 |
The Declaration on the Rights of Persons Belonging to National or Ethnic, Religious and Linguistic Minorities, states, among others,1. States shall protect the existence and the national or ethnic, cultural, religious and linguistic identity of minorities within their respective territories and shall encourage conditions for the promotion of that identity.
2. States shall adopt appropriate legislative and other measures to achieve those ends.
The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), states among others:1. All peoples have the right of self-determination. By virtue of that right they freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development.The International Covenant on Social, Economic and Cultural Rights (CESCR), states among others:1. All peoples have the right of self-determination. By virtue of that right they freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development.
 |
Boycott 2010 World Cup: Truth & Justice or Secession
[Download Original Report in PDF]
Brief Overview of Issues Re: Abathembu Secession Justifications, as per:
Program of Action for Justice for King Dalindyebo Campaign
[Download Original Report in PDF]
This is a brief preliminary (as published on 05 January 2010) time constrained Overview of Issues of the Abathembu Justifications for Legal Secession from the State of South Africa, as received from the King Dalindyebo Justice Task Team (PDF); and authored by Attorney Mr. Votani Majola, as per:.
- 22 December 2009 Letter: RSA State President: Our Client: His Majesty King Dalindyebo and Abathembu Tribe Withdrawal of Abathembu Tribe from the South African Government and Formation of an Independent State of Abathembu Tribe. (P:3)
- 22 December 2009 Letter: National Director of Prosecutions: Our Client: His Majgest King Dalindyebo and Abathembu Tribe Strong Recommendation to Withdraw Charges (P:2)
- Encl: Program of Action for Justice for King Dalindyebo Campaign (P:14)
This Boycott 2010 WorldCup: Truth & Justice or Secession, Overview of aforementioned Abathembu Program of Action for Justice for King Dalindyebo Campaign, is within the context of (i) Boycott 2010 World Cup knowledge of ANC and NPA Officials Abuse of Process, Actions of Political Prosecution and Persecution, in other Politically related trials; and (ii) interpretation of the SA Constitution in terms of Foreign and International Law and Principles of Just War, Self Determination/Secession, and rights of Indigenous Peoples and Minorities.
- Abathembu Campaign Allegations: ANC & NPA Officials Abuse of Process: Actions of Political Prosecution & Persecution
- Contextual: Subjective and Objective Experiential Foundation for Analysis Why Abathembu Campaign Allegations Must be Taken Seriously for Impartial Rule of Law Enquiry:
- Direct Evidentiary Knowledge of ANC and NPA Officials Abuse of Process, Actions of Political Prosecution & Persecution in two Political Legal matters.
- The Rule of Law: South African Constitutional Law: Bill of Rights: Right to a Free and Fair Trial, etc; as Interpreted by Foreign and International Law:
- Principles of Just War and Constitutional Principles of Secession as a State’s Right
- International Law Principles of Self Determination (Secession), including the Rights of Indigenous Peoples and Minorities.
- Conclusion: Are South African citizens rights and the SA Constitution being shredded, by ANC Political Mercenaries, acting on behalf of Foreign Terrorist Organizations and Governments?
[1] Abathembu Campaign Allegations:
[a] ANC & NPA Officials: Abuse of Process: Political Prosecution & Persecution
The Program of Action for Justice for King Dalindyebo Campaign (PDF) states that the criminal charges against King Dalindyebo are not legitimate criminal charges. They allege the criminal charges are political persecution of the King, intended to overthrow the independent minded King, and appoint a puppet leader, submissive and blindly obedient to the ANC. They allege the political prosecution and persecution are being driven and propelled by ANC (“conspirators”).In 1994/5, the community on the Kings Farm (Tyhalara) experienced a high rate of serious crimes (robbery, murder, rape, etc); which the police reacted to with deliberate indifference. Accordingly the angry community members identified the four ringleaders of the criminality and assaulted three of them, by means of vigilante mobjustice. Then they took the three alleged criminals to the Kings Palace. Upon arrival at the Palace the King gave an executive order stopping the assaults. To calm down the mob, the alleged criminals were given a few lashes. This is the foundation for the NPA’s charges of assault to do grievous bodily harm, attempted murder and kidnapping. The fourth boy was not so lucky, he was captured by the mob a few days later, badly assaulted, and taken to the then headman’s house of Mr. Derrick Ngcambu, where he later died from his wounds. Although the King had nothing to do with this matter, this is the foundation for the NPA’s charge of murder.
The King was arrested in 1995, spent a night in jail and was subsequently released with all charges dropped. Nine years later, in 2004, the ANC “conspirators” resuscitated the charges against the King, based on an alleged letter of complaint by an alleged headman; but the NPA have refused to provide evidence that this letter of complaint requesting a resuscitation of the charges against the King, in fact exists.
Although the crimes against the alleged criminals, were clearly committed by individual members within the community, none of those individuals who committed the actual crimes of alleged assault and murder have been prosecuted; only the King, who had no personal involvement in the alleged criminal acts, except for the instruction of lashes to avert further mobjustice.
During the Trial, the NPA went out of their way to obstruct the King from obtaining funding for legal representation; by threatening him with further charges should he receive any financial support from Abathembu community members; and asserting their authority to obstruct the King from getting financial support from the Department of Housing and Traditional Leaders, so as to enable the King to prepare a proper defence, for the charges against him in his official capacity.
The King was accordingly humiliatingly forced to represent himself, for most of the trial.
Finally, on 24 June 2009 the NPA Head Office in Silverton-Pretoria were informed of a complaint filed by the King, with the Judicial Service Commission regarding the conduct of particular judges involved in the trial. On 27 Aug 2009, the Judicial Service Commission refused to conduct an investigation. The NPA were requested to suspend prosecution, pending an impartial investigation. The NPA refused.
[b] Program of Action for Justice for King Dalindyebo Campaign Demands:
- They strongly recommend the charges against the King be withdrawn, by 28 December 2009, as the entire prosecution amounted to persecution and constitutes an unfair trial.
