be replaced by the simple and unattractive print name of the company. 
The Georgian constitution recognises the rule of law in its preamble, saying it is the “firm will” of the citizens of Georgia to establish a state based on both economic freedom and the rule of law. This firm commitment to these two values – economic freedom and the rule of law – bind the Georgian government to consider the tenets of the rule of law as well as the principles of economics.
According to article 18 of the Constitution, individual liberty is inviolable; article 21 says violating the property rights of Georgians is impermissible; and article 30 binds the state to develop “free entrepreneurial activity and competition.” 
A principle of constitutional interpretation is that that no part of a constitutional text may be considered in isolation. Therefore, provisions like article 37 which guarantee Georgians’ right to a healthy environment cannot be separated from the right of individuals to their property, liberty, and free entrepreneurial activity. Indeed, article 44 clearly states that the rights some may not violate the rights and freedoms of others.
The rule of law requires that law must be rational. In other words, the law cannot be arbitrary and must be based on evidence gained from extensive research and foreign experiences.
In Georgia, it appears that this evidentiary burden has been neglected.
The proposed law is being considered in Parliament without an impact assessment being done or waiting to see the results from other jurisdictions with similar regulations. The European Union’s stringent Tobacco Products Directive comes to mind, as does experience Australia, where it has not yet been shown that plain packaging has the desired effects of reducing smoking. France adopted plain packaging earlier this year, and it would be wise for Georgia to wait and see what happens there.
Impact assessments, as outlined in the Good Law Project’s Principles of Good Law, are necessary prerequisites for good law. If they are not conducted, the public has nothing to inform their engagement with government on the proposed law, meaning the principle of public participation is being forsaken.
Public participation is democracy in action and legitimises public policies during the periods between elections. Without an impact assessment, the public cannot sincerely endorse the proposed law, and without public participation, it is the rule of man, not the rule of law, which permeates the policy.
Whatever your opinion on smoking, it is crucial that anti-smoking laws not be irrational. Moreover, the anti-smoking law itself should not be bad law based merely on the whims of some politicians.
Martin van Staden is Legal Researcher at the Free Market Foundation of South Africa and the regional Academic Programs Director of Students For Liberty. He is a Young Voices Advocate. Find out more at <a href="http://www.martinvanstaden.com">www.martinvanstaden.com</a>.

