South Africa’s Ruling African National Congress Trapped

The owners of the economy, corporates, lobby groups, think tanks and their corporate mainstream media concocted a series of destructive strategies to ensure that particularly the African National Congress (ANC) would finally be reduced to a political party only second to the Democratic Alliance (DA)-Economic Freedom Fighters (EFF) by 2019.

In the build-up to such a scenario, the image of the ruling ANC as well as its government was seriously tarnished. Character assassinations, similar to those meted out against Zimbabwe’s President Robert Mugabe, became the daily fodder for South Africa’s corporate media.

Traps, such as the “secret Sunset Clauses”; “state capture”; “corruption”; chequebooks politics setting up “blind trusts” for political leadership and judges, are part of it. At the same time, leaders were deliberately not vetted to proof their competency and loyalties.

An assessment of the current situation with all its flaws needs to be done.

Senior members of the ANC admitted to the wrongdoings. They pointed at factionalism, polarisation, a compromised leadership, double speak to mislead the majority of the population “to be able to continue serving their corporate lobbyists, also viewed as handlers”.

The question arises, “When was the ANC leadership captured and compromised?”

In the 1980s big business sent its elite and lobbyists as often as they perceived it necessary, to Lusaka, Zambia; Dar-es-Salaam, Tanzania; Luanda, Angola; London, United Kingdom; Washington, USA; Zurich, Switzerland; Bonn, Frankfurt and Munich in Germany; the Scandinavian countries and others. Was it not then already that the leadership was captured?

How free was the revered Nelson Mandela really when he was moved to ‘Victor Verster prison’ outside Paarl in the Western Cape?

By his own admission, the head of apartheid National Intelligence Services (NIS), Dr. Niel Barnard, influenced Mandela’s thinking of a “new South Africa under ANC rule”.

It became worse. There are those among the ANC leadership, who support the “secret Sunset Clauses” in private, which apartheid De Klerk and SACP Slovo brought to the negotiations in 1994. In public however, they deny their support of such secret agendas. Having met in secret with Big Business leaders; Boer academics, which fronted for a range of interests as well as the Urban Foundation, were ANC leaders not already captured by 1994?

The ANC failed to sensitize its members. When will that sun (of the secret Sunset Clauses) eventually set on South Africa? The contents of those secret clauses were never debated. The nation was thus, never taken along into the trust of the leadership. At the same time the majority was kept in the dark. Since the expiry date of those secret clauses, ANC members and the public in general were not informed. Why have the signed Sunset Clauses not been circulated among all ANC members, branches and the general public to be debated nationally?

The ANC was pushed into a corner at the CODESA negotiations in 1994. The grand apartheid planners and its international Western think tanks signed a much-hailed, neo-liberal constitution and its democracy.

And, this time grand-apartheid entered through the backdoor to stay, forming the constitution, through for example, “minority groups rights” and nine provinces bankrupting, dividing and unsettling South Africa further. “Minority groups’ rights” also protect structured poverty, as meted out at the poor indigenous majority. To date, that evil has not been addressed in public. It means, the public at large has been misled, as the ANC never fought for such.

The ANC further failed to set up its own think tank, its own research institute. Its media-platforms in exile, SECHABA, UMSEBEZI, DAWN and Radio Freedom were shut down on instruction of Thabo Mbeki. Why was this accepted? How could Mbeki wield so much power? Obviously, South Africa’s corporate mainstream media cartels do not have any African aspirations and interests at heart.

ANC followers had no further communication with its leaders. What was the role of certain leaders in doing such?

After the successful democratic elections, then President Nelson Mandela appointed his cabinet and support structures. But, there was no Minister of Finance and no Governor of the Reserve Bank for a number of years still. It seemed quite obvious, that both, the new Finance Minister, Trevor Manuel, as well as the new Governor of the Reserve Bank, Tito Mboweni, were not vetted by the ANC government when appointed, but by the established White elite outside the new rulers.

Until now, the ANC is not able to appoint anyone in the Treasury, or the Reserve Bank. Those positions seem to have always been vetted by invisible anti-ANC interests. As it stands, Johann Rupert seems to lead those forces in South Africa.

South Africa’s Independent National Treasury, which President Zuma failed to capture, as accused, sits with a 50% debt to GDP, a declining economy, close to recession. It is paying the highest interest rates under any circumstances. Why did National Treasury not increase economic growth? How could South Africa benefit from its National Treasury?

A well-known senior economist insists that the following questions should be answered to the best of Pravin Gordhan’s abilities, “Of the ZAR1trillion debt, National Treasury head, Gordhan, raised since he became Minister of Finance, what exactly was this amount applied to? To date, South Africa has not seen the money. Where is it going? Who is in charge? Who hoodwinks the nation? Why has no forensic audit been done on the National Treasury?”

Given the current economic situation, the debt, the over-politicizing of the Treasury, the factionalism of the ruling party, an independent National Treasury under Gordhan has failed South Africa.

