Why Zuma's ‘African way’ is at odds with the African Union's vision

Joleen Steyn Kotze, Nelson Mandela Metropolitan University
South Africans are mobilising against what they see as an inherently corrupt president. The international community has also joined in the clarion call for his resignation.
Corruption, state capture, and scandal lie at the core of demands for President Jacob Zuma to go. The dominant narrative is that he has acted in only his self-interest with little regard for the country.
Yet Zuma survived another impeachment motion in parliament with full support from the governing African National Congress, the party he leads.
In the midst of the mounting pressure, Zuma has urged that African problems be dealt with “in an African way”. He told supporters:

I’ll be very happy that we solve the African problems in the African way because if we solve them only legally they become too complicated. Law looks at one side only, they don’t look at any other thing … They [the courts] deal with cold facts and I was complaining [about] that, but they’re dealing with warm bodies. That’s the contradiction.

But, what exactly is the African way?
A cursory glance at the African Union’s Agenda 2063 shows the importance of institutions underpinned by principles of accountability and good governance. This entails transformed institutions and a new way of governance, accountable to the people.
Indeed, the African Union stresses that:

we recognise that a prosperous, integrated, an united Africa, based on good governance, democracy, social inclusion, respect for human rights, justice, and the rule of law are the necessary pre-conditions for a peaceful and conflict-free continent.

This recognition stems from having “learned from our past”. As a result there is a pledge to “take into account the lessons” as Africa embarks on Agenda 2063.

Africa’s seven aspirations

By signing up to Agenda 2063, African countries – including South Africa – commit to advancing socio-political and socio-economic transformation. The agenda captures seven aspirations of the African people:

• A prosperous Africa based on inclusive growth and sustainable development;
• An integrated continent, politically united. It should be based on the ideals of the Pan-Africanism and the vision of the African Renaissance;
• An Africa of good governance, democracy, respect for human rights, justice, and the rule of law;
• A peaceful and secure Africa;
• An Africa with a strong cultural identity, common heritage, values and ethics;
• An Africa where development is people-driven, unleashing the potential of the its women and youth; and
• Africa as a strong, united and influential global player and partner.

Civil society demanding accountability

As civic pressure mounts for him to resign, Zuma’s stance of dealing with African problems in an African way cements notions that constitutional principles of good governance and accountability don’t always apply to African presidents. Or, if they do apply, they only do so in certain instances.
Growing civic mobilisation against Zuma demonstrates the opposite. It shows that Africans will move to hold leaders accountable when they act improperly or undermine their constitutional obligations.
There have been numerous instances of this happening across the continent. We have seen large scale mobilisation of young Africans against presidents-for-life, corruption and stalled development.
The Black Monday Movement mourns the loss of billions through corruption in Uganda. Using rhythm and rhyme Senegal’s hip hop movement, in concert with political parties and other social movements, successfully blocked a presidential third term. They mobilised people when former president Abdoulaye Wade lost touch with Senegalese aspirations.

Undermining South Africa’s leadership

Agenda 2063 commits African leaders to pursue a people-centred and transformational leadership. It demands that leaders be held accountable for failure to abide by constitutional limitations on power or for corrupt activities. It recognises that leaders who act with impunity when breaking the law become a liability to the continent’s aspirations.
If the ANC ignores the calls for Zuma’s resignation it may undermine South Africa’s leadership on the continent. It creates the idea that, if South Africa’s president can undermine the constitution with impunity, accountability and good governance may be ignored for personal political goals.
It raises questions on what basis South Africa will be able to condemn similar behaviour of other African countries. More importantly, it limits South Africa’s moral capital to advance the vision of Agenda 2063.


Joleen Steyn Kotze, Associate Professor of Political Science, Nelson Mandela Metropolitan University
This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article.

South Africa: I didn't break the Constitution Intentionally - Zuma

An earlier government report described this addition to President Zuma's house as a "fire pool" for firefighting purposes. But the Constitutional Court called it what it looks like - a swimming pool (built at government expense),

Fellow South Africans,

I address you during an important year when our country celebrates 20 years since President Nelson Mandela signed the Constitution of the Republic into law in Sharpeville, which took place on the 10th of December 1996.

Our Constitution commits us, individually and collectively, to build a nation based on the democratic values of human dignity, equality and freedom, through constitutionalism and the rule of law.

