He is the first head of state to be indicted, tried and convicted by an international tribunal. The crimes for which he was convicted ranged from acts of terrorism, murder, rape, pillage, sexual slavery, inhumane acts, including mutilations and amputations, outrages upon personal dignity, cruel treatment, recruitment, enlistment and use of child soldiers, and enslavement.

The Special Court for Sierra Leone, a hybrid of Sierra Leone and international law, was first established in 2002 to try ‘those who bear the greatest responsibility’ for the appalling atrocities committed during the 11 year rebel war in Sierra Leone which started in 1991 when a group of RUF (Revolutionary United Front) rebels crossed from Liberia into Sierra Leone and started terrorising the people. The Court’s quest to pursue international justice has not been without difficulty and controversy.

Following the deaths in 2003 of Foday Sankoh, the infamous leader of the RUF, and his psychopathic henchman, Sam Bockarie, there were calls for the Special Court to be disbanded before the trials had got underway. Sankoh and Bockarie were undoubtedly the two most responsible for the atrocities and their deaths, (Sankoh’s whilst in detention in Freetown and Bockarie’s in Liberia, ironically on the alleged orders of Taylor), robbed the Sierra Leone people of seeing the two brought to justice for the havoc they had caused. Sankoh had in fact already been found guilty of treason and sentenced to death in an earlier Sierra Leone Court but it was the international community, led by the US and UK, who had insisted on pushing through an ill-conceived peace agreement which left Sankoh as a de facto Vice President and in charge of the country’s diamond wealth. When Sankoh reneged on the terms of the peace agreement these same countries then pushed for him to be tried as a war criminal.

The calls to disband were ignored and the Court pursued its quest to prosecute others for the atrocities. Johnny Paul Koroma, the head of the military junta which had removed President Kabbah in 1997 was indicted but he fled the country and disappeared. Chief Sam Hinga Norman, one of Kabbah’s ministers and widely regarded as one of those most responsible for defending the people and restoring peace and democracy to Sierra Leone, was also indicted but he too died in detention before his trial was concluded. The trials for nine other members of the three warring factions, the RUF, the AFRC/SLA and the CDF were concluded a few years ago and these nine are now serving out their long sentences in a prison on the other side of the continent in Rwanda.

But these nine were generally regarded as lesser figures in the conflict and therefore much hinged upon the trial of Charles Taylor, whose support for the RUF prolonged the conflict. The manner in which the Court’s Chief Prosecutor, David Crane, unveiled Taylor’s indictment nearly derailed the delicate negotiations which were taking place at the time in Ghana to persuade him to stand down and bring an end to the equally bloody conflict in Liberia. The Ghanaians ignored the indictment and handed Taylor over to President Obasanjo in Nigeria as part of the peace process and Obasanjo held him in Nigeria despite intense international pressure from many, including the US Government who issued a $2 million bounty for his capture. Obasanjo finally handed Taylor over to Ellen Johnson-Sirleaf upon her election as Liberian President in 2006. She immediately passed him over to the Sierra Leone Special Court who whisked him off to The Hague to commence his trial, which dragged on for the past four years.

The Taylor conviction is hailed as a justification for all the Sierra Leone Special Court’s efforts. In welcoming the conviction, Brenda Hollis, the Court’s present Chief Prosecutor, claimed: ‘Today’s historic judgement reinforces the new reality that Heads of State will be held to account for war crimes and other international crimes. This judgement affirms that with leadership comes not just power and authority, but also responsibility and accountability. No person, no matter how powerful, is above the law.’

Some have questioned this claim. It has been pointed out that Taylor was not the only head of state involved in the Sierra Leone conflict. They note that the origins of both the Sierra Leone and the Liberian conflicts emanated in Libya under the guidance of President Gadaffi. They also note that some of the arms and ammunition for the RUF passed through the neighbouring West African country of Burkino Faso with the supposed agreement of President Compare. However, neither of these two heads of state was indicted.

It is also pointed out that in setting up the Special Court a waiver was granted against indicting members of the peacekeeping force including the West African force, ECOMOG, who according to the Sierra Leone Truth and Reconciliation Commission were responsible for 1% of the atrocities. (According to the TRC, the RUF were responsible for 60.5% of the atrocities, the AFRC/SLA 16.6% and the CDF 6%). It’s also worth mentioning that the US Government, one of the strongest supporters of the Special Court, had concluded a bilateral agreement with the Sierra Leone Government to ensure that no US national could be brought before the Court.

Undoubtedly, alongside the deployment of British troops, Taylor’s removal, allied to the imposition of the embargo on the sale of ‘blood diamonds’ through the passing of UN resolution No. 1306 contributed significantly to ending the Sierra Leone conflict. During his presidency the export of ‘Liberian’ diamonds increased twentyfold, even though Liberia has far less diamond resources than diamond rich Sierra Leone. One of the highlights of the Taylor trial was the appearance of the supermodel, Naomi Campbell, to explain her gift from Taylor when meeting him in South Africa of a cache of diamonds – ‘dirty-looking stones’, as she described them. According to some press reports, Taylor amassed around $800 million in his personal bank account during his presidency while the Liberian economy plummeted.

There will be few tears shed for Taylor’s plight, not least in Liberia itself, where he subjected the people to a bloody conflict for years. Taylor’s election in 1997 was on a platform of in effect ‘if you don’t vote for me I’ll go back to killing you!’ It is somewhat ironic that for these crimes in which he was clearly more directly involved, he has not been held to account.

However, does Taylor’s conviction really deter other criminal heads of state, as has been claimed by the Special Court and its supporters? Taylor’s conviction had been preceded by that of President Milosevic by the Special Court for Yugoslavia (the ICTY) but Milosevic died before his trial ended. The ICC trial of ex President Laurent Gbagbo of Ivory Coast will now follow. The ICC’s indictment of President Omar al-Bashir does not appear to have had much effect on him and the situation in Sudan, and the ICC’s indictment of Joseph Kony has seemed to prolong the conflict in northern Uganda.

The ICC is still celebrating its first conviction of the Congolese warlord Thomas Lubango. There are currently over two dozen people indicted by the ICC for war crimes or crimes against humanity – all of them African. This focus on Africa has incurred the wrath of many African leaders. The Rwandese President, Paul Kagame, has dismissed the ICC as a new form of imperialism created by the West. Charles Taylor’s defence counsel, the Jamaican born British QC, Courtney Griffiths, has said that the process risks being viewed as ‘neo-colonialism’.

Have the activities of these courts of international justice made it easier to resolve conflicts, as has been claimed? When attempting to resolve conflicts it is usually necessary to persuade both sides of the conflict to cease fighting and killing, lay down their weapons and negotiate a peaceful agreement. Often this will require not only understanding, patience and skilful diplomacy, but also some form of concessions such as pardons and/or amnesties. The activities of the ICC and the Sierra Leone Special Court have demonstrated that such provisions and assurances negotiated on the ground in good faith become meaningless once the juggernaut of international justice comes on the scene. What incentive, therefore, will there be for some of those to stop fighting?