No one asks the National Treasury any questions. Gordhan is a “bolombolo tiger”, created by public relations consultants, hopelessly over-inflated by the corporate mainstream media cartels. Under arrogant Gordhan, South Africans will be in for real grief. To date, no one asks Gordhan the mentioned hard questions, as well as why the Treasury is acting without any accountabilities.

Powerful Russian President Putin recently fired his Finance Minister when he discovered that his Minister had taken a bribe of US$2million.

Meanwhile, think tanks, such as the ‘Brenthurst Foundation’, the ‘Helen Suzman Foundation’ and the ‘Freedom under Law Foundation’, who have long-standing links with Zimbabwe’s MDC-T and its leader Morgan Tsvangirai, remain forces to be reckoned with. It seems, nothing goes without their approval. Add to the mentioned NGOs US-George Soros’ “Southern African Litigation Center (SALC)” and “Open Society Foundation”, they seem to form a “deep state”, undermining the South African state. This should be an additional national debate.

Another serious problem is patronage with government position-holders. It applies to the veterans as well as other stakeholders.

The recalled former ANC- and country president, Thabo Mbeki, was the architect of patronage, at the same time centralizing all powers under him to ensure the old status quo remains in place.

Those, who accepted the ‘patronage system’, enjoyed guaranteed positions in government. ANC stalwart, Joel Netshitenzhe, and many others had their positions secured. This ‘patronage system’ also made ANC members afraid to query the direction of Thabo Mbeki’s leadership. It amounted to intimidation. The descent within the ANC was oppressed.

The manipulation of using state agencies against one another was rooted in Mbeki’s term of office. It is interesting to observe that the very same “stalwarts”, currently questioning the state-of-affairs, perpetuated patronage under Mbeki.

The patronage system helped to identify and create “tenderpreneurs”. As some of the senior ANC NEC members told this writer under the condition of anonymity, “Mbeki’s faction benefited most from the patronage system. Those beneficiaries include Saki Macozoma, Smuts Ngoyama, Njali Majola, Bulelani Ngcuka and a few more. State patronage promoted corruption across the board and assured corruption on all levels, from national-, to provincial-, to municipal. Today, they are multi-millionaires.”

“In fact, “state captures” is not a new concept. We believe, the Guptas played the role of a decoy to deflect the focus to those who were actually captured. Who brought those Guptas to the ANC? What was Essop Pahad’s role? The mission is clear. It was done to destroy the ANC.”

“The Guptas were to infiltrate one of the factions”, the senior ANC NEC member pointed out. “Their mission was to establish the weakest link, which they seemed to have done.”

“If the ANC wants to reclaim its movement, it has to strictly ban corporate political funding across the board. Big business renders political leadership and its parties powerless. The corporates hijack all power to destroy whole countries, regions and continents for their own crude interests, as seems the case in Africa and the Mid East.”

“Under an ANC-led government, South Africa would have to move towards a ‘one-person, one-vote system’ in a ‘Constituent Assembly’. This is what the ANC fought for. It will return power to the people.”

Proportional representation shortchanges the electorate. It gives the party bosses more power than their own constituencies are worth. This is viewed as “fraudulently centralising power”. If this is not accepted, it could lead to the disintegration of the ANC into leaderless little groups and factions.”

It was also explained to this writer, “Joel Netshitenze’s suggestion of an electoral college for the ANC would guarantee the total capture of the movement. It borrows from the US, where only two political parties can be part of democracy, sponsored by Wall Street. Corporate interests would vet all political leaders and rule through them.”

Finally, in its own brutal assessment, the question, which should uphold the democratic principles, is a fair one. “No one has ever addressed recalled former president Mbeki’s loss of elections. Mbeki’s faction resigned and left with him. Neither Mbeki, nor any of his followers attend ANC meetings. Why did Joel Netshitenzhe, Sipho Pityana and Siphiwe Nyanda deliberately not address that issue? Who funds the ANC “stalwarts” for their public appearances?”

A sulking, yet arrogant Thabo Mbeki demonstrated dictatorial tendencies, but by no means a democratic leadership. The ANC groups, also known as “counter revolutionaries”, show dishonesty and selective thinking. END.


Follow my twitter handle: @theotherafrika



Winnie Mandela: the Democratic Alliance (DA) is Abusing African National Congress (ANC) Revered Struggle History


July 31, 2016

 Winnie Mandela: the Democratic Alliance (DA) is Abusing African National Congress (ANC) Revered Struggle History

Orlando West, Soweto – Mrs. Winnie Mandela has not issued media statements for some time. She broke her silence today, as she feels that she has to correct the manipulation and distortion of South Africa’s history by the Democratic Alliance (DA).

Mrs. Mandela accepts that the DA’s Mmusi Maimane gave an ANC speech, referring to Maimane’s public address on July 30, 2016, on the eve of the ANC’s Siyanqoba Rally at Ellis Park in Johannesburg. Mrs. Madikizela-Mandela asserts that if one deleted every reference to the DA, it would have been an ANC speech.