- They demand a public apology to the Abathembu Tribe, from the President of SA Government, by 05 January 2010, for the humiliation the tribe and King were subjected to, as a result of the trial’s proceedings.
- They recommend SA Government to pay damages to the Tribe of R 80 Bn, to the Royal Family of R 900 Mn; by 12 January 2010.
- The Abathembu Tribe will publicly name and shame the members and ringleaders of the ANC Consortium, and the roles they played in the conspiracy of persecution, prior to seceding from the SA Government on 19 January 2010.
- In the event that the NPA refuse to withdraw the charges against the King, then the Abathembu will embark on a rolling mass action, until all charges are permanently and unconditionally withdrawn.
- The Abathembu Mass Actions will include mass Boycotting of the 2010 Soccer World Cup.
- Other mass actions include a National Day of Siege (date to be decided), whereupon they shall go on a pilgrimage to KZN Mountains, to burn the South African Constitution, the South African National Flag, and their ANC membership cards.
[2] Contextual: Subjective and Objective Experiential Foundation for Analysis Why Abathembu Campaign Allegations Must be Taken Seriously:
[a] Direct Evidentiary Knowledge of ANC and NPA Officials Abuse of Process, Actions of Political Prosecution & Persecution in the following two legal matters:
[i] S v. J. Zuma & Others: Statement of National Director of Public Prosecutions: Mokotedi Mpshe (excerpts (PDF)): [The following Press Statement was made at a Press Conference by the NPA, from which two Leaders of Opposition Parties (Zille & De Lille) were banned from attending (PDF)]:It was then and it still is difficult for me to comprehend that which is set out below could have happened. The painful facts that I am about to put before you have serious implications for the integrity and independence of the NPA especially regarding the prosecution of Mr Zuma.
We believe that it is vital that the NPA must expose this conduct and deal with the consequences as honestly and constructively as possible if it is to have any chance of rebuilding its credibility and integrity. Our democracy will have to find ways to learn from this bitter experience and to build a stronger and more independent NPA.
Over the last three weeks the NPA has been engaged in a difficult and painful process of dealing with allegations that the case of Mr Zuma has been affected by manipulation and abuse of process.
We have come across information about collusion between the former heads of the Directorate of Special Operations (DSO) and NPA to manipulate the prosecutorial process before and after Polokwane elections. We regarded these allegations as extremely serious and set out to investigate them as fully as possible within the limited time at our disposal.
……………..
Possible abuse of process
In the course of the representations, the defence made certain very serious allegations about alleged manipulation of the NPA and indicated that these were substantiated by recordings of certain telephone conversations which it intended handing into court during the intended application for a permanent stay of prosecution.
…………………………
Section 179(4) of the Constitution requires of the prosecuting authority to exercise its functions without fear favour or prejudice.
The extent of this obligation was described as follows in the State versus Yengeni 2006 (1) SACR 405 in paragraphs 51- 53:"Every member of the authority is obliged to undertake an oath or affirmation prior to the commencement of their service to uphold this provision. The Constitution guarantees the professional independence of the National Director of Public Prosecutions and every member of his staff, with the obvious aim of ensuring their freedom from any interference in their functions by the powerful, the well connected the rich and the peddlers of political influence. The untrammelled exercise of their powers in the spirit of professional independence is vital to the functioning of the legal system. The independence of the Judiciary is directly related to, and depends upon , the independence of the legal professions and of the National Director of Public Prosecutions. Undermining the freedom from outside influence would lead the entire legal process, including the functioning of the Judiciary, being held hostage to those interests that might be threatened by a fearless, committed and independent search for the truth."In applying the above principles the court in S v Yengeni (supra) found as follows with regard to the requirement of fearless and unfettered exercise of the powers of the office of the National Director of Public Prosecutions:"The independence of the office of that he held, and the fearless and unfettered exercise of the extensive powers that this office confers, are incompatible with any hint or suggestion that he might have lent an ear to politicians who might wish to advance the best interest of a crony rather than the search for the truth and the proper functioning of the criminal and penal process." (p428 g-h)A submission made in Chaskalson et al, Constitutional Law of South Africa, of a broad and creative interpretation of "impartiality" as required from the judiciary to include a member of the prosecuting authority was endorsed in Smyth v Ushewokunze and Another 1998 (2) BCLR 170 (ZS):"Section 18(2) embodies a constitutional value of supreme importance. It must be interpreted therefore in a broad and creative manner so as to include within its scope and ambit not only the impartiality of the decision making body but the absolute impartiality of the prosecutor himself whose function, as an officer of the court, forms an indispensable part of the judicial process. His conduct must of necessity reflect on the impartiality or otherwise of the court" (p178 par B)The court furthermore in outlining what society expects of a prosecutor stated as follows:"A prosecutor must dedicate himself to the achievement of justice .... He must pursue that aim impartially..... Since he represents the State, the community at large and the interest of justice in general , the task of the prosecutor is more comprehensive and demanding than that of the defending practitioner.......... ......... Like Caesar's wife, the prosecutor must be above any trace of suspicion." (p174 G-H)There are generally two categories of abuse of process:a) a manipulation or misuse of the criminal justice process so as to deprive the accused of a protection provided by law or to take an unfair advantage over the accused;The issue can be formulated as follows:
b) where, on a balance of probability the accused has been, or will be prejudiced in the preparation or conduct of his defence or trial by either a delay or haste on the part of the prosecution which is unjustifiable. (R v Derby Crown Court, ex Parte Brooks [1985] 80 Cr. App. R 164, per Ormrod LJ)The question is whether a legal or judicial process which is aimed at dispensing justice with impartiality and fairness to both parties and to the community which it serves should permit its processes to be abused and employed in a manner which gives rise to unfairness and/or injustice. (See Jago v District Court of New South Wales, [1989] 168 CLR 23 at 30, per Mason CJ)
Prosecutors have an inescapable duty to secure fair and just treatment of those who come or are brought before them.