Sentencing for Charles Taylor has been set for 30 May and subject to any appeal he will serve his sentence in a British prison, at a cost of some £64,000 per annum to the British tax-payer. It has been estimated that his trial alone has cost $50 million, within an overall cost of over $200 million. Has it been money well spent? Supporters of the Special Court will say that justice comes at a price but for the victims of these terrible atrocities, the poor people of Sierra Leone, who continue to eke out a living in one of the poorest countries in the world, they may have other views.

Peter Penfold

After a stop-start journey in the last five years, the big players have arrived: BG group, KPMG, Royal Dutch Shell, Anadarko, Tullow, Petrobras, Ophir, Origin Oil, Total, BP and Aminex. Even the ‘security firms’ such as Cenkos, which previously regarded East Africa (and the Congo) as too swamped in piracy, conflict and uncertainty, said in November last year “East Africa is high risk and hugely expensive. It is also exceptionally rewarding if exploration is successful.” With only 500 oil wells drilled so far (compared to West and North Africa’s 35,000), the estimated value of the gas reserves alone are 100 trillion cubic feet. Petroleum reserves are estimated at 600,000 barrels a day. The factors that have tipped East Africa into the big game, are these.

Ease of Business and smoother democracies

First of all the creation of the East African Community has theoretically opened up trade borders and lessened tariffs. Secondly there have been technological advances both in mapping seismic faults and geographical areas that were previously unreachable, the economic risks of drilling have reduced. Thirdly, there is a concerted and obvious effort by East and Central African governments to sort out internal conflicts and engage more rigorously with the West, whose escalating oil prices have forced them to be more compliant. For the Mozamibiquan, Kenyan, Tanzanian, Sudanese, Somali, Puntland and Ugandan governments, the potential gains from oil, gas and mineral exploration are huge incentives to come to the table.

Wads of Cash

But most importantly, there is cash. US$ 2.1 trillion is needed for investment in African oil and gas supply infrastructure (refineries, roads, whole towns, ports,) between 2010-2035. This is where Africa’s burgeoning love affair with China becomes important. Previously smaller ‘wildcat’ oil explorers had the skills, but not the funds to take it to the next stage. Since the Africa Oil Week in South Africa in November last year, there have been a succession of buyouts of these smaller firms. China has proved its technical expertise in major projects all over Africa, from airports to the recent The Lamu Port and Lamu Southern Sudan-Ethiopia Transport Corridor (LAPSSET) developments, and has proved itself cheap, fast, reliable. China National Offshore Oil Corporation (CNOOC)has pledged to invest, although exact figures are impossible to locate. As establishment and US darling Oxford economist Professor Paul Collier remarks: “Future discoveries and resulting exports of resources including oil and gas will be around five times their current levels, based on what remains unexplored in Africa versus currently known sub-soil assets.” His sentiments are echoed by Adrian Heavey, CEO of Tullow, a prominent name in West and East African exploration: “This is a vital step towards the development of the Lake Albert Rift Basin and the oil and gas industry in Uganda and East Africa. I look forward to working in partnership with the Government of Uganda and CNOOC and Total as we progress this world-class asset.”

MYOPIA: People, Resources and Marine Ecosystems

Yet there is a staggering amount of myopia and short-sightedness. Have we learnt nothing from Ghana, Angola and Nigeria, where bitter battles, inconsistent petroleum regulation, weak civil society, existing conflicts exacerbated by oil, and deaths (and losses to shareholders) have shown it’s impossible to invest in oil/gas/mineral exploitation without ‘exploring local capacity’ as the jargon goes? In other words making sure the people that already live in the area are consulted, and have a share in decision making and profits. And being mindful of existing conservation stresses, and potential ecological problems.

It’s hard to know where to start. Most of East Africa has no regulatory frameworks in place for oil and mineral resources exploitation. Or if they have, there is an abject lack of willpower to implement them. Selous in Tanzania, the Albertine Rift and Murchison Falls National Park in Uganda, and Virunga National Park in Rwanda have all had Environmental Assessments or management plans which have not been adhered to or implemented. This is something which international marine organizations Ocean Conservation Group ( OCEANA) and the World Wildlife Fund (WWF) would like to rectify. So at the moment, unlike USA, Europe and some of the Pacific countries, there is no obligation to implement detailed environmental impact surveys.

The coastal regions (from Somaliland in the North to Mozambique) are acknowledged to be some of the most vulnerable sea areas in the world. WWF and the United Nations Environmental Program (UNEP) are already concerned about myriad of issues: from coastal mangroves, to turtles, whale sharks, torpoises, dolphins, rays, over 400 types of corals, seagrass, to overfishing. Says Dr Amani Ngusaru of the WWF “The resources of coastal East Africa are coming more and more under threat from rapid population growth, increased resource exploitation, unplanned development and climate change, burgeoning cities such as Mombasa, Dar es Salaam are threatening the very resource base that sustains them.”

The perils of oil spills are visible and high profile, in fact it is the planned building around the ports, which will cause the most damage. Oil spills upon marine environments are dwarfed by those of pollutants introduced from other sources (including domestic sewage, industrial discharges, leakages from waste tips, urban and industrial run-off, accidents, spillage, explosions, sea dumping operations, oil production, mining, agriculture nutrients and pesticides, waste heat sources, and radioactive discharges). Land based sources are estimated to account for around 44 percent of the pollutants entering the sea and atmospheric inputs account for an estimated 33 percent. By contrast, maritime transport accounts only for around 12 percent .

Accidents will Happen

In Jan 2012 Exxon Mobile – announced its staggering annual profits of $41.1 billion, yet no plans are in place to either enforce action plans or responses for oil spills, in any of the areas allocated for deep or shallow water drilling. Yet just recently, the oil giant BP agreed to pay $7.8bn to settle claims from an estimated 110,000 victims of the Deepwater Horizon oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico. In the last six years there have been four major oil spills, resulting in an estimated 100 billion gallons of oil into the sea.

Oceana, the largest international global ocean advocacy group says that currently, as well as relying on financial insurances, companies can pass along much of their cleanup costs to the domestic taxpayer when faced with disaster. Talking about the recent BP spill, Jacqueline Savitz, senior campaign director at Oceana says: “Taking the lives of 11 people, injuring many more, destroying tourism and fisheries industries, spilling 200 million gallons of oil and killing hundreds of turtles, dolphins and other ocean life is not, and should never be, considered a normal cost of doing business. It is bad business, and not what was intended when the tax write-off was established.” Given the poor record of citizen engagement in African countries, and the dubious taxing situation (allegedly 85% of Africa’s taxes remain unpaid) and the sometimes weak and collaborative media, it is highly unlikely the mechanisms will be in place to protect the populations of the coastal regions, who are already politically, economically and socially marginalised.

Even when data is forthcoming, it is so daunting, it is a huge task to tackle it. According to the Western Indian Ocean Marine Science Association (WIOMSA)/UNEP ‘Science 2008 Marine Survey.’ 40% is the amount of the ocean heavily affected by environmental mismanagement, 50% Amount of coral reefs heavily damaged, and 0.5% (850,000 square miles) of the ocean floor are very heavily affected. Only 4% of the entire ocean shows no traces of human impact.”