Plain packaging rules in Georgia violate the rule of law

Back in 1750 BC Babylonian King Hammurabi&#8217;s Law Code became the first recorded case in which a ruler acknowledged a higher authority (the gods Anu and Bel) to lend legitimacy to his laws. This then was the first, ancient precursor to the rule of law.
“(And) then Anu and Bel (both gods) called by name me, Hammurabi, The Exalted Prince, who feared God, to bring about the rule of righteousness in the land. To destroy the wicked and the evil-doers; so that the strong should not harm the weak”.
This injunction is inscribed as the preface to Hammurabi’s famous Law Code of 1750 BC. The Law Code, proclaimed in obedience to the command, was recorded on a series of tablets, a remnant of which is on display at the Louvre in Paris. To ensure that all citizens were familiar with the law, the Code was publicly displayed in the city-state of Babylon.
This is the first recorded case in which a ruler acknowledged a higher authority from which the legitimacy of his laws was derived. Anu and Bel did not instruct Hammurabi on the actual content of the laws that he was to proclaim; that was left to his judgment (and with the advantage of a different perspective, it will now be said that his judgment failed him).  The instruction that was given and that was publicly acknowledged by Hammurabi was however unambiguous: he was to bring about the rule of righteousness in the land.
<h3>The rule of the king was absolute</h3>
Until that time, and for many centuries thereafter, the rule of the king was absolute. The king could make whatever law he chose; he could, upon a whim, make and unmake laws to suit any purpose that he required; he could make contradictory laws, laws that made unlawful actions which had been lawful at the time they were performed, and command the summary execution of anyone whose presence offended his personal caprice.
Hammurabi’s rule, however, required a fealty to the command of the gods, whom he feared. This was a commitment that was materially different to the authority that derived from the Divine Right of Kings, which asserted that the king acquired his right to rule directly from God: whatever the king chose to do was presumed to have been ordained by God.
This doctrine probably had its origin in the biblical account of the Prophet Samuel’s anointment of Saul as the Moshiach of Israel. According to the received religious dogma, this meant that Saul became invested with godlike authority. In the Middle Ages, this canon of faith became formalised, with the reign of James I of England and Louis XIV of France. Under the doctrine, the king could do no wrong, not even in the eyes of God, upon whose authority he performed all his actions, both religious and temporal.
In contrast, it may be presumed that Hammurabi would have believed that a watchful eye was being kept on the performance of his obligations; moreover, the well-publicised acknowledgement of his duty would surely have restrained whatever impulse he may have had to act in violation of the sacred trust. The “rule of righteousness” can, after all, not be readily misconstrued as the rule of wickedness. In this way, the rule of Hammurabi was subjected and subordinated to the rule of Anu and Bel.
<h3>Ancient precursor to the rule of law</h3>
The rule of Anu and Bel is therefore the first, ancient precursor to the rule of law.
Although there is frequent mention of the rule of law in South Africa in the wake of what has been described as a state under the control of a criminal elite, the concept is much misunderstood, even within the ranks of legal academics. This confusion is unnecessary as the essential purpose of the rule of law is not as obscure as is generally supposed; nor is it as complicated.
The confusion probably arises from a misleading descriptor. The term, rule of law suggests to many, rule by, or according to law. This is only partially accurate. The French, who adopted the principle from the ideas of the Enlightment, have a far more accurate term: Le principe de legalite. The principle of legality. The Germans also have a better expression than the one adopted by English-speaking communities: Rechtstaat. A state under law.
Le principe de legalite says much more than the rule by law. It sets a requirement of legality for all law: if the law fails the test of legality, although enacted by the appropriate authorities, it fails the requirement that even the given law must itself be lawful, failing which it becomes illegitimate.
Much of the confusion about the rule of law arises from the proliferation of rules that have been expressed about the essence of the doctrine. Professor AV Dicey extracted three fundamental principles; the legal scholar, Kim Davis, has seven principles; the respected World Justice Project enumerates “four pillars”, and the former Lord Chief Justice of England and Wales, Lord Bingham, had “(one)…core principle”… and he was mistaken.
<h3>Misconceptions about the rule of law</h3>
There are three significant misconceptions about the rule of law that have contributed to all the confusion.
The first is that the rule of law is an instrument for the creation of law. This is not so; it is the barrier against the enactment and enforcement of unjust and oppressive law. It is not the lawmaker, it is the gatekeeper.
Some of this misunderstanding arises from a definition that has gained currency within the ranks of legal scholars. This definition has been variously expressed as, government of law and not of man; or, the rule of law and not the rule of man.
The trouble with this definition is that it creates a confusion between the process of government and the oversight of government. The rule of law is not, in any way, actively involved in the former, but is very much committed to the latter.
Man is unquestionably instrumental in the process of law-making, and, although all man-made law should pass the test of the rule of law, the law that is made, is made by man. Any suggestion that it is otherwise, is a fiction. The purpose of the rule of law is not advanced by a fiction.