This time however, Mmusi Maimane, Helen Zille and their DA have gone too far. It is unbelievable that the DA sings ANC freedom songs that come from the camps of MK in exile, composed by members of MK in difficult times in exile outside South Africa. To add insult to injury, the DA shouts ANC and MK slogans. How is it possible that the Democratic Alliance shout “Viva, DA, Viva”, when it has its history and roots firmly anchored in apartheid and racial discrimination?

That very slogan, “Viva ANC, Viva!” was banned in apartheid South Africa. When Mrs. Mandela turned up at the Robben Island prison to visit her husband, Nelson Mandela, she was more often then not turned back, because she wore clothes that portrayed ANC colours and insignia and gave the clenched fist salute, shouting, “:Viva ANC, Viva!”

The DA’s abuse of the ANC’s revered struggle history and its highly respected leaders like Nelson Mandela, shows an unbelievable insensitivity and disrespect. The late Nelson Mandela never wanted to have his name prostituted. Now, he cannot defend himself to correct the abusive plagiarism of his name. In fact, Nelson Mandela defined the DA as “a party of white bosses and black stooges”.

Neither Helen Zille, nor Mmusi Maimane and their DA have ever been quoted by the ANC or the PAC. Why does the DA never mention its own founding fathers? Why would the DA go out of its way to refer to other political parties’ historic leaders? Is the DA hiding its foundation and history? Similar to the old apartheid strategies of ‘Strategic Communication (Strat-Com)’, the DA seems to use the same propagandistic tactics of “70% facts and 30% fiction”, to particularly confuse and mislead the hopeful electorate. Mrs. Mandela was a victim of apartheid’s Stratcom. She knows their evil tactics. They deliberately sow confusion that could lead to new blood shedding. Considering the DA’s questionable modus operandi, Mrs. Mandela is led to believe that the DA is morally, ethically and intellectually bankrupt.

Thus, Mrs. Mandela implores the DA to stop plagiarising the ANC’s rich history and its intellectual property that includes its songs and respective nuances – rather the DA should be truthful to itself and call on its roots that grow from an apartheid establishment.


For more information, send an e-mail to


How South Africa’s Economy Was Lost And Sold To The Highest Bidder

By Udo W. Froese: non-institutionalised, independent political- and socio-economic analyst and published columnist, based in Johannesburg, South Africa.

One of the center points at the Codesa negotiations focused on the new South Africa’s Ministry of Finance and the Reserve Bank. The incoming ANC-led government was conned out of the country’s finances from the onset.

The international West’s covert backers of apartheid South Africa and their lobbyists advised the ANC leadership during the Codesa negotiations, that South Africa is not ready for the cabinet position of the Minister of Finance. Nor is it ready to deliver the Governor of the Reserve Bank.

Why would those interests con the ANC team? Was it not to retain their own people in those positions? It also meant that the new, democratically elected ANC government would not be in charge of the government’s finances. The incoming ANC would certainly be disempowered.

Retired non-executive director of the South African Reserve Bank, Stephen Goodson, sums up the misleading advice the ANC received from so-called bank-experts, “Although the Freedom Charter of 26 June 1955 states that the banks and monopoly industry shall be transferred to the ownership of the people as a whole, this was obviously little more than rhetoric. The African National Congress was obliged to accept the existing financial paradigm, as they were unaware of any other alternative.”

Regarding the foreign Western and local apartheid interests in South and Southern Africa, Stephen Goodson had this to say, “Big business, led by Rothschild point men, Harry Oppenheimer and Anthony Rupert, provided the main impetus for installing a Black puppet government, as it would greatly enhance their markets both, locally and overseas and particularly, in Africa. One of the first acts of the ANC-led government was to reduce company taxation by a third and to permit large corporations to relocate their head offices and assets overseas.”

A case in point is the transfer of the diamond stockpile of DeBeers. During recalled, former president Thabo Mbeki’s reign and with the full assistance of the Mbeki government, DeBeers transferred its stockpile from South Africa to London. South Africa was left the poorer.

“The ANC was set up at Codesa. They thought the country was being handed over to them on a platter. But, they were in fact just being used by big corporate interests,” Goodson further explains.

All efforts were made to bully the ANC into submission. “There was a media perception that tribal violence was putting the ANC under pressure. But, the script had been planned years before by the ‘Council on Foreign Relations’ (CFR) and other similar organisations,” Goodson alleges, based on his research. The CFR is a Washington based think-tank and publisher.

In the years during the negotiations at Codesa, the violence in South Africa’s black living areas was viciously increased. The weekly newspaper, “Mail & Guardian (M&G)” described that urban warfare as “black-on-black violence”, quickly taken over as such by the entire media. Years later, apartheid super-spy Craig Williamson admitted at the “Truth and Reconciliation Commission (TRC)”, that the apartheid Military Intelligence (MI) and its covert operations, Civil Cooperation Bureau (CCB), had orchestrated the urban warfare between the ANC and Inkatha.