On Shakey Ground

On terra firma there are also problems. In Uganda three British firms, Tullow, Tower and Dominion are all exploring the Albertine Rift, a lake area.2- 2.5 billion barrels of oil have already been discovered. This is a vulnerable area of skirmishes with DRC rebels: over 100 people have been kidnapped in this area in attacks linked to fights over ransoms, minerals and oil. The most recent attack on the border town Mutungo on 2 August 2011 by the Mai-Mai militia displaced 70,000 residents. At a local level, villagers are concerned. Florence Landsberg of the World Resources Institute explains: “The fish stock is already at risk, because there is more catching of fish that are not mature. The upgrade of the roads has allowed for more fish to be exported. The restocking of the fish is not going to happen if there is no intervention”. Says Peter Viet, also of WRI “ Many scientists will tell you that the Albertine Rift is the most biologically diverse area in all of Africa. There are national parks, wildlife sanctuaries, forest reserves, and there already is some impact on these protected areas. For example, there is drilling in Murchison Falls National Park, even though many public interest environmental lawyers in Uganda will tell you that the law does not allow that. Kenneth Kakuru of Greenwatch filed a pleading in the High Court over extractive resource industries in national parks. (His case was rejected). There have been discussions on de-gazetting one of the parks to make way for an oil refinery. There is also talk of a pipeline that would take the oil to Mombassa that would have effects on biodiversity. And there is evidence oil workers are poaching inside protected areas. He adds that Achioli and Bunyoro people, local to the area, are selling up fast, at below market prices, scared that the government will not recompense them adequately.

There is further controversy in the area, according to a recent article on Pambazuka; “ A vicious land grab,’ Allimadi writes, ‘is being carried out in Uganda, pairing the country’s leader with an ‘investor,’ and the targets are the Acholi, genocide survivors who live in the northern part of the East African country, on abundant, fertile and mineral-rich land.’

Existing Lack of Resources for Citizens:

None of the existing plans to extract oil, gas and petroleum come with concrete systematic plans to provide for the communities in the area, beyond some references to providing local jobs in some cases. The threats to forests (due to charcoal and firewood exploitation) and erratic provision of electricity are well known in East Africa. Drilling down to basics, Erica Mackey, Co-Founder of Off-Grid Electric in Tanznia, says “Generally, people in Africa suffer from an expensive electrical grid, an unreliable grid, or have no electrical grid at all. Increasing the amount of raw materials extracted from the continent is not going to automatically increase infrastructure access, decrease transportation costs or ultimately extend the electrical grid to the 90% of East Africans who live without a connection.” She goes onto add: “If the goal of energy exploration is to actually increase energy access in Africa rather than the developed world, then the focus has to shift to include renewables. In addition to exploring the continent for oil, gas and coal, international investors should look at ways to finance business models that provide clean power as a key component to the future of Africa’s power provision”.

(Mostly) Angry locals- lack of consultation

Despite high tech imaging of geological deposits, pictures of the sea from space, the reality is we don’t have an accurate record of the approximately 50 million pastoralists and 200 million who depend on the sea and land for their livelihoods in Africa. There is no documented record of contacting these communities in the regions mentioned for their views on oil and gas exploration.

Thousands of miles away, on the Kenya coast of Mombassa, tucked between the new port of Lamu and Tanga, there is considerable trouble brewing: The Mombassa Republican Council, a secessionist movement, wants autonomy from Kenya. They are popular in the area, where there is high illiteracy rates, the presence of Al Shabaab, low rates of enrolment in schools and universities, and a sense they have been abandoned by Nairobi. Land tenure is ambiguous or is not officially recognised. More than 60 per cent of indigenous coastal people do not possess title deeds to their land. Others have entered into a kind of quasi squatter-tenant agreement with land owners. The problems of local fishermen and farmers have been well documented by local NGO’s, as they compete with trawler fishing, and larger super-boats that can pinpoint shoals, leaving fishermen with paddles in dugout canoes, floundering.

Their situation, despite riots and four deaths in December 2011, goes unreported in national media. Ditto the situation in North Kenya: hours away from the capital Nairobi, where news editors and reporters, constrained by tiny budgets and tight deadlines, are unable to go and see for themselves. There are rumours presently circulating that valuable archaeological deposits in Turkana, North Kenya, have been already destroyed through oil exploration. However no organisations want to be identified with ‘squealing’ so the situation remains unreported in local press: a local journalist was murdered in Loliondo, reporting on land grabs two years ago.

A glimmer of hope

Many of the issues these people in the East African Coastal regions face are similar to those in Puntland, Somalia, where resources are seized upon, in a dearth of opportunities.

In Puntland, local leaders under the Transitional Government are bucking the trend. Aware that no mechanisms exist to make sure money flows into the region, they are however, in an optimistic mood. Farah Hassan Atosh, a traditional elder and resident of Armo town, 28km northwest of an oil field, said: “We are expecting great things. It will change our lives for the better. Insh’Allah [God willing] we will never depend on others to give us food again.” He said that change was already happening in Armo town (population 25,000). “You can see many more people arriving every day and it can only add to the development of the town.” Drilling for oil began in January 2012. Said Atosh,”We not only support it, we will defend it from anyone who wants to stop it.” He said the project was also contributing to peace-building in the area. “They are employing many young men who would have been idle and easy prey for recruitment into militias.”

Lack of Financial accountability: have we learned nothing?

In Tanzania, there are mechanisms in place to regulate, but according to regional environmental consultants, (who prefer to remain unnamed) there is little will power to implement them and ministers rapidly forget about their commitments. Track records of environmental investigations in Selous, Stiegler’s Gorge dam, Kidunda dam and Mkuju River uranium mine and oil exploration do not bode well: they are dusty reports on shelves somewhere. Pweza, Chewa and Chaza wells have been drilled in deepwater in the northern part of the Ruvuma Basin and the Mafia Deep Offshore Basin held by BG and Ophir Energy. The Chinese government is providing Tanzania with a $1.06-billion loan to construct new infrastructure, which includes a new gas pipeline, feeder roads and telecoms. All these areas are deemed ecologically vulnerable, and there is no public record of community consultation or mechanisms to ensure profits flow back into community development.

One of the main problems is tracking the money: the investments, and ways to prevent a small elite benefiting. Again, Kenya, Tanzania, Uganda have poor records. In East Africa, only companies registered with the Securities and Exchange Commission (in the USA) are required to submit financial reports. Even then as in Uganda, local ministers and judges ensure disclosure of documents relating to oil is kept out of the public sphere.

Meanwhile, the Mara River is an international river, shared between Kenya and Tanzania. The mining areas will impinge upon the dwindling Mara River Basin and draw valuable and scarce water. The basin is about 13,750 km2, of which about 65% is located in Kenya and 35% in Tanzania. The Mara River runs through the Masai Mara Game Reserve on the Kenyan side and the Serengeti National Park on the Tanzanian side, both of global conservation significance and of great economic importance for tourism. “Over 80% of Africa’s lions have been displaced due to environmental changes” says Richard Anderson in an article on the BBC in November 2010.

A recent, (Oct 2010) UNEP report, The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity (Teeb), put the damage done to the natural world by human activity in 2008 at between $2tn (£1.3tn) and $4.5tn. A second study, for the UN-backed Principles for Responsible Investment (PRI), puts the costs at $6.6tn, or 11% of global economic output.