Fair trial is not the only test of abuse of process. Abuse of process may occur on its own, either because:
a) it will not be possible to give the accused a fair trial, or
b) it will offend one's sense of justice, integrity and propriety to continue with the trial of the accused in the particular case. Discontinuation is not a disciplinary process undertaken in order to express one's disapproval of abuse of process; it is an expression of one's sense of justice and propriety.(See Conelly v DPP 1964 AC 1254)
………..
What actually triggers the abuse of process is a major determining factor, because it is that trigger which determines the purpose of the abuse and reveals whether the conduct in question is directed at a legitimate or illegitimate purpose.
In the present matter, the conduct consists in the timing of the charging of the accused. In general, there would be nothing wrong in timing the charging of an accused person, provided that there is a legitimate prosecutorial purpose for it and the accused is aware, should be aware or has been made aware of such purpose. For example, the timing may be related to the availability of witnesses, or the introduction or leading of specific evidence to fit in with the chain of evidence.
It follows therefore that, any timing of the charging of an accused person which is not aimed at serving a legitimate purpose is improper, irregular and an abuse of process. A prosecutor who uses a legal process against an accused person to accomplish a purpose for which it is not designed abuses the criminal justice system and subjects the accused person to that abuse of process.
Abuse of process through conduct which perverts the judicial or legal process in order to accomplish an improper purpose offends against one's sense of justice.
The above implies the following:
Mr McCarthy used the legal process for a purpose outside and extraneous to the prosecution itself. Even if the prosecution itself as conducted by the prosecution team is not tainted, the fact that Mr McCarthy, who was head of the DSO, and was in charge of the matter at all times and managed it almost on a daily basis, manipulated the legal process for purposes outside and extraneous to the prosecution itself. It is not so much the prosecution itself that is tainted, but the legal process itself.
Mr McCarthy used the legal process for a purpose other than which the process was designed to serve, i.e. for collateral and illicit purposes. It does not matter that the team acted properly, honestly, fairly and justly throughout. Mr McCarthy's conduct amounts to a serious abuse of process and offends one's sense of justice.
What Mr McCarthy did was not simply being over-diligent in his pursuit of a case, it was pure abuse of process.
If Mr McCarthy's conduct offends one's sense of justice, it would be unfair as well as unjust to continue with the prosecution.
In the light of the above, I have come to the difficult conclusion that it is neither possible nor desirable for the NPA to continue with the prosecution of Mr Zuma.
It is a difficult decision because the NPA has expended considerable resources on this matter, and it has been conducted by a committed and dedicated team of prosecutors and investigators who have handled a difficult case with utmost professionalism and who have not been implicated in any misconduct.
Let me also state for the record that the prosecution team itself had recommended that the prosecution should continue even if the allegations are true, and that it should be left to a court of law to decide whether to stop the prosecution.
However, I believe that the NPA has a special duty, as one of the guardians of the constitution and the Bill of Rights, to ensure that its conduct is at all times beyond reproach.
As an officer of the court I feel personally wronged and betrayed that on a number of occasions I have given evidence under oath that there has not been any meddling or manipulation of the process in this matter. It is with a great regret that I have to say today that in relation to this case I can not see my way clear to go to court in future and give the nation this assurance.
…..
The NPA believes that it is vital that a full and proper investigation must be conducted by a judge or independent person to make recommendations about any further actions to be taken, whether of disciplinary or criminal nature, as well as the framework within which the NPA operates to ensure that such abuses never occur again.
[ii] State v. Johnstone (Cape Mag. Ct: 14/1198/08; HC, W.Cape Appeal # 19963-09)
After three years of requesting help from ANC & PAC Politicians regarding the NPA’s refusal to place Defendants High Court, Western Cape Appeal (A 696-04) on the roll for hearing; Defendant filed a written complaint to Mrs. Patricia De Lille, Mr. Bulelani Ngcuka, Mr. J.S. Selebi, Mr. B.M. Skosana, Mr. Nelson Mandela, and Mr. Thabo Mbeki, on 07 July 2007 (PDF & PDF).
On 10 July 2007, I telephoned Mrs. De Lille to confirm she had received the legal documents I sent to her office, for forwarding to aforementioned Respondents. She got angry with me, and ended the conversation with:“Fuck Your [Legal Military] Document. Fuck Your Racist Conspiracy Theories about the [Manmade Biological Warfare] Origins of AIDS; and Fuck You!” [Aff.: #7 (PDF)]I subsequently responded to her choice language, with some of my own per SMS, for her to forward along with my military legal document, to the other respondents, accusing them that their actions of commission and omission in this matter amounted to those as described by the word ‘Kaffirs’ [Legal Argument (PDF)]. Mrs. De Lille responded by filing a case of crimen injuria against me. None of the other respondents filed any charges against me. I was arrested by Insp. Christian on 18 July 2007, without any valid Arrest Warrant. I was detained in Pollsmoor for 33 days, till 22 August 2007, without being given the opportunity to apply for bail.
On 02 June 2008, the case was struck from the role by Magistrate M. Tyulu. In November 2008, it was resurrected from the dead, by the NPA.
On 28 January 2009, I delivered to the NPA-WC, and NPA-HQ, Letter: For the Record: State v. Johnstone: ‘Crimen Injuria’: Incomplete Further Particulars (PDF) informing the NPA of the numerous irregular and illegal actions of the State Prosecutor, not least of which that the State Prosecutor had withheld evidence of the Defendants innocence from the Defendants counsel.
Furthermore, that should the NPA proceed with the charges; I honourably notified the State, I would be pleading to the Political Necessity Defence (PDF), and accordingly requested such Pre-Trial Political Necessity Defence ‘Offer of Proof’ Hearing. Response from NPA:HQ (PDF).
Response from NPA-WC: Deliberate Indifference to Defendants Constitutional Rights
On 08 and 09 July 2009, I arrived for said Pre-Trial Hearing, only to find the Magistrate ill. The Prosecution informed the new Magistrate that the matter was set down for Trial, while I had arrived for Political Necessity Defence Offer of Proof Pre-Trial Hearing, as notified to the NPA-WC in Letter: For the Record: State v. Johnstone: ‘Crimen Injuria’: Incomplete Further Particulars (PDF), and during the hearing, in Statement of Defendant: Justification Defence: Political Necessity (PDF). The only witness called by the State was Patricia de Lille, Plaintiff.
