Publisher: Korir, api africanpress@getmail.no source.businessday.SA

story by Hopewell Radebe.

Although the government has ruled out military intervention in Zimbabwe, there is a case for the Southern African Development Community (SADC) to save what is left of its credibility by making clear to President Robert Mugabe the possibility of such intervention.

Analysts argue that doing so could reduce the likelihood that Mugabe will proceed with the coup-by-stealth that appears to be under way, subverting the will of his people as expressed in the March 29 presidential elections. Two weeks ago, Deputy Foreign Minister Aziz Pahad told the media: “I want to stress what the Deputy President Phumzile Mlambo-Ngcuka has said (on her visit to the Netherlands last week), that if we South Africans suddenly go into an illusionary frame of mind that what we think can happen, or must happen, then we are living in very dangerous times.

“There is no South African government that will try to impose its will by force, and that will never happen,” he said emphatically. But Laurence Caromba of the Centre for International Political Studies argues that Mugabe could be more inclined to relinquish control if he was convinced that the consequences of illegally holding on to power might include regional military intervention. Caromba, a researcher at the University of Pretoria, says that President Thabo Mbeki — in conjunction with fellow SADC members — has a legal right to launch military action intervene in Zimbabwe to defend the election results in that country.

Such action would be to in line with the African Union (AU) charter, which was amended in 2003 to permit military intervention in countries facing “a serious threat to legitimate order”. This move was also reinforced at subregional level in 2004, when the SADC Protocol on Politics, Defence and Security legalised intervention in cases of “a threat to the legitimate authority of the government (such as a military coup)”. Caromba says that such a “legal government intervention” is an important tool in the conduct of foreign policy. It was used successfully in three instances in the past 10 years to restore order in Sierra Leone, Lesotho and, most recently, in the Comoros.

In 1997, Nigeria sent troops into Sierra Leone to depose Maj Johnny Koroma , a young military officer who had successfully toppled the elected government of Ahmad Tejan Kabbah. “Kabbah went on to serve two terms before stepping down, during which he successfully brought the Sierra Leone civil war to a conclusion. Sierra Leone has remained a constitutional democracy to this day,” Caromba says.

In 1998, SADC forces invaded Lesotho to prevent an imminent military coup and restore the civilian government to power. Despite the grave mistakes, coupled with unexpectedly heavy resistance from mutinous elements of the Lesotho Defence Force, and widespread looting in Maseru, “order was restored, military rule was averted and, as a result, Lesotho is today a reasonably healthy and robust democracy”.

As recently as a month ago, the AU launched an amphibious invasion of Anjouan, an island in the Comoros, to overthrow Col Mohamed Bacar, who had ruled the island as a virtual fiefdom after holding rigged elections and declaring himself president. After a day of fighting, with troops from Sudan, Tanzania and Senegal participating, aided by logistical support from Libya and France, the intervention forces routed Bacar’s forces, and the colonel fled to the nearby French island of Mayotte.

As with previous African interventions, this right would stem not only from humanitarian concerns, but from Mugabe’s illegal seizure of power. “Legal government intervention” is an African innovation: an international law response to the cycle of coups and counter-coups that has plagued African states for decades. Both in treaties and in practice, African states have subtly shifted away from their traditional fixation on sovereignty, and begun to assert the right to intervene to prevent unconstitutional changes of government.

As the situation stands in Zimbabwe, the bulk of the evidence suggests Mugabe is slowly unleashing pro-government militias and effectively dismantling the constitutional order. He pointedly refused to attend a SADC summit aimed at defusing the crisis, while war veterans march through the streets of Harare in shows of force and soldiers beat up opposition supporters for holding “premature” victory celebrations, pending the release of delayed presidential election results.

“The AU charter does not call on member states merely to prop up incumbent governments, but to protect the legitimate order. Conceptually, there is little difference between illegally assuming power and illegally maintaining power after losing an election,” Caromba says. “In the event that Mugabe’s regime attempts to subvert Zimbabwe’s constitution, either by altering election results or resorting to undisguised military rule, it will constitute a threat to legitimate order as grave as any military coup, and create a legal basis for military intervention under both AU and SADC agreements,” he says.

Therefore, states in the region should, at the very least, begin preparing for such a scenario. Analyst Kuseni Dlamini says it is highly unlikely that the region would consider such a drastic step because the consequences may be “as far-reaching as they may be irreversible for Zimbabwe, southern Africa and Africa at large”. “It is vital to consider both the intended and unintended consequences of military intervention in a country such as Zimbabwe, which has a military pact with Angola, Namibia and the Democratic Republic of Congo,” he says.