It looks like we are no way reversing the trend.

Thembi Mutch

Justice Ayoola who was speaking at the inauguration of the National Anti Corruption Volunteer Corps equally lamented the move by members of the Assembly then to increase their allowances in the midst of what he described as large scale unemployment, poor living conditions and increased poverty.

Expectedly, that outburst attracted a lot of reactions from many quarters and from the Assembly itself. Nothing however seems to have changed since then as the Lower House of the NA continues to be mired in one form of corruption or the other.

It will be recalled that the first major scandal that rocked the House was in 1999 when the then Speaker was exposed by The News Magazine of certificate forgery and perjury; the allegation made him to resign and preempted his impeachment in the early life of the Fourth Republic. Also, the first female speaker of the House, Mrs. Patricia Etteh was also forced to resign in 2007 in order to avoid being removed for an alleged contract scam totaling N268million ($1.7million). The probe of the power sector by the House is still fresh in the minds of many Nigerians. The power probe under the chairmanship of House member, Ndudi Elumelu had in its report indicted former President Olusegun Obasanjo of misappropriating $10Billion allocated to the power sector. Elumelu who became an instant celebrity had in a sudden twist of fate, turned into a villain , and is facing trial today for allegedly stealing N5.4 Billion (US$34.2 Million) meant for the Rural Electrification Agency alongside some of his colleagues while the immediate past speaker of the House, Dimeji Bankole and his deputy, are also today facing trial over alleged contract inflation.

Despite all these scandals and the image battering, members of the House appear impervious to such negative images. Recently, ignoring all these, members of the lower house increased their quarterly allowance from N15million (US$95,100) to N27million (US$171,200) which is an 80% increase. This is apart from other benefits that include a hefty salary, vehicle maintenance allowance and fuelling , allowances for personal staff, allowances for entertainment and utilities. The increment was brazenly done even as President Goodluck Jonathan had in January this year announced a cut in salaries of all political office holders.

Only recently, the most embarrassing scandal of recent times was exposed when the House Committee on the Capital Market was investigating the circumstances that led to the near collapse of the nation’s capital market. The chairman of the committee, Herman Hembe had accused the Director General of the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), Ms Orunmah Oteh of compromising the regulatory position of the Commission by engaging the services of a staff of one of the banks it was supposed to be investigating as an adviser to the Commission. The committee also accused the Director General of ignoring extant laws on how much a chief executive could spend , pointing out that in one such instance , N825,000 (US$5,230) was spent on food and refreshments in a day by the Commission, while N30million (US$190,425) was expended on hotel accommodation for the Oteh in eight months . All this was dramatised on live television and it appeared members of the House were enjoying taking the head of SEC to the cleaners. Suddenly the tide changed the next day when Ms Oteh point blank, took on the chairman of the House Probe Committee, accusing him of lack of credibility and the moral justification to accuse her of any breach of extant laws. She alleged that Herman Hembe had collected a business class ticket and the sum of N5million (US$31,700) from SEC to attend an occasion overseas but that he did not go, neither did he return the amount collected. She equally put the members on the receiving end when she accused the committee of soliciting for the sum of N39million (US$247,300) from the SEC in order to facilitate the probe of the capital market by the committee.

But while the committee chairman had continued to deny any wrong doing, alleging that it was the SEC that made a proposal of cash advance to the committee, documents continued to be bandied around by both the House Committee and SEC, each accusing the other of wrong doing. And as the battle of integrity continues with both parties calling on the anti graft-agencies to wade into the imbroglio, for now it is obvious that the SEC had inflicted a far more deeper cut on the House Committee on the Capital Market which had since been replaced after Hembe had resigned. And for now, and in view of the numerous scandals that are fast becoming a trade mark of the House of Representatives, members of this committee have been judged and found guilty by the court of public opinion.

The writer, Shui’aibu Usman Leman is the secretary general of the Nigerian Union of Journalists.



When the African Union was launched with great fanfare in Durban in 2002, African leaders promised a new beginning for the continent. They promised that the pussyfooting and procrastination that hindered the resolution of so many issues in Africa – save the liberation struggle – would disappear.

One of the overarching aims of the AU is to ensure that human security takes precedence over state security. This has been a thorny issue for some of the continent’s leaders who feel that the pan-African body has been given too much power to intervene in the internal affairs of member states.

Those who back this concept point out that if African leaders behave in the right manner in the first place, there would be no need for humanitarian intervention.

There is no denying that some countries and regions in Africa have been involved in perpetual conflict and in most of these cases it has been down to the UN to try to rein in the protagonists. Nevertheless, there is now a growing reluctance among some members of the international community to commit themselves to peacekeeping and humanitarian assistance in Africa.

It is in this regard that the AU, under the auspices of its Peace and Security Council (PSC), decided to create the African Standby Force (ASF) that will ensure that well-trained troops are rapidly deployed to deal with emergencies in the continent. The ASF will draw from the five standby forces established by the various regional organisations, such as the Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS), which has had huge experience in regional intervention.

“African solutions to African problems”, as part of the global concept of Responsibility to Protect (R2P) doctrine, is what the continent’s leaders are wont to espouse these day. For Africa, this should encompass not only intervention in conflict situations but also how the AU can respond to conflicts over health, water, land and food security in the continent.

The biggest test so far came over the rebellion in Libya that eventually led to the overthrow and death of Colonel Muammar Gaddafi last October. The AU failed woefully to deal with the situation – allowing the UN and NATO to take the lead. The AU’s poor showing was captured in a statement released by ex-African leaders under the Forum for Former African Heads of State and Government, commonly known as the Africa Forum (AF), which includes Nelson Mandela and Thabo Mbeki of South Africa; Kenneth Kaunda of Zambia; Olusegun Obasanjo of Nigeria; and Abdou Diouf of Senegal. They expressed “concern that [Gaddafi's] killing was aided and abetted by the surreptitious use of UN Security Council Resolution 1973 – in total marginalisation of the African Union – to implement regime change in Libya”.

The AU itself was in a weak position to complain because, since the creation of the PSC and its commitment to R2P, African governments have never provided funding for the African Peace Facility (APF) to which they are committed. Instead, the European Union (EU) has been bankrolling African interventions in places like Darfur and Somalia. As of March 2012, the EU had pumped in €740 million into the APF. Is it any wonder that the AU was sidelined when the UK and France, two major EU powers, led NATO into Libya to back the revolution?

Clearly, the AU did not have the organisational capacity to respond to the Libyan crisis. The fallout of the situation in Libya was the impasse over the election of the Chairman of the African Union Commission (AUC) at the January heads of state summit in Addis Ababa. The current AUC Chairman, Jean Ping of Gabon, was challenged by former South African Foreign Minister Nkosazana Dlamini-Zuma, but African heads of state failed to provide the two-thirds majority needed for a winner to emerge. After the deadlock, it was expected that the Deputy AUC Commissioner, Erastus Mwencha of Kenya, would step in as Chairman until another vote was taken at the next summit in Lilongwe, Malawi in June, according to the AU Constitutive Act.