We have well-established institutions that support democracy and which protect the rights of our citizens.

These include the Chapter 9 institutions, the Office of the Public Protector, the South African Human Rights Commission, the Office of the Auditor-General, the Commission for the Promotion and Protection of the Rights of Cultural, Religious and Linguistic Communities and the Commission for Gender Equality.

Our Constitution also establishes a democratic parliament. I respect the role of parliament to hold the Executive to account as true representatives of our people, representing, as it does different voices, views and constituencies.

Guided by the Constitution, we have an independent judiciary which is a trusted final arbiter in disputes in society.

Yesterday, the Constitutional Court of the Republic, playing this crucial role, issued a judgement on the matter of security upgrades at my private residence in Nkandla.

I welcome the judgement of the Constitutional Court unreservedly.

The judgement has underscored the values that underpin our hard- won freedom and democracy, such as the rule of law and the accountability of public office bearers, while also respecting the rights of public office bearers facing scrutiny.

The judgement has further strengthened our constitutional democracy and should make South Africans proud of their country's Constitution and its strong and effective institutions.

This is a ground-breaking judgement with regards to the powers of the Public Protector.

I wish to thank the Court for providing clarity which will have a positive impact on other Chapter 9 institutions as well with regards to their work.

The Constitutional Court has ruled that the remedial actions of the Public Protector are binding, and that anyone wishing to challenge the remedial action can only do so through a review by a court of law.

The Court has also ruled that the remedial actions with regards to six features of the Nkandla project must be carried out.

This entails the National Treasury establishing a reasonable proportion of the reasonable costs of each item to be paid by the President.

I respect the judgement and will abide by it.

I have consistently stated that I would pay an amount towards the Nkandla non-security upgrades once this had been determined by the correct authority. The Court has ruled on the matter and has devised a mechanism for such determination by the National Treasury.

As alluded to by the court, we participated in the resolution of this matter voluntarily, through the proposal we made before the matter was heard by the court.

We also consulted with other parties to the dispute as directed by the court. In the proposal I stated my willingness to pay and to abide by other measures.

I would like to emphasise that it was never my intention not to comply with the remedial action taken against me by the Public Protector or to disrespect her office.

It is for this reason that on receiving the report, I submitted it and my initial response to it to the National Assembly within 14 days as required by the Public Protector.

The Court has welcomed this compliance and stated in the judgment that I also followed up with another response five months later.

I then allowed another arm of the state, the National Assembly, to go through its own processes in dealing with the report.

I welcome the finding of the court that it was legally permissible for me to inquire into the correctness of the aspects of the report that I may disagree with.

I also welcome the clarity provided by the Constitutional Court that I should have then taken the matter on review by a court of law in the event of any queries or disagreement.

This interpretation will be followed by the Executive in the future in light of this judgement. It puts an end to any other interpretations of this matter.

I also respect the finding that failure to comply with the remedial action taken against me by the Public Protector is inconsistent with the Constitution of the Republic.

I wish to emphasise that I never knowingly or deliberately set out to violate the Constitution, which is the supreme law of the Republic.

The finding by the court that my failure to comply with the remedial action taken against me by the Public Protector is inconsistent with the Constitution and therefore invalid, flows from the fact that I initially followed a different approach.

While correct in law at the time, the approach was subsequently demonstrated to be contrary to the Constitution as stated by the Constitutional Court yesterday.

I had earlier adopted a different approach based on the judgment of the Western Cape High Court.

This ruling was subsequently overturned on appeal, and I immediately set out to abide by the ruling of the Supreme Court on this matter.

I wish to confirm in line with the findings of both the court and the Public Protector, that I did not act dishonestly or with any personal knowledge of the irregularities by the Department of Public Works with regards to the Nkandla project.

The intention was not in pursuit of corrupt ends or to use state resources to unduly benefit me and my family. Hence I have agreed to pay for the identified items once a determination is made.

The judgement has been very helpful.

There are lessons to be learned for all of us in government which augur well for governance in the future.

The Nkandla project brought sharply into focus, the problems within the government supply chain mechanisms.

The gross inflation of prices in the Nkandla project is totally unacceptable and should never have been allowed, hence government is improving procurement measures to prevent any future recurrence.

The Office of the Chief Procurement Officer has been established at the National Treasury for this purpose of ensuring that strict supply chain procedures are followed by government departments.