<h3>US Federal Tax Code</h3>
This definition is further corrupted by the idea that a society must, for its existence, be subjected to an ever increasing burden of laws. The better view, consonant with the philosophy of John Locke, is that the only morally permissible law is law that serves a social utility while preserving the principle of individual liberty. An eminent example of the abuse that occurs with the proliferation of man-made law is found in the 75,000 pages of the US Federal Tax Code.
In 1809, author Thomas Charlton wrote: “The price of liberty is eternal vigilance”. The real threat to personal liberty comes always from the lawmaker and it is the rule of law that assumes the first line of defence against that threat.
The second misconception is the idea that the rule of law is a product of the law-making process. The correct view is that the rule of law is antecedent to law making.
The former Lord Chief Justice of England and Wales was mistaken when he proclaimed that “The core principle (of the rule of law) is that all persons should be bound by and entitled to the benefits of laws publicly made taking effect in the future and publicly administered by the courts”.
<h3>Suggestions to amend SA&#8217;s constitution</h3>
It has already been suggested by some ANC members, including cabinet ministers, that the ANC and the EFF should form an opportunistic alliance to amend the constitution to enable the expropriation of property without compensation. If this was done and thereafter enacted into law in the normal way by parliament, it would likely be publicly enforced by the courts, especially if the law craftily decreed (in compliance with an existing Constitutional Court judgment – Agri South Africa v Minister for Minerals and Energy) that all expropriated property would be held by the state, as custodian for the people. In that case, all the requirements of the Bingham test will have been fulfilled. Can such legalised theft ever be said to comply with the rule of law?
Robert Taylor, a prominent libertarian writer, wrote recently under the title, The Myth of the Rule of Law (Ludwig von Mises Institute, 5 May 2017) of the propensity of government for legalised extortion and criminality (an idea first proposed by Max Weber). The rule of law was, according to this writer, simply a device imposed by the state to dupe the populace into a sense of trust in the inherent malevolence of the nation state.
Much of the article is accurate, but the assertion that the rule of law is imposed by the state is fundamentally mistaken. The rule of law is never imposed by the state; it is always imposed against the state, and, when properly understood and applied, it is an effective device for the control and limitation of state power.
Dicey was clear on the source of the rule of law. He wrote, “Whereas under many foreign constitutions the rights of individuals flow, or appear to flow, from the articles of the constitution, in England the law of the constitution (the rule of law) is the result not the source of the rights of the individual”. (Emphasis added.) Jurisprudential scholars locate the source of the rule of law in the natural law.
<h3>Failure of law and order</h3>
In South Africa, the constitution stipulates, as a founding value, the supremacy of the constitution and the rule of law. Notwithstanding this provision, the constitution required an act of parliament (Act no. 108 of 1996) to give it the force of law; the rule of law required no such formal enactment: there is no Rule of Law Act. The rule of law simply is.
The third misconception arises when the rule of law is conflated with law and order. Even lawyers have been heard to say that the rule of law has failed because of a failure of law and order.
In her analysis of the requirements for the rule of law, Kim Davis stipulates law and order as the very first of a list of seven. Fortunately, there are few, if any, other legal scholars who have made this mistake.
The matter may be tested in this way: Suppose there exists some rule of law nirvana; a state under the tutelage of a playwright-philosopher like Vaclav Havel, the former president of the Czech Republic. A criminal gang decides that it has detected an easy prey and begins its criminal regime in exploitation of the rectitude of the administration. As a result law and order begins to fail. In these circumstances, it would be fundamentally wrong to suggest that the rule of law has failed.
A persistent inability to enforce law and order will undoubtedly have an adverse effect upon the rule of law but this does not mean that the former is intrinsically a part of the latter. A failure of the criminal justice system may have many causes: a corrupt police force, an overwhelming criminal element, incompetence within the prosecutorial authority, or even unmotivated or inadequate judicial officers.
These are all matters of the gravest concern, but in a situation where the laws are just and, when applied, are justly applied, they do not reflect upon the rule of law. Where, however, a failure results from wanton or deliberate conduct designed by a person in authority to undermine the law, the rule of law is violated.
The many rules that are said to constitute the rule of law all have one central purpose: to protect the individual from the excesses of a predatory government; even procedural rules such as the requirement for proper administrative and enforcement machinery have, at their core, that purpose.
The task of the rule of law, therefore, is to secure the right to individual liberty against the prospect of unjustified invasion by the state and its agencies. The rule of law is the barrier that the law sets against tyranny.
&nbsp;
Author Rex van Schalkwyk is a former judge of the Supreme Court of South Africa and is the chairman of the FMF’s Rule of Law Board of Advisers. He is the author of three books and numerous published articles. This article is based upon a talk given at the Africa Liberty Forum on 24 May 2017.