But after much behind-the-scenes manoeuvring, it was announced that Ping, who has been Chairman since 2008, had contrived to negotiate a deal that would keep him at the helm for the next six months. Even after Dlamini-Zuma pulled out of the race, Ping failed to get the necessary two-thirds majority.

The summit also suspended the election of the eight other Commissioners. Botswana was the only country that objected to this manipulation of the Constitutive Act. This was really an embarrassment for the AU because it was clear that internal politics could have been responsible for scuppering the elections. The leaders then recommended the setting up of an ad hoc committee to find out why the whole exercise ended the way it did. The committee was expected to meet last month.

This situation will tend to weaken the AU’s voice in the international arena such as at the UN where it has been urging the Security Council to defer the warrant of arrest issued by the International Criminal Court (ICC) for Sudanese President Omar al-Bashir. “If the AU could not abide by its own constitution, why would African leaders expect the Security Council to take them seriously over the al-Bashir request,” questioned one analyst in Addis Ababa.

Apart from the Libyan debacle, observers believe that the impasse could have arisen because some countries do not want an AUC Chairman from the most powerful country in Africa. But the South Africans were adamant that Mrs. Dlamini-Zuma, the ex-wife of South African President Jacob Zuma, would present another challenge for the position in June. “Nothing stops us from fielding the same candidate because she has shown or proven to be a formidable candidate that the incumbent could not defeat,” said South Africa’s Minister for International Relations, Maite Nkoane Mashabane, in a statement.

The outcome of the Commission election did however provide a good indication of the evolving internal politics within the AU as well as the strength and loyalties of the various regional blocs on the continent. Was Ping rejected because of the weak manner in which he handled the Libyan issue? Are some member countries wary of handing the leadership of the AUC to someone from the most powerful country in South Africa? These questions will be answered over time.

But participants at a meeting of the Institute of Security Studies in South Africa in February said that the fact that the summit failed to produce a chairman and commissioners presented an image of democracy and accountability in action.

However, one participant, Dr Mehari Taddele Maru, did not think so. He felt that member states did not take the elections seriously. Mehari argued that there had been a fall in the number of candidates for the AUC elections. Yet, this had not necessarily led to a corresponding decline in the active campaigns of candidates participating in the elections. He said compared to the elections of 2004 and 2008, the 2012 elections were not competitive enough and enjoyed less consideration by member states.

He called for an overhaul of the entire electoral process within the AU in order to enhance the number of candidates in future elections. He suggested the current AU Assembly to consider the means to improve competitiveness of the election as an agenda item. Accordingly he suggested a reform of the nomination process as an important area of intervention. These are the issues that the ad hoc committee was looking into.

The electoral impasse highlighted the fractured lines among member states. As observers noted, this could not just be simply put down to the Anglophone/Francophone divide because Nigeria lobbied for Ping. “Nigeria’s seeming inability to create an Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS) voting bloc to support Ping reflected the internal challenges of that country and a relatively weak regional position,” noted the ISS.

Participants at the ISS meeting also noted that it was clear that the South African electoral strategy for Dlamini-Zuma was ineffective outside the Southern African region. Any future candidate would require support from key states, the majority of which seemed opposed to a South African bid.

So it is back to the drawing board, as the AU tries to bolster its sagging credibility.

In its post-summit report, the ISS noted: “Among the lessons that can be drawn from the outcomes of the summit are firstly that the larger African powers could increase their contributions and support for the AU. This should not simply pertain to budgetary support, an unfeasible notion given the current under-utilisation of both budget and staff by the AU, but capacity support through contributing skilled people.”

In the final analysis, in the context of the Libyan situation, Ping’s legacy as chairman will lead to heated debates and various interpretations for his action or lack of it. Indeed, it was clear that Ping failed to secure the necessary support for re-election because AU leaders more or less did not have confidence in him to deal with a similar issue in the future.

The unwillingness of member states to transfer powers to the AU also continues to handicap the performance of the Commission. The same could be said of the Pan-African Parliament.

Getting the ASF up and running is another problem for the AU. It was supposed to be ready in 2010 but it is taking much longer to put in place the continent’s peace and security architecture. While ECOWAS has made good progress, a region like the Southern African Development Community (SADC) has not achieved much. It has struggled to establish a viable security regime because of tensions between South Africa and Zimbabwe.

“While there is a recognised need for the creation of a security community in Southern Africa, such a community does not yet exist in the region,” noted Hany Besada of the North-South Institute in Canada “Many argue that although the legal basis exists in protocols and treaties, the political will to fully implement these arrangements lags behind.”

Will the Continental Free Trade Area (CFTA) be equally hamstrung? At their Addis Ababa summit, African leaders agreed to establish a pan-African trade pact by 2017 as part of a broader effort to increase intra-regional trade within the continent that could be worth $22 trillion when fully functioning, according to World Bank analysis.

Intra-African trade currently stands at 12 per cent of total trade, compared to 60 per cent for Europe, 40 per cent for North America, and 30 per cent for Association of South East Asian Nations, according to the World Trade Organisation.

But already the feasibility of the CFTA is being questioned. At a meeting of the Intergovernmental Authority on Development (IGAD) – an eight-country regional development organisation in East Africa – the delegates argued that, instead of the CFTA, African countries should concentrate their efforts and investments on infrastructure development.

Countries could also push for the removal of non-tariff barriers and trade facilitation while also addressing the challenges of food security, the organisation added. There were “many deadlines that have been set and surpassed,” IGAD said, referring to the current state of play of other proposed trade pacts in Africa. Rather than continue to push for a continent-wide trade agreement, the focus should shift to “what can be done to promote trade and the creation of inter-industry linkages rather than in-actionable action plans,” IGAD continued.

Along similar lines, Nigerian President Goodluck Jonathan said that the 2017 target date for launching the CFTA was unrealistic. “There are no quick-fixes to integration,” he said.

There are currently major obstacles to intra-African trade such as high trade barriers with neighbouring countries. These are costing African nations billions of dollars of potential earnings and depriving the continent of new sources of economic growth, according to a World Bank report. As a consequence, Africa had integrated with the rest of the world faster than with itself, argued the report, De-Fragmenting Africa: Deepening Regional Trade Integration in Goods and Services.

While tariffs in general have been lowered within regional communities, many non-tariff and regulatory barriers still raise transaction costs and limit the movement of goods, services, people and capital across borders. Five types of barriers to trade were analysed in the report: inefficiencies in transport, customs and logistics, complex fiscal arrangements, restrictive rule of origin, lack of effective regulations and standards, and heavy administrative procedures. In one striking example of the administrative burden faced by businesses, the report explained that a particular South African supermarket chain needed to spend an average of $20,000 a week on import permits to distribute its products to its stores in Zambia and provide around 1,600 documents to send one truck across the regional border. The report also described the dangers faced by “informal” cross border traders, in particular women carrying agricultural products, who routinely encountered violence, demands for bribes, and sexual harassment. It noted that women would help to bring Africa’s booming informal trade into the formal economy.

According to the report, African leaders need to urgently pursue changes in three crucial areas, improving cross-border trade, removing a range of non-tariff barriers to trade, and reforming regulations and immigration rules. Given a worsening euro zone crisis that could reduce Africa’s GDP growth by as much as 1.3 percentage points, the World Bank warned that effective regional integration was currently of particular importance.