Was the deal negotiated at Codesa then a non-deal in bad faith? Goodson sums it up, “The non-deal has created a situation of economic enslavement, which will persist way beyond 2022.”

“The banks continue to exploit the masses through usury and excessive taxation. The local cartel is an important cog of the international banking cartel.”

South Africa’s finance ministry seems to refuse to protect the nation against foreign meddling in the country’s finances and economy. The ratings agencies and their hit men are ever present, although they have yet to make their main strike (led by Finance Minister Pravin Gordhan) with the West’s International Monetary Fund (IMF) and its “restructuring plan”. The ratings agencies continue to wield undue influence with their often recklessly irresponsible assessments.”

Just like his predecessor, Trevor Manuel and the former Reserve Bank Governor Tito Mboweni, the unqualified Finance Minister Pravin Gordhan seems to have feet of smoldering ashes, not even clay. Is the incumbent resting his feet in criminal activities? Why did South Africa’s media and Gordhan’s network of backers attack the investigators, the NPA, when it investigated his activities?

Why is it conveniently overlooked that under Gordhan the West’s IMF will enter South Africa to dictate its “restructuring plan”? How would that affect South Africa’s BRICS membership?

Political analyst, Tshepo Kgadima, refers below to the following analysis of the ‘Financial Intelligence Centre Bill’, which was first published in ‘The New Age’ on 6 July 2016.

“A draconian bank bill might soon be signed into law, which would be equal to financial tyranny. The lack of awareness and publicity, the absence of public debate around the Financial Intelligence Centre Amendment Bill (FICAB) allows Gordhan to execute what he does with impunity.”

The FICAB provision terms “Risk Management and Compliance Programme”, transfers power and authority to pass punitive sanction such as closing of a bank account and/or termination of services, from a transparent independent judicial process into the hands of what is defined as accountable institutions, i.e. banks, insurers, auditors, lawyers.

Once, FICAB has been signed into law, there will be no fair reasoning between the banks and the account holders. In other words, people will be judged without any fair hearing. The majority of the population will have hardly any further access to capital, loans and other bank services.

If South Africans would be informed and able to participate in the debate about the banking cartel’s plans, structures and strategies, they would realise the frightening speed, “banking and financial institutions have gone ahead to profile and take punitive sanction of terminating services and closing bank accounts of clients using the new FICAB provisions.”

This draconian legislation will transfer absolute power and authority to the banking institutions, closing accounts of clients without transparent legal due process and recourse.

The above-mentioned is a form of financial anti-democratic destabilisation. In fact, FICAB would further lead to capital flight, attacks on the value of the Rand and massive bankruptcies.

Analysts and economists such as Tshepo Kgadima condemn the new FICA law as “financial tyranny and assault on the civil liberties, as enshrined in Chapter two of the Bill of Rights of the Constitution.”

It is hoped that President Zuma has been informed about the new FICAB bill and the suffering that FICAB would cause the majority of the population. It would be equal to rule of fear and terrorising the nation. Hopefully, President Zuma will not sign that draconian Amendment Bill into Law.

As a democratically elected head-of-state and commander-in-chief of the armed forces, it is President Zuma’s implicit duty to protect the nation. Local and foreign interests with their hidden agendas should not be able to dictate financial and economic policies.

In all fairness, it is important that the NPA investigates Gordhan and charges him. If the late, former President Nelson Mandela and the incumbent, President Jacob Zuma had their days in court, why should Gordhan not be tried? Is he above the law? The contrary is the case. He should be given the same space to defend, or hang himself. Is Gordhan immune to any investigations?

There are tens of thousands of highly qualified indigenous Black South Africans, who would be fit for Gordhan’s job. They are advocates, engineers, chartered accountants and scientists. What is Gordhan’s financial background? Who makes up his lobby group, guiding and protecting him? On whose authority is appointed Gordhan acting with impunity?

Why does it seem impossible for the ANC-led government to appoint a qualified finance minister outside the corporate banking cartel and its lobby groups, who understands the world of finance?

A solution could be to appoint a focused and respected financial guru, who would stay away from the West’s Bretton Woods Institutions. South Africa is a member of BRICS. The new minister of finance has to work with BRICS. A new finance minister would have to assist to decolonize South Africa and the SADC.


Twitter handle: @theotherafrika

Has Washington Declared A Food War On BRICS Member, South Africa, Through Its AGOA?


President Barak Obama, as head-of-state and commander-in-chief of the armed forces of the United States of America and his team for the “African Growth And Opportunity Act (AGOA)”, gave sovereign South Africa until the 15th of this month of March 2016, to comply with Washington’s export of poultry as well as other meats.


In the meantime, the first batch of 325 tonnes of American brown chicken pieces has already hit South Africa’s supermarkets!


If South Africa would not abide by the AGOA-dictate of the White House, the country would be suspended from duty-free treatment to all AGOA eligible goods in the agricultural sector, meaning, South Africa would not be able to trade on the American market.


The obvious question is, why would a US president get involved in a project to export chickens to South Africa with a total weight of 65 000 tonnes annually?