Government also took a conscious decision to clean up the Department of Public Works to ensure that the flouting of supply chain procedures is eradicated and prevented.

South Africa: Zuma Must Do Honourable Thing and Step Down - Methodist Church

The Methodist Church of SA said on Thursday that if President Jacob Zuma did not resign, they would put pressure on the ruling party and the government to get him to do so.

The church, in a statement, was reacting to a unanimous Constitutional Court ruling earlier in the day which found that Zuma had acted inconsistently with the Constitution when he failed to comply with the Public Protector's remedial action on the upgrades to his Nkandla homestead.

Zuma had to personally pay back the money for some of the upgrades, following a determination by the National Treasury.

The Constitutional Court also found that the National Assembly acted incorrectly when it set aside Public Protector Thuli Madonsela's report.

The church called for Zuma to resign to avoid any further embarrassment.

"These events call for President Zuma to do the honourable thing and resign to save himself, the ANC and the nation as a whole from further embarrassment and ruin," it said.

"This will go a long way in assisting his supporters to accept his exit, without the polarisation of society.

"If this does not happen, we the people of South Africa must put pressure on the ANC and Parliament to 'assist' the President to vacate office peacefully and constitutionally."

The church said Zuma's term of office had been marred by too many unresolved claims and scandals, which included the Nkandla matter, the 1999 multi-billion-rand arms procurement deal, as well as his relationship with the controversial Gupta family.

The church also called on South Africans to unite and protect the country's democracy for future generations.

It expressed the hope that Parliament would in future act in a manner that demonstrated that it put the interests of the country first, rather than blindly protecting an individual.

Source: News24

SA: Zuma to be physically stopped At The Parliament

Economic Freedom Fighters leader Julius Malema says President Jacob Zuma failed to defend the Constitution and should be recalled.

"He failed to uphold and defend the Constitution and that on its own is reason enough for the president to step down," Malema told reporters in Johannesburg on Thursday.

"It is his primary duty to uphold, defend and respect the Constitution. There is no special treatment for the president here. Not by Parliament, not by the ANC, and not by anyone. When you are assigned a responsibility to defend the Constitution and you fail, that is the end of it," he said.

Malema was reacting to the Constitutional Court judgment that ordered that the resolution passed by the National Assembly - absolving Zuma from compliance with Public Protector Thuli Madonsela's remedial action - was invalid and should be set aside.

Handing down the judgment, Chief Justice Mogoeng Mogoeng said only a court of law could set aside the Public Protector's findings.

In her Secure in Comfort report, released in March 2014, Madonsela found that Zuma had unduly benefited from some of the upgrades. She recommended that he repay a reasonable portion of the R246m spent on the upgrades, and that the ministers involved in the project be reprimanded.

'Mutually destructive'

Mogoeng found that Madonsela's report, and the one by Police Minister Nathi Nhleko absolving Zuma of liability, were "mutually destructive".

"The judiciary should have been approached to ask for the Public Protector's findings to be set aside. Only then could the president have disregarded the Public Protector's report and remedial action," Mogoeng said.

Malema said some people would argue that Zuma used the Western Cape judgment, but he said Zuma had refused to pay long before the Western Cape judgment was handed down.

"Wrong legal advice and not knowing the law cannot be an excuse for not implementing your constitutional obligation. We call upon the ANC to do the right thing and recall the president and failure to do that, we will go to Parliament and call for the impeachment of the president," said Malema.

He said until Zuma was recalled, they would not allow him to speak in the National Assembly. He said they would physically make it impossible for him to speak.

Today we are vindicated

"In between now and the impeachment, the president will not speak in Parliament and we will stop him physically. We will push him because President Zuma is no longer the president of the Republic of South Africa.

"That constitutional court judgment has got serious implications on Zuma's holding on to that office. We are not going to sit back and allow the continuation of the violation by Parliament to continue," added Malema.

Malema said this was not the first time that the National Assembly had acted unconstitutionally, referring to a previous incident where security removed MPs from the House.

"We have a Parliament that is permanently violating the Constitution, and by allowing Zuma to come and stand on that podium after having been found guilty of violating the constitution, it will be the continuation of the violation of the constitution."

The firebrand leader was adamant that Zuma's "journey ends here" and that if anyone continued to support him they would be questioning the integrity and standing of the highest court in the land.

"Today we are vindicated."