Magistrate and NPA-WC Response to Defendants Rights to an Impartial Competent Hearing to determine her Offer of Proof to plead to Political Necessity: Deliberate Indifference to Defendants Constitutional Rights.
On 12 August 2009, I attempted to submit evidence -- Legal Argument (PDF) -- into the Court Record that an abuse of justice had occurred at what I perceived to be the pre-trial hearing, but what the State and Magistrate said was the official trial. The Senior State Prosecutor, who clearly considered a ‘crimen injuria’ case from Mrs. De Lille, to be more important than any of the NPA’s Murder, Rape or Robbery cases, vehemently objected, to the evidence of the NPA’s irregularities being submitted into the court record. The Magistrate ruled against the Legal Argument evidence being submitted into the record. The Legal Argument (PDF) was subsequently delivered to Adv. Anton Katz, Head of the Cape Bar: Human Rights Committee, for Impartial Safe Record Keeping, as per Acknowledged Receipt letter, Request for Impartial Record Keeping of Documentation: State v. Johnstone: Legal Argument, dated 11 August 2009 (PDF).
Response from NPA-WC to receipt of Legal Argument: Deliberate Indifference to Defendants Constitutional Rights
On 22 September 2009, I filed a Pro Se application with the High Court, Western Cape (#19963-09), Notice of Intention: Application for Leave and for Judicial Review (PDF). Respondents include: Nat. Dir. Of Public Prosecutions; Hon. Patricia de Lille, MP, ID; Mr. Thabo Mbeki, Former President; Mr. Bulelani Ngcuka, Former NPA Nat. Dir.; Mr. J.S. Selebi, Former SAPS Comm.; Mr. BM Skosana, Former Min. Corrections; Mr. Nelson Mandela, Former President.
Furthermore on the issues of complaint against the aforementioned Respondents, the additional issues of State of Effective Emergency: South Africa’s Unrepresented White Refugees, the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, Canada; and the Nobel Institute: Norwegian Nobel Committee, were cited as the Ninth and Tenth Respondents.
The Appeal Notice (PDF) was supported by the Founding Affidavit of Lara Johnstone (PDF); and Supporting Affidavits of Dr. Leonard Horowitz (PDF) and Brad Blanton, Ph.D (PDF), both independent United States of America citizen expert witnesses. Dr. Blanton is a former candidate for United States Congress, in Virginia in 2004 & 2006. Dr. Horowitz is a world renowned health expert & author of Emerging Viruses: AIDS & Ebola: Nature, Accident or Intentional? (PDF).
Dr. Blanton’s Supporting Affidavit states that I was being “ridiculously prosecuted” by the NPA/State and Mrs. De Lille, and that my “defence is justified and accurate”. Dr. Blanton further agreed with me that South Africa’s Truth and Reconciliation Commission Leaders have not been, and are not, seriously and sincerely committed to Truth and Reconciliation; and Truth, Justice and Transparency in Government.
Magistrate & NPA-WC response to Notice of Intention: Application for Leave and Judicial Review: Deliberate Indifference to Defendants Constitutional Rights.
On 12 October 2009, I filed a Complaint with the South African Human Rights Commission (Complaint # WC-2009-0455BS), against aforementioned Respondents. The indictment (PDF) includes the charges of Crimes Against the Peace, Crimes Against Humanity, and Crime of Apartheid; for breaching their Promotion of National Unity & Reconciliation Act 34, social contract duties and responsibilities; violating § 2 (4) of the Prevention and Combatting of Corrupt Activities Act of 2004, Article 6 of the London Charter, & Article 6, 7, 33(2) of the Rome Statute, of the International Criminal Court; were again supported by the Affidavits from Dr. Len Horowitz (PDF), and Dr. Brad Blanton (PDF).
Furthermore the enclosures include Affidavits accusing (i) Hon. Mrs. Patricia de Lille of actions of perjury, fraud and Political Persecution of the Defendant (PDF); and (ii) Senior Prosecutor Jacobs of actions of obstruction of justice, corruption and persecution of Defendant (PDF).
SA Human Rights Comm. Response: Deliberate Indifference to Defendants Constitutional Rights.
On 12 October 2009, I served upon the Magistrate and the NPA-WC, Notice of Intention: Correct the Record: Withdrawal of Formal Admissions (PDF), in terms of § 76, § 105A, § 114, § 140 & 219A; 220, 114 (2) & (3), 121 (a) & (b) & (6); of the Criminal Procedure Act (“CPA”); with § 24(1) of the Supreme Court Act. § 105A of the Criminal Procedure Act lays down the ethical principles to be adhered to by the Prosecutor and or court in regard to procedures involving Formal Admission Agreements.The only Formal Admissions the Defendant made, were Political Necessity Formal Admissions; i.e. on the condition that the Defendant be allowed to invoke the Political Necessity Defence. In the absence of court condoning such Political Necessity Defence invocation, the Formal Admissions were and are null and void.Magistrate & NPA-WC response to Defendants Withdrawal of Formal Admissions, and demand for either a trial de novo, or that the charges be dropped for lack of evidence, in the absence of the Defendants Formal Admissions: Deliberate Indifference to Defendants Constitutional Rights.
Defendant withdrew from her Formal Admission Agreement with the court and State; including any Formal Admissions, used by the State and/or court, which were material to their findings of Guilt of the Defendant.
In the absence of the Court allowing the Defendant to invoke the Political Necessity Defence, and accepting the Formal Admission Facts, as sufficient proof of such facts; any and all of the Defendants Formal Admissions, are NULL AND VOID. Null and void Formal Admissions cannot be used by the State and/or the court for Findings of Guilt / Convictions; nor should they be used for Sentencing the innocent.
I was found guilty of crimen injuria and sentenced to six months prison, suspended for three years.
