COSATU Today [6] Thursday 15 January 2009

NEHAWU reacts with anger to the reports of a Gautrain worker who was assaulted by his racist white supervisor in Midrand. This barbaric act of intolerance by this white man in the workplace reminds us as the society of the challenge that still faces us to rid this country of all the racist elements in the workplace and in our society.

We urge all South Africans to unite in condemning this act of racism and to show solidarity with the workers who decided to take a stand against this abuse of their colleague. South Africans have a responsibility to support trade unions and organizations that are fighting this cancer in the workplace and in our society.

We issue a challenge to the South African police service to take the lead in fighting against the scourge of racism by making sure that all employers and supervisors who still assault and racially abuse their workers are charged and face the full might of the law. We also call on the department of Labour to investigate this matter and that if anyone is found guilty of any wrong doing, appropriate action must be taken.

The assault, exploitation and discrimination of employees in the workplace are still prevalent in South Africa and all of us have a responsibility to name and shame those employers.

NEHAWU has always believed that the Gautrain project is an elitist project that is meant to serve and enrich the select few to the detriment of the majority working class and poor South Africans.

This also goes to highlight the growth of casualised and outsourced jobs, which results in hundreds of workers being unable to benefit from worker rights.

NEHAWU welcomes the fact that the African National Congress, ANC has identified the creation of decent work and sustainable livelihoods as one of its priority areas in its manifesto.

This incident is a challenge to Bombela to show that they are an employer that respects the rights of workers and they do not tolerate racists’s attitudes in their workplace.

The human rights enshrined in our Constitution apply to all of us as the citizens irrespective of our race, colour, religious beliefs and status. NEHAWU would like to remind South Africans that they all have a moral responsibility to stand up and speak for the voiceless and defend the rights and dignity especially of those who are at the bottom end of the economic pyramid.

The union believes that the fruits of freedom need to be enjoyed by all those who call South Africa their home and we owe it to all the heroes and heroines who sacrificed their lives to ensure that their sacrifices were not in vain.

Issued by NEHAWU Communications Department

Sizwe Pamla, Media Liaison Officer, 072 832 5296, 011 833 2902, siz...@nehawu.org.za

Visit NEHAWU website: www.nehawu.org.za

South Africa

1 COSATU; 2 ANC Parliamentary Caucus

2.1 COPE doublespeak on EE and AA

Patrick Craven, 14 January 2009

The Congress of South African Trade Unions reaffirms its belief in the continuing need for black economic empowerment, affirmative action and employment equity.

COSATU has for long argued that these policies have not sufficiently benefited the poorest South Africans. But the conclusion has always been that to solve this problem we need more, not less, so as to spread the impact of affirmative action and empowerment to the whole of the previously disadvantaged population, the majority of whom have so far seen no benefits from it.

The federation therefore roundly condemns the ‘Congress of the People’ which has shown its true colours by claiming that affirmative action and employment equity should be reviewed, on the basis that they “discriminate against whites”.

COPE says it "believes strongly that affirmative action and black economic empowerment remain necessary instruments for the transformation of our country", but that it wants to review these policies to address "unintended consequences", including "race being the sole criterion of employment rather than looking at potential".

Its leader, Mosioua Lekota told a rally in Umlazi on 10 January 2009 that BEE has only benefited a select few and left the poor without jobs. But after apparently echoing COSATU’s view, he then went on to argue for a completely opposite policy that is not based on race, and that “people should be hired on the basis of expertise, knowledge and skills rather than the colour of their skin”.

COPE deputy president Mbhazima Shilowa, in an article in City Press, also committed COPE to the "hastened implementation" of affirmative action but again said he wanted to remove race as the sole criterion.

Race of course has never been the “sole criterion”, since the legislation has also dealt with gender and disability discrimination.

But COPE’s view totally contradicts the whole basis of the policy which was introduced to reverse precisely racist colonial and apartheid discriminatory policies based on skin colour. Unless the policy reverses the grossly skewed racial imbalances we have inherited, it will not be affirmative or equitable at all. If race is dropped as a criterion, the policy loses its central purpose.