It is BRICS, the new economic order of Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa. Observing the obvious, it is Washington’s arm-twisting foreign politics. AGOA is their law.


The White House’s discontent with South Africa’s move closer to China and Russia through its BRICS membership, as well as South Africa’s plan to cap foreign ownership in the security companies from mainly the US and the UK, are the real thorns in Obama and Cameron’s side.


The Chief Executive Officer of South Africa’s Poultry Association (SAPA), Kevin Lovell, explained that there was a clash between Washington and South Africa since the AGOA status came up for review at the beginning of this year 2016.


Lovell warned that building whole industries on AGOA would be dangerous, because it is a concession and not a trade agreement. South Africa’s industries are aware that the concession could be taken away from them at any time.




From the onset the White House threatened that South Africa would loose its benefits, if it did not remove its anti-dumping duties on US poultry imports.


South Africa’s trade delegation consulted with the World Trade Organisation (WTO) on fair legal trade structures, which would have made America’s chicken imports more expensive. Washington’s “negotiating” team knew that it was not allowed to dump its brown poultry pieces for much longer.


When US-AGOA came up for renewal in 2014, brown poultry pieces became one of the strong negotiation tools. In addition, Washington’s trade team would invest in the development of new, indigenous black African entrants in the poultry industry. What they forgot to mention is, there are no indigenous black Africans who own a poultry-import business. It is the existing meat importers, who benefit.


America’s cost-recovery is from the white poultry meat, not the brown on the bone. When Washington exported its chickens to Ghana, prices were fixed so low that Ghana’s poultry industry collapsed and never recovered since. However, the prices for the imported chicken pieces from America escalated then.


Meanwhile, there was an outbreak of two types of poultry diseases in America, namely Avian Influenza and Salmonella. The outbreak of Avian Influenza hit America’s poultry industry in 2014 as well as in 2015.


Standard procedure is, that trade would be suspended and all exports halted when there is an outbreak of such diseases. Before trading of poultry would be resumed, the diseases would have to be proven to be cleaned out and destroyed completely.


The International Organisation for Animal Health (OIE) has strict guidelines when a country, any country, can be declared free from disease. This has to be followed by a period of three months after cleaning and disinfecting to the last of infected farms and before exporting.




Capitol Hill tried to force South Africa during the active outbreak of the Avian Influenza to accept a “regionalization protocol”. It means, Washington tried to dictate to South Africa to accept the different US states as “regions” and accept their chickens. Those “regions” would not be affected by an outbreak of Avian Influenza. It also means, that South Africa should accept the poultry from those states/”regions”.


However, geographic states being declared “regions” is not good enough. A sovereign South Africa considers whole countries in its trade relations, not parts of them.


In fact, the latest outbreak of Avian Influenza in America’s poultry-production industry spread so fast from one state to the next that it spun out of control.


Washington had its own way out again. A method called “compartmentalization” was brought to the negotiation table. “Compartments” were negotiated during peace times. Countries would agree to accept “compartments” to enable movement of breeding stock. South Africa agreed with AVIAGEN to work with their operations as a “compartment”. It is claimed that “compartments” are better for the control of diseases such as Avian Influenza, which is spread by wild birds. “Compartments” are under a central control system from beginning to end. It should mean that therefore, health risks are minimal.


But, regions have many different operations, which are not linked with one another and do not fall under the same management.


When Washington insisted on South Africa to accept their regions, South Africa’s Veterinary Services requested more information to evaluate the risks, as crucial information seemed to have been withheld i.e. the American poultry producers declared themselves free from Avian Influenza H5N8. Meanwhile, American poultry producers had an additional outbreak of H5N2, but did not declare it to the OIE. As American poultry producers declared themselves free from H5N8, there existed infected backyard flocks being cleaned up.


In January 2016 a new outbreak of Avian Influenza was reported in America. Under normal circumstances it would have resulted in the complete suspension of agricultural trade in general. But, it is not the case. If that batch lands in South Africa, this country’s national poultry industry would be put under severe health risk, as Avian Influenza would spread to the local poultry industry.


Another major health risk also seems to raise its evil head, SALMONELLA ENTERITIDIS. This avian disease will affect and kill humans in South Africa and the SADC region.


South Africa has a protocol for monitoring all imported meat and meat products for SALMONELLA. Sampling and testing of shipments at the country’s ports of entry apply to everyone.


Washington however, wants its products to be tested only for monitoring, but not for typing to establish what type of SALMONELLA it might be.


This writer was told that Washington rejected any form of typing and subjection to heat treatment of its poultry exports. South Africa was not given the option to reject landed, SALMONELLA infected poultry. And, South Africa cannot return shipments despite proof of disease.


The above-mentioned sanitary problems entered the negotiations at a later stage. South Africa’s poultry industry was involved during the negotiations of the annual tonnage, but not in the sanitary discussions.




The South African authorities and their affiliated structures accepted and signed Washington’s “regionalization protocol”, despite the above-mentioned discrepancies. South Africa’s Veterinary Association tried to clear matters up. However, it was unsuccessful. AGOA was signed.