 Secession and International Law: Conflict Avoidance - Regional Appraisals; From Asser Press |
On 13 October 2009, I applied to the High Court Registrar for In Forma Pauperis Counsel. My In Forma Pauperis application was approved (PDF), and I was referred to Braam Swart and Partners in George: Attorney Kraus. He declined to take the case, stating his expertise as being third party claims, and that he lacked legal experience on the issue of (i) crimen injuria (ii) Political Necessity Defences, and (iii) the interpretation of freedom of speech and cultural rights, in terms of international and foreign laws, such as the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), and Security Council Resolution 1244 (1999), which granted Kosovo the right of Secession and Self Determination, by the “recognition of a human community within a sovereign state enjoying a right to self-determination.” I notified the High Court Registrar of Braam Swart’s Refusal to accept my In Forma Pauperis referral to them, on 28 October 2009 (PDF), requesting new counsel be appointed.
Attorney Kraus, of Braam Swart and Partners also informed me that I should do all I could to avoid representing myself Pro Se, and to find counsel, because courts in South Africa are not known for their impartiality, or listening patience, in considering legal merits from Pro Se Applications, and even less so, the higher the courts hierarchical status.
Accordingly on 28 October 2009, I also contacted the Cape Bar Council and International Bar Associations Pro Bono Committee’s requesting their support to help me find legal representation, for my case on the issues of crime injuria & freedom of speech; foreign law: Nuremberg Principles, Citizens Privilege, Civil Disobedience & Necessity; International Law: London Charter, UN-Gen. Assembly Resolution 2200, 1966 (Political, Civil & Cultural Rights), and Security Council Resolution 1244, 1999 (Secession). The letter was titled, HC-WC In Forma Pauperis (Crimen Injuria) Review Application; RE: Freedom of Speech Political and Cultural Rights, or Secession?; Constitutional, Foreign and International Law Issues (PDF)
Cape Bar Council & International Bar Assoc Response to my request for help: Deliberate Indifference to Defendants Constitutional Rights.
Conclusion: ANC & NPA Officials: Abuse of Process & Political Prosecution & Persecution
The aforementioned two legal matters provide ample evidence that ANC and NPA Officials Actions of Commission and Omission include: Deliberate Indifference to Abuse of Process, Actions of Political Prosecution & Persecution, reinforcing the presumption that particularly in the case of Political Dissidents or the involvement of Political Personalities as Plaintiffs, Political Prosecutions and Persecution does occur.
[3] The Rule of Law: South African Constitutional Law: Bill of Rights: Right to a Free and Fair Trial, etc; as Interpreted by Foreign and International Law:
[a] Principles of Just War & Constitutional Principles of Secession as a State’s Right
The six ‘Just War’ Principles are: (i) A Just Cause, (ii) Last Resort; (iii) Likelihood of Success; (iv) Proportionality; (v) Right Intentions; and (vi) Legitimate Authority. These are traditional legal principles applied to war settings in order to assess the legitimacy of the use of force.
They are principles which can also be used to determine whether forceful external involvement is justified in a secessionist crisis with severe humanitarian consequences; such as occurred in NATO’s March 99 decision to go to war over Kosovo.
They can be clarified as:
- A just war can only be waged as a last resort. All non-violent options must be exhausted before the use of force can be justified.
- A war is just only if it is waged by a legitimate authority. Even just causes cannot be served by actions taken by individuals or groups who do not constitute an authority sanctioned by whatever the society and outsiders to the society deem legitimate.
- A just war can only be fought to redress a wrong suffered. For example, self-defense against an armed attack is always considered to be a just cause (although the justice of the cause is not sufficient--see below). Further, a just war can only be fought with "right" intentions: the only permissible objective of a just war is to redress the injury.
- A war can only be just if it is fought with a reasonable chance of success. Deaths and injury incurred in a hopeless cause are not morally justifiable.
- The ultimate goal of a just war is to re-establish peace. More specifically, the peace established after the war must be preferable to the peace that would have prevailed if the war had not been fought.
- The violence used in the war must be proportional to the injury suffered. States are prohibited from using force not necessary to attain the limited objective of addressing the injury suffered.
- The weapons used in war must discriminate between combatants and non-combatants. Civilians are never permissible targets of war, and every effort must be taken to avoid killing civilians. The deaths of civilians are justified only if they are unavoidable victims of a deliberate attack on a military target.
According to Ron Paul , Republican from Texas, and former Candidate for US President:
Secession is the Ultimate States Right and an Important Constitutional Principle , and without the right to a healthy open discussion about the issue, the right is meaningless:America was born from an act of secession. When King George’s rule trampled on the rights of the colonies, we successfully seceded from England. It took a war, but we were well within our rights. We applauded when former soviet states seceded from the USSR and declared their sovereignty. And hopefully the United States will eventually secede from the United Nations. We pay most of the bills of the UN, yet do not have the commensurate votes, so someday we will wake up and realize that membership, for these and other reasons, does not serve our interests.
On a personal level, contracts you enter into can be terminated if one side unilaterally changes the terms. If a credit card company jacks up your interest rate, you have every right to fulfill your obligations and close the account. Imagine if you were forced to stay with a credit card company forever no matter what just because you previously signed up! The principle of self-determination applies to political unions as well. In the cases I mentioned above, governing organizations transformed into much more overbearing entities than originally agreed upon. Several state constitutions originally had clauses explicitly allowing them to opt out of the Union down the road if they so chose. I doubt our country would have ever come together if this were not the case. Just because the north successfully kept the union together by force with the Civil War does not mean that enslaving the states is a legitimate alternative.
Secession is the last resort of states whose sovereignty is over-ridden by an overreaching federal government. The federal government has only itself to blame for this talk. Recently, some states have enacted laws allowing for the medicinal use of marijuana, yet these laws are basically voided by the continuing raids by the DEA, sanctioned by the administration. The federal government is also strong-arming states with stimulus money, forcing them to expand programs they know they will not be able to afford in the future, at a time when many states’ budgets are already in the red. This is not a new problem. No Child Left Behind burdened the states’ education systems and forced them through many hoops designed by federal bureaucrats in distant Washington DC rather than allowing communities to tailor education to their children’s unique needs. There are numerous other examples of the erosion of state sovereignty and many governors are frustrated, not just ours in Texas. Without the right to secede, state’s rights are meaningless.
