9.55
------
Yesterday, International Relations Minister Maite Nkoana-Mashabane, signed off on a document bearing the title 'Instrumental withdrawal'. The document officially confiirmed South Africa's withdrawal from the International Criminal Court, a body we joined in July 2002.
There is no other way to describe this withdrawal than with the word 'shameful'.
What this court does is enable the international community to track down and arrest gross violators of human rights in any country which is a signatory.
That is exactly what was supposed to occur when the wanted war criminal Omar Al-Bashir graced South Africa with his presence at an African Union summit in Sandton.
You would have thought that this series of actions - including a subsequent unsuccessful attempt by the government to appeal the court decision - would have caused reflection on the part of government
— NO CONSCIENCE
Except that it didn't. Far from wanting to bring this man to justice, the South African government was determined to fete him as if he were the very model of a democratic statesman. President Jacob Zuma met him and was photographed with him, allowing Al-Bashir to indulge himself in the illusion that he was a free and equal member of the democratic world.
The government's view that Al-Bashir ought to be entertained as a political guest with minor difficulties back home is impossible to sustain when you read the court's warrant of arrest.
This is what one small part of the warrant stated:
"There are reasonable grounds to believe that, from soon after the April 2003 attack on El Fasher airport until 14 July 2008, GoS forces, including the Sudanese Armed Forces and their allied Janjaweed Militia, the Sudanese Police Force, the NISS and the HAC, committed crimes against humanity consisting of murder, extermination, forcible transfer, torture and rape, within the meaning of articles 7(1 )(a), (b), (d), (f) and (g) respectively of the Statute, throughout the Darfur region."
It was already shameful when it was left to an NGO to go to court to demand the arrest of Al-Bashir. And then even more shameful when the NGO won the case and government whisked Al-Bashir out of the country before the court order could be executed.
You would have thought that this series of actions - including a subsequent unsuccessful attempt by the government to appeal the court decision - would have caused reflection on the part of government about how it approached matters of human rights.
Instead, government decided there and then that it preferred cosying up to Al-Bashir than any human rights agenda and began working on its withdrawal from the ICC.
Many South Africans are bewildered by this move. Why would a democratic government which has nothing to fear from the ICC withdraw from this body?
The Justice Minister, Michael Masutha defended the decision at a media briefing saying: "At this point in time our focus is to ensure that our international law obligations are properly aligned to domestic law".
If it were established that the chain of command ordering the cold-blooded execution of mine workers ran up to government, would Zuma not be liable for "crimes against humanity consisting of murder"?
— ZUMA NEARLY NAILED
So, the possibility of aligning domestic law to international human rights obligations is apparently not on the table.
"We should be able to facilitate dialogue in conflict resolution. We should be able to host conflicting parties," he said.
There may be a more chilling answer. South Africa is moving from an open, democratic state to one run by its security arm and Zuma is aware that it is inevitable that courts such as the ICC might one day be hearing South African cases.
This sounds far-fetched right now, because we have only just begun our descent, as Justice Malala put it.
Think about events at Marikana. If it were established that the chain of command ordering the cold-blooded execution of mine workers ran up to government, would Zuma not be liable for "crimes against humanity consisting of murder"? Would Zuma not then be the subject of a warrant of arrest?
Fortunately for Zuma, the Farlam Commission found that negligence and incompetence by the police commissioner and her subordinates were to blame for this incident. Still, it was a close call, if you think about it.
But what else has the state been doing? What does it contemplate doing in the future? If you look at the police action on campuses, you see that the security machinery approaches political conflict with a represseive frame of mind. Rubber bullets and stun grenades. A student leader shot 13 times in the back with rubber bullets.
And what of the service delivery protests and the 'agitators' that government believes are behind them? What might happen down the road to quell the uprising against failed delivery and a state incapable of employing the youth?
These may be alarmist questions, but let's rather ask them now, while we can.
Would you like to comment on this article?
Sign up (it's quick and free) or sign in now.
Please read our Comment Policy before commenting.