So, clearly the AU has much work to do. It has to show that it is not losing the plot and moving away from the ideals that informed its establishment in 2002 – that of enhancing the quality of life for Africans after the liberation struggle came to an end with freedom in South Africa.

NAA go behind the headlines in an interview with Commonwealth Secretariat Deputy Secretary-General and Botswana national Ms Mmasekgoa Masire-Mwamba, who told us about the organisation’s plans to involve Africa in improving global Food Security, assisting marginalised women and supporting democratic processes across the continent.

Given Mmasekgoa Masire-Mwamba’s business experience both in her native Botswana and in the UK, it is perhaps a revelation to find her so fully immersed on such a breadth of issues in her role as Deputy Secretary-General of the Commonwealth Secretariat. As advisor to Secretary General Kamalesh Sharma, she reports on a range of matters, from economic development to youth concerns. So what element in particular was it that attracted Mmasekgoa Masire-Mwamba in working with an intergovernmental body like the Commonwealth, and how did she make that leap?

The year did not start well in Sierra Leone. Yet again there were skirmishes between supporters of the ruling All People’s Congress (APC) and the main opposition party, the Sierra Leone People’s Party (SLPP), during a by-election for a seat on the Freetown City Council. These two parties have been at each other’s throat for the last 30 years. Is this a portent of things to come in November? Or will things change finally for the better? Many Sierra Leoneans are hoping for the latter.

At least the National Electoral Commission (NEC) has started the electoral process on a less fraught footing. While the dust was settling from the skirmishes, the NEC began its long-awaited voter registration using a biometric system for the very first time. The system will capture the thumbprints and facial features of the estimated 3.5 million eligible voters. When the Commissioner of the election body NEC, Dr Christiana Thorpe, was in London last year, she explained that the nationwide exercise would take 60 days. The NEC expects average registration to take 7.5 minutes, with each centre registering 80 people a day and 4,800 over the two-month period. ‘I am encouraging young voters, especially first time voters, to come out and vote to exercise their democratic rights,’ Thorpe said at the start of the registration on January 23.

According to Teri Kwal Gamble and Michael W Gamble in their publication, Making Sense of Senselessness, ‘…untangling the causes of terrorism is much like trying to understand why war occurs…It is possible , however to explain that terrorism occurs because, like war, it is misleading to treat terrorism as the irrational acts of crazed fanatics. To the contrary, terrorism occurs because many of those who use it consider it a necessary, legitimate and effective tool to rid themselves of what they consider oppression….’

It is therefore not surprising when Nigerians first became aware of Boko Haram, a militant Islamic group founded by Mohammed Yusuf around 2000, as simply an extremist religious sect, seeking strict implementation of the Islamic law, Sharia. But then, the implications of the interpretation of the Hausa name: Boko Haram, which means ‘Western Education is Sin,’ was not lost on anyone.

By the time the sect was directly implicated in the 2009 sectarian violence that enveloped the city of Maiduguri in North Eastern Nigeria, resulting in the death of over 450 people, it became obvious that a major problem had set into Nigeria’s socio-political life.

Tolerated and even courted by some politicians in the North Eastern part of the country mainly, the group was allowed to flourish and grow stronger and more sophisticated before it dawned on all that indeed it was no longer the harmless group that these politicians would have unsuspecting Nigerians believe. Although, little findings have been made concerning the command structure of the group after the extra judicial killing of its founding leader, Mohammed Yusuf in 2009, it is clear that the group has since been divided into factions, with some of the factions having links with terror groups outside Nigeria. Indeed, the links had been traced to Somalia, North Africa and beyond, while the dominant areas of operation of the groups still remain the North Eastern States of Borno, Bauchi and Yobe, with several other attacks reported in Plateau and Niger States, North Central Nigeria.

For maximum attention and impact the trend is for the sect to choose important national events or festivals to launch their deadly acts. In early November 2011 just two days to the Muslim festival of Eid-el-Kabir, it unleashed a devastating bombing spree on Potiskum and Damaturu in Yobe state, as well as Maiduguri in Borno State. It also targeted the 1st October 2011 Independence day celebration in Abuja, forcing the Federal Government to shift the independence day activities into the confines of State House. Since then, several bomb blasts have been recorded across the Northern parts of Nigeria with casualty figures well above 1,000.

The most significant, though not the least deadly were the blasts at the Police Headquarters of 16 June 2011 and the U.N. Head office, of 22 August 2011, both in Abuja, the seat of the Federal Government. Since then police stations have been vandalised at will and officers and men cut down with so much ease, including several officers of the State Security Service. In like manner, soldiers, especially members of the Joint Task Force, set up to tackle the menace are not spared. Even the precincts of army barracks have been hit by bombs while vulnerable banks have been attacked and millions of Naira taken to finance their various activities.

The most devastating of all the attacks came on Friday, January 20, 2012, a few hours after the Jumaat prayers (Friday Muslim prayers). On that fateful day, members of Boko Haram launched coordinated bomb and gun attacks in Kano, North Western Nigeria, targeting the State Security Service office, the Zonal and State headquarters of the police and several other police formations and the Immigration Office in the metropolis. The official casualty figure released by the police was 185, although reports by journalists and various aid groups put the figure at well above that. The sect will later claim that the Kano bombings were reprisals against the people and government of Kano State over the way and manner their members were been arrested and arbitrarily detained by the police. It will indeed be recalled that the sect had issued a warning that unless its members that were being detained by the police in various detention centres in the state were released forthwith, the city will not be spared. True to that threat, mayhem was unleashed on Kano, the magnitude of which had never been felt before.

Why then Boko Haram, if one may ask? According to the sect whose official name is Jama’atu Ahlis-Sunnah Lidda’awati Wal Jihad their aim is to completely Islamise Nigeria by having the Islamic Law firmly in place. The sect does not recognise the Nigerian constitution neither does it recognise the leadership of President Goodluck Jonathan. The man who identifies himself as the leader of the sect, Imam Abu Muhammad Abubakar Bin Muhammad Shekau had rebuffed any move at initiating dialogue with government. Iman Shekau who demanded that President Jonathan must first convert to Islam before any compromises scoffed at the recent hint by the President that government may be willing to dialogue with the sect. President Jonathan had in an interview with Reuters on Friday 27th January challenged the sect to come out publicly and declare what it wants from government, stating that his government may consider to dialogue with the group.

But the group remains adamant insisting that their demands be met first before any talks can be held. This clearly shows that the agenda of this sect goes beyond the merely religious connotation the issue had been given, knowing very well that it is impossible to implement their demand even in the North Eastern parts of Nigeria, not to talk of the entire country. What then is the motive behind these violent agitations?

President Jonathan had recently revealed at a church service to commemorate the 2012 Armed Forces Remembrance Day that members of the sect had infiltrated his government, the armed forces and the police. The president cannot be far from the truth judging by the inability of government to fight this group, which appeared to have better intelligence and more information about all decisions and actions of government. Recently, a high profile suspect that allegedly masterminded the Christmas day 2011 bombing of a church in Madalla, Niger State where about 50 persons were killed, Kabiru Sokoto escaped from police custody in a very mysterious manner while being conveyed to his house for a search by the police. So far, this development had claimed its highest casualty yet in the person of the former Inspector General of Police, Hafiz Ringim who was removed from office for this and for his general inability to deal with the violence.