By yielding to Washington’s AGOA dictate, South Africa opened itself up to abolish the basis of working trade laws. Cases upon cases will come up to enforce the abuse of South Africa’s trade laws, as it cannot discriminate between trading partners. What’s good for the goose is good for the gander.


Referring to AGOA, the South African Poultry Association’s CEO, Kevin Lovell explained to members of the media, “We knew it would hurt our industry, but realised that we had to come to an agreement for the greater good of South Africa.”


Is South Africa’s trade minister, Rob Davies, actually aware of the above-mentioned implications, as AGOA goes ahead?


Meanwhile, the AGOA status remains under threat, despite the signed agreement in place. Is this not a food war against BRICS member, South Africa? It is insane.


South Africa’s civil society needs to take immediate action, alerting consumers nationwide of possibly contaminated poultry imports. AGOA is a shocking, one-sided deal.


Zimbabwe’s Impatient Struggle For President Is Without Virtue

Things are not all, as they seem in Zimbabwe today. As everywhere else in the world, five minutes in politics is long, so too it seems in Zimbabwe.


An ambitious and impatient rush to take over State House seems to have been ignited after President Robert Mugabe’s visit to Beijing. Informed sources reported that China’s President Xi Jinping tried to establish from his Zimbabwean counterpart, who his successor would be.


According to reliable sources in Harare, it seemed that the Chinese head-of-state could not accept a West-leaning successor in Zimbabwe. That means that a pro-West First Vice President to the incumbent could alienate Zimbabwe from China at a critical time, when Zimbabwe needs serious foreign capital injections. It seemed then that the longevity of the pro-Western First Vice President had come to an end.


But, the music was not over until the fat lady had sung. A senior ZANU-PF member pointed out to this writer under the condition of anonymity, “A new obstacle was set up. It is the “Generation 40”, or “G40”. Senior ZANU-PF stalwart Prof. Jonathan Moyo coined that term. Moyo argued, neither government, nor the ruling party, ZANU-PF, can continue with the principle that only those, who went to war for Zimbabwe’s independence from colonial occupation will rule.”


To expect that only those, who went to war for the freedom of Zimbabwe, are the ones to be considered for the presidency is undemocratic.


Today, the numbers of Zimbabwe’s majority are eighteen and above and thus, could not have gone to war. They are too young. The war ended in 1979/80, some 35 years ago. Point is, for someone to say that only war veterans should be able to participate to rule Zimbabwe, will set Zimbabwe back by thirty years and would therefore, be anti-Zimbabwe.


In other words, the current noisemakers in Zimbabwe should contest in the forthcoming elections. It is simple, if people are disgruntled, they can correct it at the ballot box.


“It was when First Vice President Emerson Mnangagwa and his faction in ZANU-PF believed that the road to State House had finally been cleared, Professor Jonathan Moyo, Minister of Higher Education; Saviour Kasukuwere, Minister of Local Government and President Mugabe’s nephew, Patrick Zhuwawo, Minister of Empowerment, teamed up against this new group.”


One local observer in Harare explained, “There is a certain reasoning among senior ZANU-PF leaders and politburo members that Jonathan Moyo cannot be trusted, as he could destroy ZANU-PF from within. It could be viewed as a response to the Gukurahundi bush war of the early 1980s.”


An additional point was raised, “Professor Moyo was fired from cabinet and the ruling party in 2004, because he led a faction then, propping up Emerson Mnangagwa for the presidency. Moyo was not happy that Mnangagwa did not defend him, when he was booted out of the ruling party.”


Professor Moyo’s anti-Mugabe move at Tsholotso is public knowledge and is of the past. Not everyone in ZANU-PF is an angel. But, it is in the past and the past is no secret.


Meanwhile, a notion that the First Vice President and acting Minister of Justice, Emerson Mnangagwa, fronts for foreign British interests seems new. Why would Mnangagwa announce, he has protected white farmers against land-indigenization?


Would there be any influence from outside? It was mentioned, it would indeed be difficult to run with Joyce Mujuru, as she needs a lot of weight in her newly formed political party to be able to make an impact. There is no love lost between Mujuru and Mnangagwa. In her own words to ‘The Standard’, “I have no advice that I would give him.”


Interesting analytical scenarios have come out since last Saturday, February 13, 2016, after First Lady Grace Mugabe’s exposure of Emerson Mnangagwa. According to those scenarios, the President has chosen his successor – Emerson Mnangagwa. Those working against Mnangagwa allegedly are however, not aware of it. On the other hand, it is believed that the G40 have now gained the upper hand with the support of the First Lady, Grace Mugabe and ultimately, with that of the president.


It is confidently expressed, “Once the aforementioned has been solved and settled, there will be no room for further factionalism.”


Observing the unfolding of the public spats, it seems that all the aforementioned are shadow boxing, as one of the respected elder politicians observed, “Those we see are not the protagonists. They are fighting for someone else.”