Admittedly, military force should always be a last resort and should never be entered into lightly, as its use would automatically entail “great costs and risks” to the lives of both soldiers in the region and Zimbabwean civilians. However, Caromba argues that by making the possibility of military intervention explicit, South African diplomats would actually reduce the likelihood of Mugabe risking such a scenario. Analyst Martin Rupiya of the Institute for Security Studies says the SADC still has several other instruments, such as sanctions, to explore before entertaining the idea of military intervention. “One cannot see that happening” especially since other countries within the AU, such as the Sudan, have been treated differently to this day.

“The joint UN-AU peace mission for Darfur is struggling to deal with Khartoum just to deploy its forces that have long been approved, even by the United Nations Security Council,” he says. Rupiya says the AU structures on peace and security are still fragile and too stretched to dare to take on countries such as Zimbabwe, while it seemed easier to take on the Comoros or Lesotho. “There are different rules for bigger boys and small boys.”

*Radebe is diplomatic editor.

————–

African Press International – api

Publisher: Korir, api africanpress@getmail.no source.businessdaily.ke

story by Tajudeen Abdul-Raheem.

Martin Luther King Junior said: “Evil triumphs because good men refuse to speak up”. Zimbabwe and President Mugabe is a situation we cannot in all good conscience continue to ignore around anymore. It is indefensible that one man, no matter what his contribution to the country, should be holding the people to ransom.

I know that one tree does not make a forest and that Mr Mugabe alone is not responsible for the situation. There are many interests hiding behind him. It is even conceivable that despite all the rhetoric and masochistic belligerence, the old man has become an executive prisoner trapped in a power system he pioneered, which now has him cornered without an escape route.

This kind of structural analysis whilst important, risks however underestimating human agency and individual responsibility. Its primitive determinism may even be used to justify any situation, rendering intervention impossible. If individuals are not important why do we have heroes and heroines? Why do we have leaders? We are neither zombies nor automatons who behave in a predetermined way. Choices are made and unmade by human beings; accountability is first and foremost individual. Mugabe is no longer merely part of the problem of Zimbabwe: now he is the problem.

The choices that he will or will not make, can either help to resolve the crisis or accentuate it. No one will force him to remain in office if he chooses to step down: neither the dreaded Security Services nor the aged ZANU-PF nomenclatural have the power to force him to remain in the presidential palace. The fact that he has not taken that option is a deliberate personal choice, just as his one-man contest for candidacy of the party has always been his choice.

It is simply unacceptable that weeks after the March 29 general election, the result of the Presidential contest is yet to be declared and meanwhile there is a re-count of the declared Parliamentary results! Even those who were willing to stretch their good will to Mugabe must be finding it ridiculous or running out of excuses. Some of them continue to beg the issue by forcing parallels with other botched elections. They point out that it took six weeks and the Supreme Court to declare Bush President of the USA in 2001. Why should an avowed Pan Africanist leader vomiting all kinds of anti-imperialist attacks be defended by Washington’s non-standard? They also point to the two months it took before the final results of the 2005 controversial elections in Ethiopia could be released.

I am surprised they are not saying that Mugabe is better than Meles, who jailed those who defeated his party! Why should Africans always judge themselves by looking down instead of looking up to higher standards? The hypocrisies and bad manners of others should not justify the mischief making by Mugabe and his hirelings.

It is really sad that President Mugabe who is probably one of the better (if not the best) prepared leaders for the job should end like this. He has seven degrees (not honorary) for goodness sake! A man who acquired a mosaic of degrees in an academic cocktail of humanities and social science disciplines and led one of the most successful liberation movements in Africa, could not be accused of arriving in the State House by accident.

But he is ending his rule and life as a tragic figure hanging on and increasingly sounding and behaving like a man trapped in a time warp. It must sadden all Africans and is good ammunition for all enemies of Africa who believe that nothing good comes from us no matter how well and promising the beginning was. Unfortunately for Africa, when one of us fails it is blamed on all. No one will blame Americans and other westerners for all the atrocities of George Bush. No one will even blame Brown for Blair’s evil fraternity with Bush and other Europeans will quickly wash their hands clean of him. Yet these same people use Zimbabwe and Mugabe to beat our heads with all the time.