As Christine Qunta explains in an article in The Star (14 January 2009), the racial discrimination process goes back to the 1911 Mines and Works Act, which set aside 32 types of jobs in the mining industry for which only white people could be recruited.

The Apprenticeship Act of 1922 made apprenticeship an entry requirement for certain trades together with a Standard 6 education, which Africans at that time rarely reached. The Native Building Workers Act of 1951 removed Africans from the scope of the Apprenticeship Act and delineated areas they could work in. It banned anyone in urban areas - in other words, outside of the "native reserves" - from employing Africans in the building industry and 11 other occupations. It gave the minister the right to decide how many learner builders could be trained each year.

Under apartheid all these discriminatory practices were refined and intensified, to extend the privileges of the whites and the exclusion of blacks from all top, senior, professional and skilled positions.

The laws on BEE and AA were designed to reverse the effects which we inherited in 1994 from decades of such blatantly discriminatory racist legislation.

In the public sector there has been a great improvement in the racial balance within the workplace since 1994, but the private sector tells a very different story.

The Employment Equity Commission's Report for 2007 shows that in September 2007, black people constituted 87,9% of the economically active population, with Africans making up 74,8%. But among top management, whites constitute 68% and Africans 18%. In senior management, whites constitute 65,2 % and Africans 18,1% (with African women constituting 5,5 %).

55% of all new appointments for top management positions are white and only 40% are black, with Africans being 28%. 61,4% of promotions at this level are white and 37% black.

Between 2003 and 2007 there was a 14.9% decrease in the number of Africans in professionally qualified positions, down to 24,1%, while the white workforce increased by 8% to 57,2%.

As if these figures were not bad enough, they have to be put in the context of a society which is becoming more unequal overall. A study by UNISA’s Bureau of Market Research has just confirmed that income inequality – already exceptionally high by international standards - is on the increase. The Gini Coefficient, which measures inequality of income distribution, rose to 0.67 in 2008, from 0.60 before 1994.

The facts are stark. In the private sector we have we have demonstrably failed to rid our society of the racial imbalances we inherited, and in some categories the position is even worse. Racism and discrimination are still rife, not only in the statistics but in the day-to-day reality of life in thousands of workplaces, where racist insults, abuse and even violence are routine occurrences.

COPE is pandering to the worst prejudices of conservative whites, by floating the fantasy that it can somehow favour equity and empowerment, but in a way that avoids the unavoidable fact that the racial distribution of wealth and power in South Africa has changed little since 1994 and has to be reversed if we are to achieve any meaningful levels of equality.

Employment equity and affirmative action must stay and must continue to cover racial imbalances. It must be implemented by the new ANC government with new vigour so that the country’s wealth will be shared equitably and belong to all the people of South Africa, as demanded by the Freedom Charter.

Patrick Craven, COSATU Spokesperson, 082 821 7456, 011 339 4911, pat...@cosatu.org.za

2.2 Chair of Ad-hoc Committee on Adv Pikoli

Moloto Mothapo, 14 January 2009

The ANC Parliamentary Caucus rejects calls by the opposition that the appointment of Mr Oupa Monareng to the position of the Chairperson of the Joint Ad-hoc Committee on the removal of the National Director of Public Posecutions should be reconsidered.

We wish to state that Mr Oupa Monareng, who was today appointed by the multiparty Ad-hoc Committee as its Chairperson, is by law eligible to be a member of the national legislature and there is nothing that legally prevents him from holding any position the institution deploys him to.

Section 47(e) of the constitution only disqualifies individuals convicted of an offence to more than 12 months imprisonment without an option of a fine from becoming members of parliament. Mr Monareng was only fined for an offence about a decade ago and has never received any prison sentence. Provisions of the constitution should not be conveniently disregarded by those who profess to uphold and respect it merely to attain political mileage.