According to the Governor of the Central Bank of Nigeria, Sanusi Lamido Sanusi, the whole problem is about poverty. In an interview he granted the Financial Times of London, Friday, 27th January 2012, he argued that ‘….There is a structural imbalance of enormous proportions. Those states {North Eastern Nigeria} simply do not have enough money to meet basic needs while some states {South South Nigeria} have too much….’ He cited the example of Federal allocation based on derivation from the oil revenue to Rivers State between 1999-2008 as being to the tune of N1,053 Billion as against the allocation to the States of Borno and Yobe which stood at only N385 Billion for the same period. Sanusi believes that it is now necessary to focus funds on regenerating other regions, if Nigeria wants to secure long-term stability.

While the Central Bank governor blames deprivation as the main cause of instability, others are of the opinion that the activities of the Boko Haram sect are clearly aimed at Balkanizing the country. Even the sect did not deny this when at the tail end of 2011 it issued an order for all Christians in Yobe state in particular to leave the state before a certain date. The threat to annihilate Christians was actually carried out as thousands of Christians had to flee the state for their life while their homes were razed down by the sect in a violent orgy of bloodletting. While Christians from other states of the country returned to their respective states abandoning their work and businesses, indigenous Christians from Yobe state have massively relocated to other areas of safety, leaving desolation in the wake of this ugly development.

In their various and varied reactions to the menace of this sect, the leaders of South South and South East Nigeria believe that the continued violence on the nation is a clear indication that the perpetrators are working with some unscrupulous politicians to scuttle the present political leadership in the country. They cannot be far from the truth. Throughout the period of the recent fuel subsidy removal protests in the country, the sect refrained from any violent activity; this complete lull in violence gave an insight into the hidden motive of the people behind the sect. However, when the Labour movement called off the protests after government had agreed to review downward the pump price of Premium Motor Spirit, the sect issued a threat on labour leaders for what it termed a betrayal of the people. The question then is since when had this group represented the general interest of the masses of Nigeria; some of the questions that needs answers.

Perhaps it is based on such trends that these leaders raised alarm, and rightly so, that Nigeria was being programmed for sinister considerations, and warned the armed forces not to contemplate any change of government as a result of the wanton destruction of life and property by an amorphous group. In the same vein, the Ijaw Youth {Jonathan’s kinsmen} in an open letter to the nation also alleged that some politicians who want to grab power at all cost are the ones sponsoring the Boko Haram sect.

While it is easy to empathize with President Jonathan that members of the dreaded sect have infiltrated his government, the truth however remains that this sect that started as a peoples’ movement around 2000 in the North Eastern part of the country has been hijacked by some politicians who want to remove Jonathan from office. For now, it is the culture of silence and complicity as no Northern politician is willing to come out openly and identify the sponsors of this sect or to talk evil of their activities all in the name of fear. Indeed, the Northern Governors have been accused of paying various sums of money to the sect to elicit their cooperation in one form or the other, a claim that had been vehemently denied, although there appears to be more than meets the eye in the entire Boko Haram conundrum. For now, while the violence continues, it is more an issue of politics rather than religion, although the religious angle is being dangled vociferously to elicit the cooperation of the majority of the gullible people in the region. And, for now it seems to be working.

The term ‘evangelization’ is open to misinterpretation, suggesting for some that it is synonymous with colonial domination and amounts to a kind of religious ‘imperialism’ by Western Christian missionaries who held indigenous African spirituality in contempt and who imposed their beliefs and institutions without restraint. But it is this objection which Pope Benedict’s messages in Benin directly counters. The Catholic presence throughout Africa was never intended to merely add to the numbers of baptized adherents. Nominalism is not the goal of evangelization; rather, the objective is an interior conversion which transforms individuals, promotes collective morality, and inspires society to safeguard the welfare of its every member.

How is evangelization expressed? Simply stated, evangelization enables believers to witness of their commitment to ‘serve reconciliation, justice and peace.’ The Pope elaborates: Africa’s faithful Christians are not in competition or at enmity with those who profess other religious affiliation or whose preference is to exclude ties with any formal religion. By contrast, Africa’s Christians are meant ‘to become joyful instruments of divine mercy;’ sensitive and receptive to the needs and dignity of fellow Africans, without exception and without condition. Moreover, it is the duty of each Christian to be a contributor ‘to the common good.’ And, that common good must be recognized as possessing ‘its own spiritual and material’ patrimony. Nor is it ever to be identified with exclusive Christian interests. The challenge facing the Catholic Christian is that of cooperating to actualize the potential of all Africans, so that Africa’s unique legacy of accumulated wisdom, of reverence for the environment, and of perseverance amidst adversity, may enrich across the globe.

From Pope Benedict’s discourse while in Benin, we may deduce several further characteristics of the Christian’s vocation as ‘servant of the common good’. Such servanthood:

(a) attests ‘to the possibility of a harmonious coexistence within the nation, and between Church and State.’ In this endeavor, ‘good will and mutual respect (…) are essential for building unity between individuals, ethnic groups and peoples.’ This is not Utopian idealism, but practically, through sincere effort, may come to fruition. (Address at Departure Ceremony, Gantin Airport, Cotonou)

(b) promotes realistic and profound hope. There is no doubt that ‘difficulties (…) are met along (life’s) way and which can at times be serious.’ But instead of leading ‘to discouragement, (they) become incentives to the awakening (…) of a deep spiritual life;’ one which eagerly seeks to foster ‘advancement in the search for spiritual and human development.’ The prospect to better the common good inspires inter-personal confidence and national optimism. (Address to Benin’s bishops, Apostolic Nunciature)

(c) translates piety into social action. Speaking to a meeting with children who greeted him at the Parish Church of Saint Rita, in Cotonou, Pope Benedict urged them to grow in the habit of prayer. But that prayer is not oriented to a privatized sanctification. On the contrary, prayer disposes the believer to engage in radical ‘forgiveness and charity’ towards all.

(d) ‘adopts a courageous ethical approach to (one’s) responsibilities.’ These words, from the Pope’s Address to government officials and to the diplomatic corps assembled at the Presidential Palace, appeal for transparency on every level of civic administration. The Pope recognized that scandals and corruption are prevalent. But he also stressed that these should not be ignored or condoned. Manipulation, greed, violence and intolerance are never acceptable choices. To serve the common good means that these be offset, notably by the facilitation of dialogue. For ‘dialogue is another way of loving God and our neighbor out of love for the truth.’

(e) Exercises prudence ‘in the delicate transition currently underway (in Benin) from tradition to modernity.’ Benin cannot set aside its ‘ancient and noble traditions.’ But the nation must not be so fixated upon that heritage that it risks those pitfalls which afflict the African continent (e.g. an unbridled ‘law of the market,’ excessive nationalism, ‘exaggerated tribalism’). ‘The transition to modernity must be guided by sure criteria based on (such) virtues (as) are listed in (Benin’s) national motto.’ Those who serve the common good desire ‘to give (their) best to everyone.’ (Address for Welcome Ceremony, Gantin Airport, Cotonou)

The move by the ANC is essentially pre-emptive, and puts them on a par with some of the more anti-democratic nations which routinely restrict the press. To the credit of the media in South Africa, and in fact of opposition parties, they have not only continually expressed their opposition to the bill and its forerunner which planned for a stifling Media Tribunal, but they have been continually and fearlessly uncovering corruption in the government, from underhanded tenders for work to corruption over arms deals at the highest levels.