Consequently many Africans, whether Presidents or peasants, have become defensive about the situation. The fear of not being seen as echoing London and Washington, has policed many of us into silence which ZANU-PF and Mugabe hardliners have harvested as popular support among Africans.  It is moral cowardice and politically irresponsible for us to hide indecision and inertia behind anti-Western postures. It is time to speak out and stand up for what we believe in.

*Tajudeen is deputy director, Africa – UN Millennium Campaign.

————–

African Press International – api

Publisher: Korir, api africanpress@getmail.no sourcemail&Guardian.SA

story by Emmanuel Wongibe.

Yaounde (Cameroon) – The Cameroon National Assembly has adopted a government proposal to amend the country’s Constitution — a move that paves the way for incumbent President Paul Biya to continue in office when his term expires in 2011.

Six of the 70 articles that make up Cameroon’s Constitution were modified on April 10 by a vote of 157 in the 180-member legislature. The amendments introduced three major changes to the Constitution.

First, the two-term limit enshrined in the 1996 Constitution has been removed. This means that Biya, who has ruled Cameroon since November 1982 and whose second seven-year term is scheduled to end in 2011, is now eligible to run for office indefinitely. Second, the president now cannot be prosecuted for any act performed in the exercise of his duties.
Finally, with regard to presidential succession, the Constitution now states that if the president is unable to perform his duties or the office otherwise becomes vacant, the president of the senate will serve as interim president of the republic and elections will be organised within 40 to 120 days.

But the senate exists only on paper. Since the creation of a bicameral legislature 12 years ago, senate elections have not been held, thereby allowing Cameroon to continue as a de facto unicameral state, with the National Assembly the country’s only legislative body.

The constitutional changes were rammed through the national assembly by the government, which has a big majority in the assembly. All but one of the ruling Cameroon People’s Democratic Movement (CPDM) MPs voted in favour of the Bill, while another five dissenting votes were cast by MPs of the opposition Cameroon Democratic Union party. All 18 MPs of the main opposition party — the Social Democratic Front (SDF) — staged a walkout from Parliament to protest against the Bill, the adoption of which the party described as “the death of democracy in Cameroon”.

The SDF, which is known for its recourse to street protests, simply called for last Monday to be observed as a “day of national mourning”, during which Cameroonians were urged to dress in black and stay at home.
The opposition’s largely symbolic reaction to the constitutional amendments is widely seen as a tacit admission by the country’s political elite that Cameroonians may be weary of demonstrations and civil disobedience, by which the president appears utterly unmoved. In February a heavy-handed crackdown on massive street protests against rising food and fuel prices resulted in 40 deaths and hundreds of arrests.

Heavily armed soldiers and police were deployed in the major cities ahead of the national assembly vote and this week continued to patrol the streets, particularly in the main towns of Yaoundé and Douala. Despite fierce criticism of the constitutional changes by civil society and the private press, the mood in Cameroon is one of resignation, as most people seem too busy struggling to cope with their dwindling purchasing power — the result of a weakening economy, stagnant wages, rising prices of fuel and basic consumer goods and high unemployment.

The government has strongly defended the constitutional changes. In an interview with the BBC last week Prime Minister Ephraim Inoni described presidential term limits as “anti-­democratic”, arguing that such a restriction denied the people the right to freely choose their leaders. The lone dissenting vote within the ruling party was cast by Ayah Paul Abine (57), an MP and retired magistrate who, like the prime minister, hails from the minority anglophone South West province. He said that the amendments “take Cameroon 200 years behind”.

The timing of the constitutional changes allowed critics to draw parallels between the situation in Cameroon and democratic setbacks elsewhere on the continent. On April 7 the French-language independent daily, Mutation, compared Cameroon with Zimbabwe and regretted the egotism of African leaders who would do anything to stay in power forever. In a caustic op-ed piece editor-in-chief Alain Batongue described the constitutional changes as tailor-made to meet Biya’s needs — namely, more years in office and a worry-free life thereafter.

Since gaining independence from France and Britain 48 years ago, Cameroon has been ruled by two presidents. Biya succeeded his predecessor and mentor, Ahmadou Ahidjo, in a peaceful hand­over in 1982. He survived a bloody coup attempt in 1984 and opened the country up to multiparty politics in the early 1990s. Supporters credit him with the stability this multi-ethnic Central African country of 20million people continues to enjoy, while critics worry that he has in the past decade strengthened his grip on power and reversed the democratic gains of the 1990s.

—————-

African Press International – api

Otura, you are a fool and this is why.  