A republican form of government should also be as close to the people as possible, which means the decisions of local governing bodies must be respected. Where the decisions of local governments are disregarded, the voice of the people is also disregarded. The more that happens, the more frustrated and angry the people will become.
Furthermore in terms of Peak Oil & Gas Geopolitics, Political Secession and Economic Relocalisation are politically and financially the optimum states for communities to best mitigate the ecological, financial and political consequences of the impending Energy and Financial Depression.Relocalization starts from the premise that the world is a finite place and that humanity is in a state of ecological overshoot. Perpetual growth of the economy and the population is neither possible nor desirable. It is wise to start planning now for a world with less available energy.
While we can’t know future threats precisely, scientists do agree that creating a carbon-cycle neutral economy should be the dominant task occupying our minds. This is exactly what Relocalization aims to do.
Relocalization advocates rebuilding more balanced local economies that emphasize securing basic needs. Local food, energy and water systems are perhaps the most critical to build. In the absence of reliable trade partners, whether from peak oil, natural disaster or political instability, a local economy that at least produces its essential goods will have a true comparative advantage.
Relocalization: A Strategic Response to Peak Oil and Climate Change (PDF), by Jason Bradford, Ph.DHere are a few of my predictions: Many trends of the last century or more, made possible by cheap and abundant energy sources, are going to be reversed. These trends include population growth, centralization of political and economic power, vastly increased quantity of global trade, and mass tourism.
I am not giving dates of when these indicators of a shift from global to the more local will occur, except to say sometime during the 21st century, likely during the first half even. My initial point of view is not from any particular group with a political or social agenda, but as a scientist who makes deductions based on the laws of physics and ecology.
However, information from the natural world does eventually have political and policy implications that I am aware of, and have opinions about. The ability of a culture to accept information and respond timely and rationally will likely hinge on the entrenched mindsets of the populace, institutional norms, and their ability to willingly change expectations, organizational structures, and behaviors. Perhaps with prudent planning, measures of quality of life or conditions of happiness may not decline.
People may be scared or shocked and depressed by predictions of change that could lead to environmental and social disruption, but for the most part I see indifference, and that is more concerning. How people respond emotionally to facts and deductions is important too, but ultimately if people and institutions are unable or unwilling to accept information because it makes them feel badly or goes against current norms then positive change is not possible. The greatest hope, in my opinion, rests in the ability to honestly accept the reality of a difficult situation and then make the best of it before it becomes a crisis.
Relocalisation generally refers to common themes, which include decentralization of political and economic structures, less material consumption and pollution, a focus on the quality of relationships, culture and the environment as sources of fulfillment, and downscaling of infrastructural development.
[b] International Law Principles for Self Determination (Secession), including the Rights of Indigenous Peoples and Minorities:
According to the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, International Law classifications, the Right to Self Determination is provided for under – among others - the following International Laws Treaties dealing with Self Determination; or if refused the right of Seccession:
The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR (PDF)), provides for the civil and political rights of citizens within states, which are monitored by the Human Rights Committee. The rights include, among others:Article 1
1. All peoples have the right of self-determination. By virtue of that right they freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development.
2. All peoples may, for their own ends, freely dispose of their natural wealth and resources without prejudice to any obligations arising out of international economic co-operation, based upon the principle of mutual benefit, and international law. In no case may a people be deprived of its own means of subsistence.
3. The States Parties to the present Covenant, including those having responsibility for the administration of Non-Self-Governing and Trust Territories, shall promote the realization of the right of self-determination, and shall respect that right, in conformity with the provisions of the Charter of the United Nations.
Article 2
1. Each State Party to the present Covenant undertakes to respect and to ensure to all individuals within its territory and subject to its jurisdiction the rights recognized in the present Covenant, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status.
2. Where not already provided for by existing legislative or other measures, each State Party to the present Covenant undertakes to take the necessary steps, in accordance with its constitutional processes and with the provisions of the present Covenant, to adopt such laws or other measures as may be necessary to give effect to the rights recognized in the present Covenant.
3. Each State Party to the present Covenant undertakes:
(a) To ensure that any person whose rights or freedoms as herein recognized are violated shall have an effective remedy, notwithstanding that the violation has been committed by persons acting in an official capacity;
(b) To ensure that any person claiming such a remedy shall have his right thereto determined by competent judicial, administrative or legislative authorities, or by any other competent authority provided for by the legal system of the State, and to develop the possibilities of judicial remedy;
(c) To ensure that the competent authorities shall enforce such remedies when granted.
The International Covenant on Social, Economic and Cultural Rights (CESCR (PDF)), provides for the social, economic and cultural rights of citizens within states, and is monitored by the Committee on Economic and Social Rights. Among others, it states:1. All peoples have the right of self-determination. By virtue of that right they freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development.
2. All peoples may, for their own ends, freely dispose of their natural wealth and resources without prejudice to any obligations arising out of international economic co-operation, based upon the principle of mutual benefit, and international law. In no case may a people be deprived of its own means of subsistence.
3. The States Parties to the present Covenant, including those having responsibility for the administration of Non-Self-Governing and Trust Territories, shall promote the realization of the right of self-determination, and shall respect that right, in conformity with the provisions of the Charter of the United Nations.
Other International Laws and Treaties dealing with Rights to Self Determination and the Rights of Minorities, are:
Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples provides for among others:1. The subjection of peoples to alien subjugation, domination and exploitation constitutes a denial of fundamental human rights, is contrary to the Charter of the United Nations and is an impediment to the promotion of world peace and co-operation.
2. All peoples have the right to self-determination; by virtue of that right they freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development.