Since joining Parliament in 2004, he has served the institution with integrity and distinction in various capacities, including as the Committee Whip. It boggles the mind why some parties have only elected to question his ability now after all these years.

Caucus congratulates the multiparty Ad-hoc committee’s decision to elect Mr Monareng and Kgoshi Mathupa Mokoena respectively as co-Chairpersons. We wish them well in their work and further assure them of our support.

Issued by the ANC Parliamentary Caucus

Moloto Mothapo, Head of Media & Communications, ANC Parliamentary Caucus, 021 403 2758, 082 370 6930, momo...@parliament.gov.za, web page: www.anc.org.za/caucus

International

1 COSATU; 2 PASSOP

3.1 ZV Address to Lenasia Rally on Palestine

Zwelinzima Vavi, COSATU General Secretary, 14th January 2009

Address in solidarity with the people of Gaza

From our own experience, we know how painful and dehumanising is the system of segregation, otherwise known as apartheid. Apartheid is a system based on the assumption that one group or race is superior to others and therefore has a right to all the privileges and virtues associated with that particular status. It has a right to run and determine the lives of others, excluding them from certain privileges, merely because they do not belong to the “chosen” group.

What other definition would so fittingly define a system based on different rights and privileges for Jews and Arabs in the Middle East? The bantustanisation of Palestine into pieces or strips - West Bank, Ramallah, Gaza strip and so on - run by Israel and with no rights whatsoever for the Palestinians, is definitely an apartheid system.

Israel occupied the land of the Palestinian people and created settler communities of Jews who enjoy a different lifestyle and privileges than those experienced by Palestinians. Palestinians are packed like Sardines in a tin throughout the Bantustans, with Gaza being acknowledged as the world’s biggest open-air prison.

The prime characteristics of apartheid in South Africa included:

· Segregation of the country into highly developed whites-only areas co-existing with extremely under-developed black communities, where the majority lived with no or limited rights and access to basic facilities;

· The black majority had no rights to freely participate and determine their destiny without the supervision of the superior race, which made all the decisions and enforced them through a highly militarised state machinery;

· The country was further balkanised into various Bantustans - Bophuthatswana, Kwangwane, Kwandebele, Venda, Transkei, KwaZulu, Ciskei, etc. - which were partitioned in such a way that within the same country you needed a passport to travel from one Bantustan to the other. In between these Bantustans was South Africa, a land foreign to all blacks but firmly in the hands of white supremacists

What is the situation in Palestine today?

· The country is segregated into highly developed settler communities of Jews, on the one hand, and extremely poor and under-developed Arab communities, where the people have no or limited rights and access to basic facilities, with Gaza being the most evident of these.

· The Palestinian people cannot freely determine their own affairs and run their own country, for it is occupied by a colonial power called Israel.

· The country is further balkanised into various Bantustans, amongst them, West Bank, Gaza, and Ramallah, which are connected through extremely restricted travel access over Israel.

It because of these similarities between today’s Israel and our past that we call the Israeli state an apartheid state.

Ordinary people in the West Bank, in Al-Quds Al-Sharif and in the Gaza Strip, have suffered enough under Israeli occupation. The settlements, the separation wall, the hundreds of checkpoints and the detention of over 11,000 Palestinian people in Israeli jails are just some of unbearable conditions that prevail in Gaza.

It is our firm belief that, like all other suffering, colonised, oppressed and subjugated peoples all over the world, Palestinians are not naturally a violent people. They are not provocative, but they have the right to resist when provoked and subjected to the most cruel and barbaric forms of occupation and invasion. They need to restore their pride and dignity, and regain their disposed lands. We support these claims unconditionally. We too suffered in defence of exactly the claims in the hands of ruthless sister forces to the Zionists who occupy Palestine. Resistance must never be equated to provocation.