Op-Ed: Babylonian gods, the rule of law & the threat to personal liberty

Benin President Patrice Talon said he has abandoned plans to reduce the presidential mandate from two terms to one, after parliament rejected a draft bill to change the constitution.
http://cnbc.africa/news/western-africa/2017/04/05/benin-parliament-rejects-bill-aiming-reduce-presidential-terms/
Talon, who came to power in a peaceful election one year ago, promised to reduce presidential terms from two five-year terms to one six-year term, in a bid to reduce what he called presidential &#8220;complacency&#8221; in the tiny West African country.
But parliament on Tuesday voted down a bill for a referendum to reform the constitution, which included the provision to reduce presidential terms.
<blockquote>&#8220;The revision of the constitution is finished,&#8221; Talon told reporters on Saturday. &#8220;The single mandate is over.&#8221;</blockquote>
Talon&#8217;s effort contrasted with attempts by other rulers in the region, including in Democratic Republic of Congo and Burundi, to extend their mandates.
Talon also gave forecasts for this season&#8217;s cotton harvest. He said that output for the 2016-17 season could reach 400,000 tonnes, higher than 350,000 tonnes previously expected and up from 260,000 the prior season.
Benin&#8217;s cotton harvest is expected to get a boost due to an increase in land used for planting.
(Reporting By Allegresse Sasse, writing by Edward McAllister, editing by Larry King)

Benin president abandons plan to reduce number of presidential terms

Benin&#8217;s parliament narrowly rejected a draft bill by President Patrice Talon on Tuesday for a referendum to reform the constitution, including a provision to reduce presidential terms from the current two to one.
Talon came to power a year ago, promising to reduce the term limit because he said two terms were a cause of &#8220;complacency&#8221;.
Benin presidents can currently serve two five-year stints, and the bill wanted to shrink that to one six-year mandate.
Talon&#8217;s efforts to reduce term limits after a year in office contrasts with some other African leaders, including in Rwanda, Congo Republic and Burundi, who have scrapped them to stay in power.
His peaceful election last year was seen as reinforcing the democratic credentials of the tiny nation in a West African region where polls are often marred by violence, intimidation and rigging.
Lawmakers voted 60 to 22 in favour of the bill, with one abstention, but it needed 63 out of the total of 83 available votes to be passed and go to a referendum.
Those who voted against the changes said there should have been a public debate.
<blockquote>&#8220;The people don&#8217;t want this,&#8221; lawmaker Orou Kate told parliament. &#8220;The president needs to scrap this bill and go back to consult the population.&#8221;</blockquote>
(Writing by Tim Cocks; editing by John Stonestreet)