General Assembly resolution 1803 (XVII) of 14 December 1962, "Permanent sovereignty over natural resources" provides for, among others:4. Nationalization, expropriation or requisitioning shall be based on grounds or reasons of public utility, security or the national interest which are recognized as overriding purely individual or private interests, both domestic and foreign. In such cases the owner shall be paid appropriate compensation, in accordance with the rules in force in the State taking such measures in the exercise of its sovereignty and in accordance with international law. In any case where the question of compensation gives rise to a controversy, the national jurisdiction of the State taking such measures shall be exhausted. However, upon agreement by sovereign States and other parties concerned, settlement of the dispute should be made through arbitration or international adjudication.
International Convention against the Recruitment, Use, Financing and Training of Mercenaries, states among others:1. A mercenary is any person who:
(a) Is specially recruited locally or abroad in order to fight in an armed conflict;
(b) Is motivated to take part in the hostilities essentially by the desire for private gain and, in fact, is promised, by or on behalf of a party to the conflict, material compensation substantially in excess of that promised or paid to combatants of similar rank and functions in the armed forces of that party;
(c) Is neither a national of a party to the conflict nor a resident of territory controlled by a party to the conflict;
(d) Is not a member of the armed forces of a party to the conflict; and
(e) Has not been sent by a State which is not a party to the conflict on official duty as a member of its armed forces.
2. A mercenary is also any person who, in any other situation:
(a) Is specially recruited locally or abroad for the purpose of participating in a concerted act of violence aimed at :
(i) Overthrowing a Government or otherwise undermining the constitutional order of a State; or
(ii) Undermining the territorial integrity of a State;
|
Declaration on the Rights of Persons Belonging to National or Ethnic, Religious and Linguistic Minorities , states, among others, the following rights of minorities, and States duties and responsibilities related thereto:Article 1Indigenous and Tribal Peoples Convention, 1989 (No. 169), which states, among others:
1. States shall protect the existence and the national or ethnic, cultural, religious and linguistic identity of minorities within their respective territories and shall encourage conditions for the promotion of that identity.
2. States shall adopt appropriate legislative and other measures to achieve those ends.
Article 2
1. Persons belonging to national or ethnic, religious and linguistic minorities (hereinafter referred to as persons belonging to minorities) have the right to enjoy their own culture, to profess and practise their own religion, and to use their own language, in private and in public, freely and without interference or any form of discrimination.
2. Persons belonging to minorities have the right to participate effectively in cultural, religious, social, economic and public life.
3. Persons belonging to minorities have the right to participate effectively in decisions on the national and, where appropriate, regional level concerning the minority to which they belong or the regions in which they live, in a manner not incompatible with national legislation.
Article 3
1. Persons belonging to minorities may exercise their rights, including those set forth in the present Declaration, individually as well as in community with other members of their group, without any discrimination.
2. No disadvantage shall result for any person belonging to a minority as the consequence of the exercise or non-exercise of the rights set forth in the present Declaration.
Article 4
1. States shall take measures where required to ensure that persons belonging to minorities may exercise fully and effectively all their human rights and fundamental freedoms without any discrimination and in full equality before the law.
2. States shall take measures to create favourable conditions to enable persons belonging to minorities to express their characteristics and to develop their culture, language, religion, traditions and customs, except where specific practices are in violation of national law and contrary to international standards.Article 1: 1. This Convention applies to:
(a) Tribal peoples in independent countries whose social, cultural and economic conditions distinguish them from other sections of the national community, and whose status is regulated wholly or partially by their own customs or traditions or by special laws or regulations;
(b) Peoples in independent countries who are regarded as indigenous on account of their descent from the populations which inhabited the country, or a geographical region to which the country belongs, at the time of conquest or colonisation or the establishment of present State boundaries and who, irrespective of their legal status, retain some or all of their own social, economic, cultural and political institutions.
2. Self-identification as indigenous or tribal shall be regarded as a fundamental criterion for determining the groups to which the provisions of this Convention apply.
Security Council Resolution 1244 (1999) (PDF), which granted Kosovo the “recognition of a human community within a sovereign state enjoying a right to self-determination.” [Secession: International Law Perspectives, Christian Tomuschat, P34]
[5] Conclusion: Are South African citizens rights and the SA Constitution being shredded, by ANC Political Mercenaries, acting on behalf of Foreign Terrorist Organizations and Governments; and Corrupt National Corporations?
The ANC is a predominantly Xhosa political party, the political executive of all functions of government, including the National Prosecuting Authority. Whom are the ANC political elite responsible to? The South African Constitution; or their political and financial paymasters?Is the ANC selling out South Africa’s Sovereignty? (PDF), James Myburg, Politicsweb
This report seems to have been little noticed, which is surprising as this kind of funding poses as much, if not more of, a threat to South Africa's democracy than the efforts to subvert the National Prosecuting Authority. There are self-evident problems with this kind of funding. For one thing, for the ANC to actively solicit such donations obviously compromises South Africa's national security (defined as the continued ability of the country “to pursue the development of its internal life without serious interference ... from foreign powers.”) For another, it poses clear dangers for the consolidation of democracy in this country.
It is for such reasons that many democracies ban foreign donations outright. In the United States - according to a Federal Electoral Commission brochure - the Federal Election Campaign Act (FECA) “prohibits any foreign national from contributing, donating or spending funds in connection with any federal, state, or local election in the United States, either directly or indirectly. It is also unlawful to help foreign nationals violate that ban or to solicit, receive or accept contributions or donations from them. Persons who knowingly and willfully engage in these activities may be subject to fines and/or imprisonment.”
Such prohibitions apply in many other countries as well. In 2003 the Stockholm-based International Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance (IDEA) produced a useful handbook on political party funding across the world (see here). It states that foreign donations to political parties were banned in forty out of the 111 countries surveyed. Among the countries where ANC-style foreign fundraising would be illegal were: Argentina, Brazil, Chile, the Dominican Republic, Estonia, France, Germany, Honduras, Iceland, Japan, Latvia, Mexico, Portugal, Russia, Senegal, Thailand, and the United Kingdom.