In the same way that the ANC-led liberation movement here in South Africa refused to submit to the most extreme form of invasion and subjugation, but fought with all means at our disposal, why should the Palestinian people be denied that right? In fact, a colonised people who do not fight for their freedom are not worth the honourable status of belonging to the family of human beings. This is why the Palestinian people are correct to fight for their freedom. However, in fighting for their freedom, they are called all sorts of names, just as we were also called all sorts of names, and the best known one is “terrorists”.

Which freedom fighter has never had that label, when even our own heroic son of the soil, Dr Nelson Rolihlahla Mandela has only just recently been removed from the list of terrorists in the US? It seems to have become an honour for anyone fighting for freedom to be called a terrorist. Just next door to us in Swaziland, PUDEMO President, Mario Masuku is in jail on charges of terrorism, merely for fighting for the rights of his people.

However, that should not divert the issue and all sorts of distortions about the reality and facts in the Middle East. The aggressor is the coloniser, in this case Israel, who forcefully invaded the land of other people and took away their land, what other option, was left for those disposed people (Palestinians) than to resist and fight for their land, and that is what exactly the people of Palestine are doing.

The hypocritical equal apportionment of condemnation to both the aggressor and victim is dishonest and not fair. There is no neutrality in a struggle; the occupying and oppressive force is immoral and the resisting force has the moral responsibility to fight for freedom. This however does not mean there are no limits and responsibilities for those fighting freedom to observe, of course.

We have noted this chorus of the equal condemnation of the aggressor and the victim. Even those who are supposed to be progressive have been blackmailed to toe this line of equal condemnation. Israel uses brute force and violence to enforce its illegal occupation of Palestine.

The Palestinian people have been left with no option but to resist the occupation of their land and the dehumanisation and denial of their rights. Does this mean both are equally liable for the breaking of the truce that was also not guaranteeing them their freedom, but maintaining them in conditions of injustice and occupation? The truce is important, but does it change the fact that the struggle for freedom continues and that injustice still prevails in Palestine?

Just by simply closing the Gaza Strip, frustrating the movement of people and goods, limiting the flow of gas and electricity, destroying the sewage system, Israel has turned the Strip into a zone of permanent hell. Regular outbursts of direct military violence and response by Palestinians that have recurred at least once a year since 2002 ("Operation Defence Shield") multiply victims but do not change the basic fact of Israeli occupation and brutality.

And the assault will seek to annihilate that population. And whichever man, woman, child, or elderly person that manages to escape or hide from the predictably bloody assault will later be "hunted" so that the cleansing is complete and the commanders in charge of the operation can report to their superiors: "We've completed the mission."

And then, from up there above, they will write about the Palestinians' violent nature and they'll make declarations condemning that violence and they'll get back to discussing if it's Zionism or anti-Semitism.

While many people may believe that the current violence in Gaza began on December 27, in fact Palestinians have been dying from bombardments for many weeks. On November 4, when the Israeli-Palestinian truce was still in effect but global attention was turned to the US elections, Israel launched a "pre-emptive" air strike on Gaza, alleging intelligence about an imminent operation to capture Israeli soldiers. More assaults took place throughout the month.

It is estimated that 400,000 people, most of them in Gaza city, do not have access to piped water. It is reported that sewage is flooding into the streets as the result of the damage to the sewage network. Gaza city wastewater treatment plant was hit.

While the Israeli cheerleaders testified to the superior moral fibre of their team, the Palestinian civilian death toll mounted. Reports confirm that Israeli missiles tore at least fifteen Palestinian police cadets to shreds at a graduation ceremony, blew twelve worshipers to pieces (including six children) while they left evening prayers at a mosque, flattened the elite American International School, killed five sisters while they slept in their beds, and liquidated nine women and children in order to kill a single Hamas leader.

So far, Israeli forces have killed at least 900 people from Gaza and wounded some several thousands, including hundreds of children. Yesterday, the Israeli Defence Force (IDF) blanketed parts of Gaza with white phosphorus, a chemical weapon Saddam Hussein once deployed against Kurdish rebels.