First you think by having majimbo corruption will go away.  Now that foolishness.  All you need to do is to look at how CDF money has been embezzled at local level.  

Second you claim that the Gikuyus tax payers in Rift Valley will be protected by regional powers, that utter nonsense.  The regional leaders dont like Gikuyu now what will make them like Gikuyu when they  have a regional government?  

Third, you keep on reffering to Moi as late president Moi making the readers wonder when Moi  passed away.

In any case the ethnic violence in Rift Valley actually call for a more strong central government in order to guarantee  freedom of of movement and ownership of property in the whole country.

Otura I am suprised you call yourself a Reverend because you luck wisdom which is the the hallmark of the Holy Spirit.  Majimbo is division and engaging in Majimboism is engaging in divisive politics which is unchristian.

By Nkuraya

::::::::

Okoth Otura ndebele okoth <revgeorgeoo@yahoo.com> wrote:

Press Release !

The Rift Valley MPs should table Majimbo motion in Parliament ASAP

By Rev Okoth Otura,

Christian Democratic Movement of Kenya (CDMK)

The aggrieved Kenyan communities invested heavily in ODM because the party had offered to enact the Bomas Draft constitution clause to address the land, social and economical historical injustice through a form of federalism.

The Christian Democratic Movement of Kenya (CDMK), therefore,  wish to urge the Rift Valley MPs to move a motion in parliament to have the said clause enacted in Parliament ASAP.

The ODM must pressurized for the devolution of power to honor their election pledge to Kenyans.

It took the ODM and PNU MPs to push for grand coalition government to become a law  in less than fortnight, why not the Majimbo systems which is the only road map to peace in Kenya and equity in sharing the national resources, be given the same treatment by our legislators.

Meanwhile, CDMK call upon the International Community to support the cause of devolution of power in Kenya to bring about check and balance, and further wipe out the corruption syndrome institutionalized in the Kenya through Central government systems since 1963. 

CDMK urge the Canadian, US and European Union to halt any aid to Kenya until the majimbo system is enacted in Kenya constitution to enable them directly inject development to regional governments for the speedily development and sustainability at the grassroots level.

It is through Majimbo System that the Gikuyus tax payers and resident of Rift Valley and any tribe residing away from their ancetral homes shall be protected by the regional laws as it is the modern federal democracies in the world. 

Without Majimbo Systems all the funding and donation mark for Kenya by the International community will just end up in the corrupt politicians and the “old boys” corrupt civil servants bottomless pockets.

The current Internal Displace Persons  (IDPs) crisis is flawed with high level of corruption masterminded by the Mt Kenya  Mafia government officials to fraudulently woo compensations from both Kenya government and the international community to their kinsmen.

The PM Hon Raila, his Deputy PM Hon  Mudavadi and the Agriculture Minister Hon Rutu should not be blinded by the government portfolio which they got as result of their communities who were massacred by Kibaki government forces and mungiki militias.

It is indeed shameful for these leaders to hurriedly accept to resettle fake IDPs and the Land grabbers while their own communities are still mourning their dead, living under inhuman  conditions either in IDPs camps or at their ancestral homes without shelter, food, water, medications and school.  

What make Rift Valley and the Gikuyus so specials than the Kisiis, Massais, Luos, Kalenjins, Lughyas, Mjikenda, and those in Mt Elgon who are living under Military curfew and fear ?   

Is this not a betrayal and form of grand marginalization by the government and the ODM Leaders to give priority to one ethnic group ? 

The widows, widowers, orphans whose their parents, wives and husbands were brutally shot and died with government bullets lodged in their bodies in Rift Valley, Western, Coast, Nyanza, equally required compensation and reparation from the Kenya government and the International Community.

It is awkward and unacceptable to deny the remaining Kenyan tribes equal justice.

The regions which overwhelming voted for ODM-Majimbo system were targeted by the government excess security force and thus they were a direct victims of the government security brutal killings.

The Kenya government and the International community must provide them with same opportunity to have their voices heard and to obtain, where appropriate, some form of compensations and reparation for their sufferings.

It is this balance that the government agents perpetrators and retributive shall restorative justice to enable the Grand Coalition Government, not only to bring criminals to justice but also to help the victims themselves obtain justice.

It is indeed unfortunate that the ODM leaders fought vigorously to have the Grand Coalition Cabinet slots, and there after they decide to play in the hands of President Kibaki and the Mt Kenya maneuvers who are out to divide ODM and split it across ethnic lines before 2012.