Benin parliament rejects bill aiming to reduce presidential terms

Ivory Coast Prime Minister Daniel Kablan Duncan resigned and dissolved the government on Monday, a move that had been expected following elections last month but which was delayed two days by an<a href="/news/western-africa/2017/01/07/c%C3%B4te-divoire-mutiny/"> army mutiny</a>.
Duncan had been expected to stand down on Saturday, but held off after dissident soldiers took over army bases in cities across the West African country on Friday demanding bonus payments.
It took 48 hours to reach the deal to quell the revolt in an army that is made up of government troops and former rebels and riven with divisions.
<div class="teads-inread">
<div>
<div class="teads-player">READ: <a href="/news/western-africa/2017/01/06/ex-soldiers-seize-control-of-ivory-coasts-second-city/">Ex-soldiers seize control of Cote d&#8217;Ivoire&#8217;s second city﻿</a>
&#8220;I have tendered my resignation and that of the government,&#8221; he said after a meeting with President Alassane Ouattara.
</div>
</div>
</div>
Ouattara kept hold of his majority in the Dec. 18 parliamentary polls. But legislative elections are usually followed by a change of government as a matter of procedure.
The resignations pave the way for the implementation of measures contained in a new constitution.
Ivory Coast is French-speaking West Africa&#8217;s largest and most prosperous economy, as well as the world&#8217;s leading grower of cocoa. In 2011 it emerged from a spate of short wars and a protracted crisis lasting nearly a decade to retake its place as the economic engine of the region.
Ouattara signed a new constitution that had been approved by referendum into law in November, casting it as the way to ensure peace is maintained in Ivory Coast.
It modifies clauses in the old constitution that lay behind the conflict, especially concerning nationality requirements for presidential candidates.
Though largely resolved, the aftermath of the conflict has left the government hostage to an ill-disciplined and factionalized military, and Ouattara&#8217;s inability to reign it in threatens to undermine its economic success.
(Reporting by Loucoumane Coulibaly; Writing by Tim Cocks; Editing by Joe Bavier and Richard Lough)﻿

Ivory Coast PM resigns and dissolves government

Zimbabwe held its first ever public interviews for the vacant post of Chief Justice on Monday, reflecting President Robert Mugabe&#8217;s reduced authority under a constitution adopted three years ago in the southern African country.
In the past, Mugabe had sole authority to appoint the head of the judiciary, but the 2013 charter requires candidates to be interviewed by the Judicial Services Commission (JSC), a panel of mostly senior judges and lawyers.
<div class="teads-inread">
<div>
<div class="teads-player" id="teads3"></div>
</div>
</div>
<div class="teads-inread">
<div>
<div class="teads-player" id="teads2"></div>
</div>
</div>
<div class="teads-inread">
<div>
<div class="teads-player" id="teads1"></div>
</div>
</div>
<div class="teads-inread">
<div>
<div class="teads-player" id="teads0"></div>
</div>
</div>
Mugabe then chooses from three names submitted by the JSC.
A University of Zimbabwe law student last week asked the High Court to stop the interviews, arguing the process was not transparent since the candidates were colleagues of, and known to, the interviewing panel.
The High Court on Sunday ruled in favour of the student, who also wanted Mugabe alone to appoint the Chief Justice. The government says it plans to change the constitution to give Mugabe that sole responsibility.
But the JSC, which employs all judges and magistrates, appealed the decision at the Supreme Court, automatically setting aside the High Court ruling.
The JSC decided early on Monday to hold the interviews, which were broadcast live on state television.
Three candidates were interviewed: deputy chief justice Luke Malaba, Paddington Garwe, a Supreme Court and Constitutional Court judge, and Rita Makarau, chairwoman of the Electoral Commission and secretary of the JSC.﻿

Zimbabwe holds first public interviews for Chief Justice

Congo&#8217;s prime minister and cabinet resigned on Monday as part of a deal that extends the tenure of President Joseph Kabila, who also defended the right of the Congolese people to change the constitution currently barring him from running again.
Kabila is supposed to step down when his mandate runs out on Dec. 19, but his ruling coalition and part of the opposition agreed last month to delay a presidential vote until April 2018, citing logistical problems in registering millions of voters.
&#8220;I have just handed in my resignation and that of my government to the president of the republic in line with the spirit of the political accord signed on Oct. 18,&#8221; Prime Minister Augustin Matata Ponyo said in a statement.
The government&#8217;s departure should pave the way for a new cabinet with posts for some of those opposition figures who agreed to the election delay and to Kabila staying on as leader of the Democratic Republic of Congo.
However, the main opposition bloc has rejected the accord and more than 50 people died in street protests in September aimed at increasing pressure on Kabila to step down himself.
Kabila&#8217;s critics say his aim is to change the constitution, which limits him to two terms in office, in order to secure a third. The country&#8217;s constitutional court has given the go-ahead for the rescheduling of the election.
 