A new word emerged from the carnage in Gaza this week: "scholasticide" - the systematic destruction by Israeli forces of centres of education dear to Palestinian society, as the Ministry of Education was bombed, the infrastructure of teaching destroyed, and schools across the Gaza strip targeted for attack by the air, sea and ground offensives.

We are deeply troubled by the immoral position adopted by the South African Jewish Board of Deputies, the South African Zionist Federation and the Chief Rabbi, Warren Goldstein, on the current atrocities in Gaza. They continue to justify the aggression in all sorts of jargons, masking the true character of the human crisis and suffering inflicted daily on the people of Palestine.

We also note that mainstream media continues to stigmatise the legitimate struggles of the resisting people, preferring to call it in all sorts of words - terrorism, attack, etc.

We salute and welcome the ever growing movement of Jews and Israelis who are beginning to speak out boldly against the genocide carried out in the name of the Israeli people by a few warmongers and their US allies in the conservative elite ruling the US.

The International Jewish Anti-Zionist Network (IJAN) is one of those organisations or network of Jews whose Jewish identities are not based on Zionism but on a plurality of histories and experiences. According to their own declaration, they share a commitment to participation in the legacy of struggles against colonisation and imperialism. As such, they struggle against Zionism and its manifestation in the State of Israel’s historic and ongoing ethnic cleansing of the Palestinian people and the confiscation of their land.

US complicity in the genocide

Israel is the biggest recipient of US aid, roughly estimated at around $32 billion[1] per annum. No doubt, the bulk of this amount is used for military purposes and protecting Israel’s imperial posture in the Middle East in pursuit of its position as the US client state in that part of the world responsible for defending its strategic and economic interests. Military and strategic co-operation between the two states run deeper than imagined.

According to recent reports the Pentagon plans to make a large arms delivery to Israel, raising fears that the military campaign in Gaza will go on for a long time.

The US is trying to hire a merchant ship that can carry hundreds of tons of weapons from Greece to Israel later this month, Reuters reported, citing tender documents it had obtained.

According to the US Navy's Military Sealift Command (MSC), the ship will transport 325 standard 20-foot containers of what has been called 'ammunition' from the Greek port of Astakos to the Israeli port of Ashdod on two separate trips in the second half of January.

A description on the manifest says the containers will be loaded with 'hazardous material', such as explosive substances and detonators, without giving any more details.

The Pentagon announced the tender for the ship in the last hours of 2008. The two deadlines set for the deliveries are January 25 and the last day of the month.

Meanwhile, a Pentagon spokesman confirmed the planned arms shipment to Israel, but denied that the delivery was linked to the Israel's deadly offensive in Gaza.

In September, the US Congress approved a plan to sell Israel 1,000 bunker-buster bombs, of the Guided Bomb Unit-39 (GBU-39), that use GPS to find their way and are able to penetrate deep fortified constructions, such as Iran's nuclear facilities.

Last week, The Jerusalem Post, reported that the first shipment of the missiles arrived in early December, adding that the bombs had been used in the military onslaught in Gaza.

Palestine is bleeding, lamenting is a luxury and action is long overdue!

We support and encourage the Boycott, Disinvestment, and Sanction (BDS) efforts against Israel around the world.

We ask the newly elected US President, Barack Obama to indeed live true to his promise for real change, of which US foreign policy should be one of the key focus areas. In this regard, we call on him to stop U.S aid to Israel. This becomes not only necessary but also a duty of international solidarity, which should be the priority action point among labour unions around the world.

We also call upon all and everyone to be an active player in raising funds and all the material resources to meet the bare necessities of food, medicine, and medical supplies for the people.

The utter disregard for international law by Israel and its contempt for UN resolutions further confirm the need for the restructuring and transformation of this super global governance institution to meet the challenges of the 21st century. Its relevance as a custodian of global peace and security is in question. So is its legitimacy to resolve disputes and set standards for global governance.

However, we welcome the decision of the UN Human Rights Council despite US attempts to frustrate its efforts towards condemning Israel.