To talk about a so-called regime change, is absurd. If one can confidently state that the First Lady is attacking President Mugabe, than that would be a “regime change”. However, she lives in the same residence and travels in the same car with the president. Grace Mugabe talks to her husband, hears and sees what he needs and wants. They are not quarrelling. How could anyone claim this public fight between Mnangagwa and the G40 is a “regime change”?”


In other words, it could be someone else, but the president’s wife. If there is a conspiracy for a coup, it too is not a “regime change”. This is nonsensical. If there is a serious fight between the G40 and Mnangagwa’s group, a “regime change” could make sense. But to say, a “regime change” means that there is only one group fighting for it is nonsensical. The G40 is in power and therefore, no part of any “regime change”.


As the old guard has done its bid on literally all levels – including in education, indigenization, gender politics, equal rights – the most important question is now, who is the best person to lead Zimbabwe into the future to enhance the requirements of their country? The answer should include the person who would lead Zimbabwe into the future. The argument of who leads whichever faction is indeed immaterial.



My twitter handle: @theotherafrika


South Africa’s Private Business Sector Unpatriotically Undermines State Sovereignty

If South Africa’s hostile private business sector indeed supports the political opposition for its own benefits, it clearly undermines democracy. If it lobbies and compromises influential politicians and senior government officials in return “assisting to draft policies that work against people and country, to the advantage of the multinational corporates, such destructive strategy actually structures poverty for particularly the indigenous African majority and destroys the middle class.”

The fuel industry is a case in point of how lobbyists function to the disadvantage of the electorate. An economist from within the fuel industry points out, “South Africa’s oil refineries are in dire need to be refurbished to produce cleaner fuels. But the oil companies do not plan to pay for it. Their exemption from the Competition Commission comes to an end in December 2015. The owners of the oil companies however, would want to extend their exemption for another ten years.”

Meanwhile, the liquid fuel industry closed its doors on the BBBEE structure and will not adhere to indigenous African South African programmes of integration. This means, that radical economic transformation will not be able to take place. Economic growth under an ANC-led government would be destroyed and the ANC would be blamed again.

“Lobbyists focus their destructive manipulations on the ministry of trade and industry (dti), as well as the respective parliamentary committee to place their draft in parliament during the quiet season at the end of 2015. This is how the oil companies will receive their extension for another ten years”, the fuel expert explained.

The department of trade and industry would then grant the aforementioned exemption.

Hostile international corporates do not produce wealth, but structured poverty. In that context, the corporate sector demonstrates its blatant disrespect for South Africa’s sovereignty. This they do with impunity to protect their wealth.

The above-mentioned evil is a crime against humanity, just as the UNO declared apartheid a crime against humanity. It is a strategy derived from colonial-apartheid oppression. The same ‘architects-of-apartheid’ structured poverty for the masses. It leaves them voiceless and creates more poverty and death. In fact, wealth concentration among the rich accelerated since the great depression. This is also known as “finance capitalism”, not “industrial capitalism”. Financial pressures from all angles on the system are huge.

In pre-election South Africa and with the able assistance of the ratings agencies, Standard & Poor (S&P), Moody’s and Fricke and the manipulation of world currencies such as the US Dollar, the Rand currency is still falling. At the end of 2015 as currency prices fluctuate on a daily basis, the Rand stands already at ZAR14.13 per US$1.

It is important for all to know and understand – to engineer the collapse of South Africa’s currency and economy is an act of high treason. This writer has been told, “A highly specialised group of concerned citizens will assist South Africa’s authorities and certain financial institutions to investigate those corporate structures, which seem to connive bringing down the economy. It needs to be seen to be corrected.”

A respected senior ANC NEC and NWC member explained under the condition of anonymity, “The target is to undermine and force the ANC to recall president Jacob Zuma, embarrass and close the ANC’s business arm, Chancellor House, to ensure that funding for future elections will be ceased.”

According to the enemies’ covert strategies, “Starving the ANC of sponsorship would inevitably lead to the ANC losing the Gauteng Province in the next elections in 2016.”

If the allegation were indeed correct that an amount of ZAR1billion has been made available to the political opposition, mainly the DA, it would mean that the business community directly meddles with South Africa’s political power balances.

The above-mentioned source asked, “Has the DA committed itself to the big corporates to win the Gauteng Province at the next elections in 2016? If this is correct and if the ANC wins the Gauteng Province in the next elections, how would the ZAR1billion affect the Johannesburg Stock Exchange (JSE)?”

“What is the role of the “Mayfair Group” in London and its links with certain senior members of South Africa’s political landscape”, has been queried too. “A certain Nathan Kirsch is alleged to be a member of the aforementioned group. Are Zimbabwe’s John Bredenkamp, the DA’s Helen Zille and recalled Thabo Mbeki also members of that “Mayfair Group” in London,” suspicious senior ANC members demand to know.

South Africa’s private business sector has proven throughout that it plays crude power politics to its own advantage only and to the disadvantage of the electorate. Only a strong and determined hand will be able to rescue the country from marginalization of the masses, further mass-plunder of its resources and serious national destabilisation efforts.