&#8220;SOVEREIGN PEOPLE&#8221;
At a press conference on Monday, Communications Minister Lambert Mende quoted Kabila as pledging to respect the constitution, which ruled out running for a third term, after a visit by a U.N. Security Council delegation over the weekend meant to press for a peaceful transition.
&#8220;I have never stopped saying that the constitution will be respected and it excludes the possibility of a third term,&#8221; he said.
But he added: &#8220;This does not in any way remove the right of the Congolese, like all sovereign people, to modify the constitution in three, four or five years, if they so desire.&#8221;
Stephen Hickey, political counselor at the UK Mission to the United Nations, had expressed concern over Kabila&#8217;s insistence that the constitution could be amended.
Kabila became president following the assassination of his father in 2001, and he won disputed elections in 2006 and 2011.
World powers fear that the political impasse over Kabila&#8217;s continued rule could reignite chaos in the vast nation spanning Africa&#8217;s largest forest. Millions died in conflicts in Congo between 1998 and 2003 that sucked in armies from neighbouring states around the region.
As pressure mounts on Kabila, the government has taken a tougher line on media. Radio France International (RFI) and U.N.-funded Radio Okapi have both had their signals jammed for the past two weeks.
&#8220;Since (Radio Okapi) has systematically deviated from being a U.N. radio station to become a partisan station,&#8221; the government judged it to have violated its agreement, Mende told the news conference.
He accused RFI of &#8220;conveying false information,&#8221; forcing the authorities to &#8220;take provisional measures,&#8221; Mende said, without giving details.﻿

Constitution

Why the dream of a prosperous, united nation continues to elude South Africa

Op-Ed: Reducing the number of S.A’s provinces is an affront to the Rule of Law and democracy

Nigerian Senator Shehu Sani speaks on amending the constitution

Job prospects in Nigeria’s recovering economy

Calls to restructure Nigeria on the rise

Op-Ed: The S.A. government cannot wish away the unemployed

Mali government says to delay constitutional referendum

Op-Ed: South Africa’s central bank row points to dangerous levels of intolerance

South African lawmakers get proposal to change central bank’s role

Absa to seek High Court review of Public Protector’s report

Plain packaging rules in Georgia violate the rule of law

Op-Ed: Babylonian gods, the rule of law & the threat to personal liberty

Benin president abandons plan to reduce number of presidential terms

Benin parliament rejects bill aiming to reduce presidential terms

Ivory Coast PM resigns and dissolves government

Zimbabwe holds first public interviews for Chief Justice

DRC cabinet resigns as part of deal for President Kabila to stay

News Tips

Advertise With Us

Constitution

Why the dream of a prosperous, united nation continues to elude South Africa

Op-Ed: Reducing the number of S.A’s provinces is an affront to the Rule of Law and democracy

Nigerian Senator Shehu Sani speaks on amending the constitution

Job prospects in Nigeria’s recovering economy

Calls to restructure Nigeria on the rise

Op-Ed: The S.A. government cannot wish away the unemployed

Mali government says to delay constitutional referendum

Op-Ed: South Africa’s central bank row points to dangerous levels of intolerance

South African lawmakers get proposal to change central bank’s role

Absa to seek High Court review of Public Protector’s report

Plain packaging rules in Georgia violate the rule of law

Op-Ed: Babylonian gods, the rule of law & the threat to personal liberty

Benin president abandons plan to reduce number of presidential terms

Benin parliament rejects bill aiming to reduce presidential terms

Ivory Coast PM resigns and dissolves government

Zimbabwe holds first public interviews for Chief Justice

DRC cabinet resigns as part of deal for President Kabila to stay

News Tips

Advertise With Us

Newsletters