We are putting forward the following issues for a way forward:

1. All trade unions, social movements, NGOs, religious organisations and academics to support and actively participate in the BDS campaign against Israel, refusing to handle anything that comes from and that goes to Israel in order to isolate it until it submits to international law and withdraws from all the occupied territories

2. We urge all companies and all shipping companies to refuse to carry any shipment of arms to Israel. Any shipping company who carries these weapons has the blood of the people of Gaza on its hands!

3. We call upon all governments to enforce international law, by refusing to recognise a country that makes a mockery of international law and the pursuit of human dignity. In this regard, they must expel Israeli ambassadors and representatives in order to ensure that we isolate it throughout the world until it subscribes to the ideals of human dignity! In this case, we salute the bold example of Venezuela and call upon all countries to emulate it.

4. We call upon international media to expose the real truth behind the war and not to hide the real issues in the name of objectivity, by projecting an image of Israel as a state under siege by terrorist, thus discrediting the legitimate resistance of the Palestinian people. Balanced reporting does not mean, massaging issues and diluting the truth even in the face of insurmountable evidence against the wrong side.

5. We call upon the international trade union movement to emulate the heroic example of the Norwegian Locomotive Drivers Union, which on Thursday 8th January ensured that all trains in the whole of Norway, and all trams and subways in Oslo, stood still for two minutes in protest against Israeli invasion. In the process, they issued the following information for passengers: “Because of the situation in the Gaza Strip, the Locomotive Drivers Union in Norway has decided to demonstrate our solidarity with the Palestinian people. This will be organised by adding two more minutes of stoppage at the station. The same action applies to all passenger trains in Norway simultaneously. We demand the immediate withdrawal of all Israeli troops from the Palestinian territory. Thank you for your understanding”. This is very inspiring coming from Europe where the tendency even amongst progressives is to be apologetic about Israel and condemn the Palestinian struggle as acts of terrorism

6. We call for particular focus on targeting the conservative US and British foreign policies, which requires that we work with our counterpart unions and progressive organisations in these countries to effect radical foreign policy changes in relation to the Middle East. This should include exposing the complicit role of these two states in perpetuating the violence and arming Israel, while rhetorically positioning themselves as anti-terrorists.

7. We acknowledge the progressive role of our government in relation to the situation in the Middle East, including its humanitarian support for the suffering people of Gaza, but believe that there is a lot more we can do working together. In this instance, we call for the cessation of all trade relations with Israel.

8. The Arab League must be brought under pressure to act in solidarity with the Palestinian people and limit the chances of some states openly collaborating with Israel, but to lead the global offensive for the isolation of Israel, owing to their strategic proximity in that area.

Once again, the global solidarity movement must be intensified to support the cause of the suffering people of Palestine, even more so with the crisis in Gaza. A day more under occupation is hell for the dispossessed people.

Contact COSATU Spokesperson Patrick Craven, 082 821 7456, 011 339 4911, pat...@cosatu.org.za

3.2 Deportation of Zimbabweans

Braam Hanekom, PASSOP Chairperson, 13 January 2009

Letter to the Minister of Home Affairs

Dear Minister Mapisa-Nqakula

PASSOP believes that those persons seeking asylum in South Africa from Zimbabwe qualify for refugee status under article 35(1) of the Refugee Act No. 130 of 1998, which allows you to “declare such group or category of persons to be refugees either unconditionally or subject to such conditions as [you] may impose.” We respectfully submit that your failure to declare that Zimbabweans are refugees is unlawful.

In any event, both South Africa’s international and domestic obligations should prohibit the government from deporting individuals to Zimbabwe. Article two of the Refugee Act prohibits South Africa from “refus[ing] entry into the Republic, expel[ing], extradit[ing] or return[ing] to any other country . . . if as a result of [such action, any] person is compelled to remain in a country where his or her life, physical safety or freedom would be threatened on account of . . . events seriously disturbing or disrupting public order in either part or the whole of that country.”