South Africans stood up for themselves and were not cowed by the passing of the undemocratic bill, however. The ‘Black Tuesday’ protests, organised by media and civil society organisations and echoing 1977′s Black Wednesday when the Apartheid government banned a number of media organisations, struck a chord, with South Africans at home and abroad wearing black and even blacking out their online profile pictures. Desmond Tutu and even Nelson Mandela, in a rare criticism of ANC policy, publicly denounced the bill. Bravely, investigative journalists have also done the right thing by vowing to fight on and keep telling people the truth. As has been pointed out by veteran journalists, it is possible that the ANC is trying to intimidate people who may know certain things they don’t want to become public. With increasing information sharing, and contact between journalists and sources, it is possible that somewhere somebody knows something the party wants kept secret. Of course, while journalists and editors will continue to work for freedom, the bill is aimed at – and will doubtless deter – those sources who would be able to provide the information. Their actions in sharing information nebulously classified by politicians as being hidden due to ‘public interest’ will be criminalised.

The perhaps not too well-kept secret that is now out of the bag, however, is that the ANC could justifiably be charged with harbouring undemocratic tendencies. Already suffering something of a turbulent patch in their international reputation, their spokesperson Jackson Mthembu is going to be working overtime for the next while to try and come up with a convincing message for a sceptical audience. Not only has the party been in the headlines abroad – as well as at home – for corrupt arms deals, crooked politicians and security officials, and Julius Malema’s various turns at racism and buffoonery, but tough questions have been asked about the party over its stance on Libya and relationship with Muammar al-Gaddafi, its perceived deference to China over the Dalai Lama’s visa, and now most recently its abstention from voting at the UN Security Council over the crackdown in Syria.

There is no denying that these are all serious and complicated issues, and taking a particular side on any of them is not an open and shut matter. There are also clearly pressing geopolitical realities following a series of international conflicts, and a fairly dangerous and unstable world economic situation – and equally dangerously an increasing ‘with us or against us’ mentality in Europe, the U.S., the Middle East and elsewhere. The tightening up of security given these realities is perhaps understandable for the ANC, but the curtailing of democratic freedoms is not going to help their reputation at all – proof of which can be seen in the aforementioned international media coverage of their ‘Secrecy Bill’.

Thus, the ANC has played their hand. While it is foreseeable that in the short-term, sources may be discouraged from sharing information which government figures deem classified, it is likely that the ANC has done more damage to its reputation with its own actions anyway. They have also provided an object lesson and a warning to other governments with democratic aspirations, which is that in today’s age, it’s not easy to control and contain information – but if you don’t learn to manage it properly, it could end up controlling you.

According to a widely reported idea, Jacob Zuma may have acted just in time to save himself from being challenged by Malema at the ANC’s upcoming meeting and hundredth birthday at Mangaung, due to take place in January. While this is a matter of debate, as in the ANC’s hierarchical arrangement Malema would not technically have had the authority to do so, given Malema’s outspoken reputation such a performance would not have come as a surprise. As things stand, the ANC, and Zuma by his actions, have been praised for removing a bugbear to many, including the party itself. Whites were put off by Malema’s purported exploitation of racial tensions, business and markets by his calls for nationalisation, and the international community and South Africa’s allies for his lambasting of their journalists (the BBC’s Jonah Fisher) and denigrating of their allies (Botswana). With political anger rising, and tangible economic problems such as a downgrading of the country’s credit rating over fears of instability in its key industries, the presidency has acted prudently if a little late in dealing categorically with Malema’s ill-discipline.

However, Zuma may still find himself chewing bitterly on his own earlier words. In 2009, the South African president praised Malema as a potential ‘future leader’ of the ANC and the country. While it remains to be seen whether Malema can stage a comeback, there is a lot of foresight in media reports that the rise of Malema is a symptom reflecting deeper realities in South African politics. South Africa is one of the most unequal societies in the world, a statement for which countless statistics can be found on the internet and elsewhere – to cite one example, its Gini coefficient of around 65 places the country is in the top five most unequal societies in the world – sadly, along with its close neighbours Botswana (63) and Namibia (70). For all its historically real and currently apparent sympathy with the poor, the ANC has not been able to narrow this gap since coming to power. Simply put, Malema managed to tap into the frustrations of the poor and give them something to believe in. That he was undone by his own confused mix of personal wealth, corruption, and miscalculated offence does not make the problem go away.

South Africa’s current leading politicians have a history of struggle behind them, and see themselves as the guardians of the liberation struggle in the country’s young democracy. Yet, these selfsame politicians have been decried for creating a corrupt system criticised for its cronyism, in a political alliance which, combining communists, black nationalists and free market thinkers, amongst others, has tried to be all things to all people – as long as they pledged their support to the ANC – and yet has not managed to liberate the approximately 50% of the population living in poverty. That this poverty affects black South Africans to a disproportional extent, and is to a large extent still affected by the system of Apartheid, is certainly true – but as a repeated statement of fact this holds little comfort for the starving.

What is striking about this system is that it seems to have become all-consuming – the same old politicians struggle for power at the top, with alliances shifting and backs scratched one day only to be stabbed the next. Young leaders such as Malema find themselves part of this monolithic ANC system, and all too often become tainted by the kind of corruption facilitated by power. Given the on-going power and leadership struggles, distorting the channels of communication for those citizens looking to the party for leadership, those who have a message for the disaffected which strikes a chord will find themselves listened to. In the most recent incarnation, this has meant embracing a populism which is dangerous not only for its content, but for its hollowness.

For Malema is not the first to reach out to the poor of the country by preaching populism. His own mentor President Zuma, now trying to clean his hands of the whole affair, came to power in 2009 to a large extent by reaching out to the poor, and claiming that he would fight poverty and inequality. Malema took up the poisoned chalice, and took the populism to the next step by calling for nationalisation and decrying imperialism. Zuma was either subsumed into the economic realities of the country and the markets, or cynically and not without guile accepted the fruits of the votes of the poor, but left behind the populism for pragmatism. Malema ostensibly stayed on message, at the same time exposing the dualities in the ANC not only to many South Africans to whom it was obvious that the country’s leadership was made up of strange bedfellows, but arguably even to many across the world who now see that the long-ruling party and indeed the country itself is riven by disagreement.

It has been said that one of the goals of politics is to ‘give voice to the voiceless’. Leaders and ex-leaders in the country’s leadership structure have capitalised on this fact, but the voiceless are still there, passed over in silence for now while ‘business as usual’ continues. Malema’s voice may have lacked the critical wisdom needed to guide the country, but until all South Africans are able to lift themselves up and experience equality, they will be listening for signs of hope. At a time when the country feels let down by its leaders, people may just feel that they need another hero.