While, the late President Moi strategy to unite the former MPs  and Kanu hardliners leaders across the Country through  his son Gideon Moi to weaken ODM in Rift Valley,  whereas the former Vice President Modi Awuor is rocking western province, as the Mt Kenya young Turks are busy planting seeds of discord in ODM young and inexperience  first timer parliamentarians in the name of Grand Opposition, to defeat or challenge ODM sponsored motions in Parliament.

ODM must tread carefully to avoid mass defection and by-elections across the country to rob them the mandates in the grand coalition government.

The former President Moi, President Kibaki and the Mt Kenya Mafias have enough resources to bring down the government before the Majimbo reforms is instituted into a law and throw ODM to the opposition bench before 2012.

By Reverend Okoth Otura, Canada

 

 

__________________

African Press International – api

Publisher: Korir, api africanpress@getmail.no

Prosecutor Shyamala Alagendra completed her direct examination of former AFRC commander, witness Alimamy Bobson Sesay, in the latest trial of former Liberian president Charles Taylor for war crimes and crimes against humanity committed against the people of Sierra Leone.

A release from the Special Court for Sierra Leone at The Hague said following the July 1999 Lomé Peace Accord, commander Ibrahim “Bazzy” Kamara grew angry that the agreement made no mention of the AFRC or its leader, Johnny Paul Koroma who overthrew the democratically elected government in Sierra Leone.

He stated that Bazzy sent a radio message to the protocol officer of President Ahmad Tejan-Kabbah in Freetown telling him that he wanted to hand over some child combatants to the United Nations Mission in Sierra Leone (UNAMSIL).

According to Sesay, shortly after this discussion, a group of ECOMOG and UNAMSIL officials arrived in Magbeni, near Freetown, together with a bishop and some others.

Sesay testified that on Bazzy’s orders the West Side rebel group feigned a handover of the child soldiers, then moved in and took the international forces hostage at gunpoint.

He explained that on the day of the radio broadcasts (BBC, VOA) about the kidnapping, Sam Bockarie called Bazzy and told him to release the hostages.

Shortly afterwards, Sesay said, Johnny Paul Koroma called Bazzy on the radio and told him that Liberian President Charles Taylor was sending a helicopter to pick him up in Kailahun in eastern Sierra Leone and take him to Liberia to discuss the problem.

In Monrovia, Koroma had heavy security and told the delegation that it had been provided by President Taylor. At the meeting with Charles Taylor in the conference room in the Executive Mansion in Monrovia Taylor entered with Momoh Gibba and Liberian Defense Minister Daniel Chea at which time Johnny Paul Koroma introduced the members of the delegation to Taylor.

Then, Sesay said, Taylor said that he had been giving assistance to the AFRC and RUF in the form of food, arms and ammunition, and had also mobilized some AFRC men who were in Liberia and had sent them to Mosquito to advance for the onslaught on Freetown to overthrow Tejan Kabbah.

Taylor warned that if they remained divided, politicians would use them and they would end up in jail.

The onslaught killed near 5000 people and left half of Freetown in ashes.

————-

African Press International – api source,apa

Publisher: Korir, api africanpress@getmail.no

The armed forces of the Central African Republic (FAC) have so far repelled in April three successive attacks of the armed opposition People’s Army for the Restoration of Democracy (APRD) in the Bocaranga region, in the north-west of the Central African Republic (CAR), the CAR government said in Bangui in a press release.

The release, read by the spokesman of the CAR national defense ministry Brigadier General Guillaume Lapo, noted that the first rebel attack was driven back on 3 April, leaving three dead among the attackers, whereas the 2nd was also the same day in the same locality of Bocaranga.

Four APRD troops died during the vigorous counterattack of the FACA, it said.

FACA routed the APRD rebels at the end of an attack they launched in the wee hours of 24 April against the Djim base.

The APRD suffered many casualties, the release continued, noting that the government is surprised that the APRD is increasing the armed attacks as the all-inclusive political dialogue is slated for 15th June.

After rejecting the peace agreement offer with the executive, the APRD has been increasing the attacks against the positions held by the FACA in the north-west of the country, the document underlined.

The CAR government called on the APRD to give up arms as solution to the disagreement which opposes the people of the country and to be committed to a peaceful solution through dialogue and consultation.

For now, the APRD is the only political movement which is yet to name its representatives to the15 June all-inclusive political dialogue scheduled to take place in Bangui to bring lasting peace to the CAR.

_____________________

African Press International – api source.apa