The South African Youth Congress (SAYCO)’s Slogan Was “Freedom Or Death – Victory Is Certain”

South Africa’s ruling African National Congress has a history of resisting oppressive education. When the racist-apartheid National Party government introduced the notorious Bantu Education Act in the 1950s, the resistance against it was well documented.

The South African Students’ Organisation (SASO) at the country’s universities led by Steve Biko protested against oppressive education. This too was well reported.

The strongest of them all was the South African Youth Congress (SAYCO), an affiliate of the United Democratic Front (UDF). SAYCO was referred to as the “cutting edge of the UDF.” Over half of its affiliated membership was drawn from SAYCO. It was founded in Cape Town and brazenly resisted the Bantu education system with its slogan, “Freedom or Death – Victory is certain”.

The Soweto Students’ Representative Council (SSRC) led Soweto’s 1976 class action under its vice president, Tsitsi Mashinini. The potential support basis seemed well over two million members. Together they were integrated into the ANC Youth League in 1990. All of South Africa’s affiliated youth movements accepted the Freedom Charter.

In a nutshell, the above-mentioned reflects South Africa’s rich student politics. Given this historic background, why would the ruling ANC and the Tri-Partite Alliance not learn from its own history? What actually happened to the Freedom Charter’s chapter on education, which had the basis of engaging the principles for the youth all well laid out? It is an established guide for the historic movement.

There would be no need for South Africa’s government to build an educational system that does not seem to be able to deliver good education for all. Yet, the necessary knowledge and skills seem to have no room in the current system.

South Africa’s educational programme should not be consulted with Australia, when it has one of the world’s best educational systems right next door, in Zimbabwe. Had president Robert Mugabe not put an educational system in place for the whole nation to benefit from the onset, it would not have survived the illegal and vicious British/US imposed punishing economic sanctions.

Another example of educational success is Germany’s outcome-based educational structures. Those assisted the country’s economic and financial growth. Germany became the fourth largest economy in the world.

South Africa’s authorities would do well by establishing a national debate on education to build an agenda for all to benefit from.

Is South Africa still suffering from the colonial-apartheid destabilisation? Immediately after the 1976 Soweto Youth uprisings, the apartheid security forces particularly targeted the youth without any history in the organisations, paid them off and used them to unsettle the movement. Special security branches organised junior members of the UDF against their leaders, trying to infiltrate them. It was called then the “kabala formation”, which eventually took over many parts of the UDF. This is how spies and sell-outs undermined the revolutionary movements. It served the security forces, as elements could infiltrate marches to disorganize and eventually disintegrate them.

Then came the “talks about talks”, with a negotiated settlement outcome that led to the 1994 elections. Whatever the negotiating parties’ leadership agreed on that led to the 1994 elections, could not address the national problems of the millions of South Africans.

Is it possible to bring about necessary changes that will meet the demands of the majority?

The recent student protests and the foregoing union strikes had been planned long ago to undermine the ANC’s revolution. Those plans were not made in good faith. The foreign influence of the West was covertly infiltrated to destroy the ruling ANC from within, assisted by certain of its leaders.

It eventually took over the real revolution, undermining and discrediting the ANC. Money and greed for more of it, stunted growth and commitment to the revolution, as money played an ever growing part and no space to defend the revolution any longer.

Well-funded and networked think tanks planned almost all scenarios in advance.

Meanwhile, the noble Freedom Charter is clear and on record. It covers everything. The respected Freedom Charter states; “Education shall be free, compulsory, universal and equal for all children”.

However, it seems that recalled Thabo Mbeki’s ‘GEAR’ and the subsequent ‘National Development Plan (NDP)’ replaced the Freedom Charter.

Foreign lobbies and their cunning ways to mislead and compromise played an increased role unsettling the ANC. People now do things that are not in line with their own revolution.

The recent national student revolt has a positive side to it too. The different political parties could identify youth leaders and possibly recruit them. Civil disobedience is important and needed to test society. The student revolt for a 0% increase of student fees for 2016 should not be escalated to anarchy.

Student fees remain the same as in 2015. The universities remain private, profit driven institutions. Unpopular vice chancellors will retain their jobs and students still buckle under huge debt, also known as “black debt”. There is no change to also bring those fees down. In fact, nothing has much changed. The status quo remains. For the time being students celebrate the small change they were able to make from their latest protest. It too is part of scenario planning.

This student revolt went relatively peaceful, despite infiltration by a number of agents’ provocateurs to turn it into a violent demonstration. The aim remains – to undermine government and the ruling party.

Since the Marikana uprising in South Africa’s platinum belt, there is no rest in their attempts to force an “Arab Spring”, followed by a so-called “regime change” to turn South Africa’s economy into a dustbowl. South Africa’s ZAR currency value would collapse and possibly spiral to ZAR25 per US$1.

Time has run out and charge has to be taken to avoid above-mentioned destabilisation scenario.