This principle of non-refoulement is emphasized not only in South Africa’s domestic law, but also in its international legal obligations. For example, in the Convention Governing the Specific Aspects of Refugee Problems in Africa (AU Convention), which South Africa ratified in 1995 actually defines a refugee as a “person who, owing to . . .events seriously disturbing public order in either part or the whole of his country of origin or nationality, is compelled to leave his place of habitual residence in order to seek refuge in another place outside his country of origin or nationality.” It then prohibits states from forcibly returning anyone who falls into this category.

In addition to the seriously disturbing public order standard, the Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees, which South Africa acceded to in 1996, defines a refugee as a person who “owing to well-founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion, is outside the country of his nationality and is unable or, owing to such fear, is unwilling to avail himself of the protection of that country.” This language is also reflected in article two of the Refugee Act, thus domestically codifying the international standard.

It is clear that the situation in Zimbabwe qualifies most Zimbabweans for refugee status under both standards. First, the political and economic situation in Zimbabwe, including an inflation rate of more than 231 million percent, has led to the complete collapse of most state systems, thus constituting an event seriously disturbing public order under the Refugee Act and under the African Convention. Second, Zimbabweans are fleeing to South Africa because they fear that, as Zimbabweans, their lives and freedom are in dire jeopardy. Thus, their nationality provides them with the appropriate justification to claim refugee status. Consequently, it is a violation of both domestic and international law for South Africa to deport Zimbabweans or to prevent Zimbabweans from entering the country.

Because of political conflict, there is simply no rule of law present in Zimbabwe. During the election in March and the run-off election in June, Zimbabwe was engulfed in political violence, which has largely gone unpunished. This has led to a culture of impunity in the country.

As a result of the elections, a power-sharing agreement was signed on September 15, 2008. This agreement was to allow Robert Mugabe to remain president while Morgan Tsvangirai would assume the position of prime minister. This agreement was expected to restore stability and good governance in a country where both were rare. However, four months later, it is still unclear whether Tsvangirai will be prime minister. The only thing that is clear is that the country remains in disarray while Mugabe retains power. In a country where the members of government are in limbo, the collapse of the rule of law is complete.

In addition to the state support for this violence and the resulting impunity, the government has deteriorated to such a point that it is completely unable to ensure basic human rights, and in many cases, the government has actively participated in the violation of these rights.

The most recent example of the Zimbabwean government’s failure to protect the rights of its citizens is the well-documented cholera outbreak. The latest reports from the UN indicate that over 1700 people have died from cholera since August 2008 alone, although cholera is easily treated. There are instances of the disease in every province in Zimbabwe, and the rate of infection appears to be increasing, not decreasing. Clean running water is vital to prevent and to treat cholera, but Zimbabwe’s government has been unable to provide even this basic service, allowing cholera to continue essentially unabated. The unwillingness and/or inability of the government to prevent cholera or to facilitate treatment of the disease are evident by the continued spread of the disease and the growing number of deaths.

All Zimbabweans are at risk if they return to their country, which is in an unprecedented humanitarian crisis that should be recognized as such by the South African government. As Zimbabweans, not only are they unable to access many of the basic rights guaranteed in international law, but the lack of the rule of law causes them to fear for their life and safety as well. Thus, South Africa has an obligation – both domestic and international – not to deport individuals back to Zimbabwe.

PASSOP would like your confirmation within seven days that the Department of Home Affairs is no longer deporting Zimbabweans and that this policy will remain in place until the situation there has been resolved. If there is no such reply, we will be forced to take legal action against the Department.

Sincerely,

Braam Hanekom, PASSOP Chairperson; Leigh Ann Webster, PASSOP Legal Intern

[1] Al Jazeera

image001.png

image010.jpg

image011.jpg

image002.jpg

image003.gif

image004.jpg

image005.png

image006.png

image007.jpg

image008.jpg

image009.png

Reply all

Reply to author

Forward

0 new messages