The IDEA handbook notes that foreign funding of political parties presents the most "obvious danger" of all sources of party funding: “If a governing party depends heavily on financial resources provided by foreign governments or especially multinational corporations, their influence may undermine national sovereignty and the democratic principle of self-determination.”
The ANC's 1994 and 1999 election campaigns were largely financed with donations from foreign countries, including some of the world's most notorious dictatorships. One result has been the serial neglect by the ANC government of South Africa's national interests in foreign policy (not to mention human rights considerations) as its first priority has always been to repay its main funders with favours. At various points over the past fifteen years the ANC has been in hock to the regimes of Nigeria, Indonesia, Saudi Arabia, the UAE, Libya, China, and Taiwan (see here). And these are just the ones we know about.
Foreign funding seems to have dried up before the 2004 poll after Nelson Mandela stopped tapping foreign leaders on the ANC's behalf following his fallout with Thabo Mbeki. But, according to the Mail & Guardian ANC President Jacob Zuma has now successfully used his visits to various fraternal ruling parties overseas to do some fund raising on the side. This may already be compromising the ability of South Africa to pursue its own interests, free of external interference. If the M&G and COPE are correct - and the Chinese Communist Party is helping to pay for the ANC's 2009 election campaign - the obvious question is whether this underpinned the government's otherwise inexplicable decision to refuse the Dalai Lama a visa to attend a conference in this country? [SA Bid to Keep China Happy Sparks Furore (PDF)]
In its section on party funding in Africa the IDEA handbook notes that those sources of funding most incompatible with democracy are "kickbacks from recipients of government contracts and other largesse, diverting state resources to the governing party through front organizations, and donations from foreign sources such as business owners, multinationals and governments." In addition in many African countries "the use and abuse of state resources is a corrupt form of massive public funding... available only to the governing party."
The advantages that can accrue to ruling parties are a major contributing factor to democratic atrophy in Africa. As IDEA notes: "In many African countries Governing parties' use of state resources, with evident impunity, and their brazen demand for and acceptance of kickbacks explain much of the apparent electoral impregnability of many African governing parties, even those with clear records of economic and human rights failures. They manage to build such formidable electoral war chests that their impoverished opponents usually have little chance."
DA: Statement by Ian Davidson, Democratic Alliance chief whip, on ANC foreign funding (24/03/2009) (PDF)Recent reports have indicated that, apart from accepting millions from the Chinese Communist Party, the ANC's election campaign is being heavily subsidized by ruling parties in Libya, Equatorial Guinea and Angola.
This would not be the first time that the ANC's election campaign has been bankrolled by autocratic regimes. The governing party has a long history of accepting financial donations from the leaders of the most repressive regimes in the world.
Some of the most notable examples include:
Receiving 50 million US dollars from the late General Sani Abacha of Nigeria in 1995.
Receiving 10 million US dollars from King Fahd of Saudi Arabia in 1999.
Receiving 10 million US dollars from the United Arab Emirates in the lead up to the 1999 elections.
Receiving a total of 60 million US dollars from the Indonesian government of General Mohammed Suharto in 1999.
There is every reason to believe that the donations which the ANC receives from these governments form part of its strategic relationships with ruling parties in other countries to fund each other's elections campaigns in return for post-election favours.
UDM Youth Vanguard Spokesperson (PDF), 5 November 2008The ANC has been receiving millions from foreign donors over the years, they have received millions from the banks of South Africa, they - including the ANCYL directly - have received millions from dubious characters, and they have even siphoned millions to party coffers through state tenders such as in the Oilgate/PetroSA scandal. Just last month the ANC publicly received more than R20 million from BEE millionaires who have benefited from ANC policies.
If they are sincere in their concern about political funding they would stop hindering new legislation that will ban foreign donations and enforce public disclosure of all large donations. The ANC has not yet addressed the allegation that Mr Mbeki received R30 million from an arms deal bidder, of which R2 million was supposedly given to Mr Zuma and R28 million to the ANC.
The ANCYL does nothing for the youth of this country; all they do is to habitually make angry, disrespectful and mindless public statements. Perhaps the ANCYL should approach a manufacturer of earplugs to sponsor them, because every time they speak we wish we didn't have to hear it.
SA Democracy Incorporated: Corporate fronts and political party funding, by Vicki Robinson and Stefaans Brümmer, Institute for Security Studies (ISS) (PDF), Information Portal on Corruption and Governance in Africa:The research that informs this paper is based on the thesis that unless it is regulated, party funding will become the biggest test to the country’s sanctified separation of power as enshrined in the Constitution: if state power is abused to direct resources to support political parties, the basis of fair political contestation is undermined. Access to the democratic decision-making process is put up for sale, which not only undermines the management of political parties but also the overall governance project at national level.
One of the explicit aims of this study was to uncover some of the sources of political party funding and possible links to corrupt transactions.
During the course of writing this paper, researchers became aware of a new corporate front used by the ruling African National Congress (ANC) to seek profit on its behalf.
 |
It is accordingly debatable whether many of these political mercenaries funded by Libya, et al, are working on behalf of the rights of South African citizens, or on behalf of Gaddafi, China et al’s corporate and ideological interests.
The ANC-Xhosa dominated NPA have so little respect for the rule of law, not even the King of the Abathembu Tribe who has a following of over 10 million people, which includes the family of Nelson Mandela (Abathembu Royalty (PDF)), and who is a former member of the ANC’s Military Wing, MK can get a free and fair trial in South Africa, untainted by Political Prosecution and Persecution!
If so, how can I, a simple poor white citizen Radical Honoursty activist, member of Afrikaner Boer minority group of less than 3 million, without any King to fight for my rights; ever expect to receive justice, or my constitutional rights from the ANC-Xhosa-NPA, whose executive elite leaders, are either conducting legal mobjustice political prosecution and persecution, or acting as political mercenaries on the orders of Libya, China, et al?
Source: Boycott 2010 Abathembu Secession Analysis PDF
No comments:
Post a Comment