Source: News24

Nigeria: How Nigeria Broke the Back of Apartheid

OPINIONby bisi lawrence

South Africa no longer surprises us. In the heat of the on-going attempt at ripping us off massively, Jacob Zuma, the country's President blandly pays us a visit. He was once his country's representative here. So what else is new? His predecessor in office also preceded him here. It was not entirely coincidental, because Nigeria was one of their closest allies against apartheid when the policy of "apartness" barred the black people from the inalienable rights of humanity--freedom as a human being, and equality as citizens of the same country.

The struggle was fierce and furious with the deprivation of liberty leading to the loss of many lives. Nigeria, having hardly earned her freedom from the same odious stock, totally committed herself to the fray, boldly and relentlessly. This was acknowledged by the African National Congress, ANC, discounting the physical distance between the two countries, to name Nigeria as one of the "front-line states".

We proved to be more than that in name only. While many nations recognized "apartheid" as the monster that it was, most of them only said so by word of mouth. We put our money where our mouth was. This was exemplified in the instance of the oil sanction and the ban on gun sales which the so-called "world bodies" imposed on the apartheid government, and which the members broke at will. Nothing else seemed available to bring the exponents of "separateness" to heel. One thing remained: sports.

South Africa had always been eager to fit in squarely into the comity of nations as a full-fledged nation, since her independence from Britain in 1948. One of the steps adopted for the ascent was sports. It had become a nation to be reckoned with in cricket, tennis, rugby and swimming in the international arena. This Achilles heel was somehow discovered by the Nigeria Olympic Committee, under the chairmanship of Sir Adetokunboh Ademola, who played the card for all it was worth. Already, at that time, Africa could boast of staunch anti-apartheid members like Kenya, Liberia, Ghana, Sierra Leone and other African and West African countries within the fold of the Supreme Council for Sports in Africa. This was not just an international, but a "supranational' body whose word was law.

And so, that was how Nigeria, with the support of all the African nations took a decision to boycott all South African participation in sports. The decision went further: the Africans, by the same token, also foreswore to participate in any sports competition involving South Africa, or a country that was known to have sporting links with South Africa. To give this the necessary bite, it was first of all important to get South Africa expelled from the Olympic Games Committee. It all seemed a beautiful gesture, but no more than a gesture, all the same.

That was what most people thought until the beginning of the Munich Games in 1972 when Nigeria protested against the participation of South West Africa which later became known as Namibia. The South Africans, having been barred from the Olympic Games, simply filled the ranks of the South West African team with their athletes, but the Africans were not fooled. They simply offered a simple ultimatum: either the South West Africans left or the African nations would. After a prolonged meeting lasting barely hours before the opening of the Games, the South West Africans withdrew.

But a stiffer test lay ahead. This was at the Munich Games, and this time it involved New Zealand which kept sporting links with South Africa. A towering confrontation rose with the arrival of the New Zealanders in the village. They expected the opposition of the Africans but were ready to contain it. Another meeting ensued the following day. The Executive Secretary of the SCSA was A.A. "Anti-apartheid" Ordia of Nigeria.

Eventually, the Canadian government made a direct plea through him to General Olusegun Obasanjo, who was then the Head of State. Ordia chose to conduct the delivery of the request by a telephone with the attachment of a loudspeaker at an open-air press conference, attended by almost all the African sportswriters at the Games. "Anti-apartheid" Ordia lived up to his name. Without actually saying so, he let the Head of State know that it would always be in the minds of the other nations that African nations could not live up to their decisions. Obasanjo did not hesitate. "Come home at once," he ordered, while the Africans journalists and sportsmen cheered.

All African nations, except one, headed for home. The Montreal Games frightened several other nations apart from South Africa itself, because so many of them had sporting links with African nations through several competitions in a host of disciplines, and also at regional levels like the Commonwealth Games. Competing with South Africa would alienate them from the good graces of other nations, since it would also tend to identify them as supporters of apartheid. The issue was at the very root of the social well-being of the "apartheid" nation as a country.

And that, believe it if you please, led to the unravelling of apartheid. South Africa had to yield.

The master stroke was dealt by Nigeria. The sacrifice of the Montreal Boycott was, to Nigeria, rather severe. The Eagles earned the epithet of "Super" to their name during this period. They were winners and would have been the first generation of a dynasty that could have lasted till this day. They were so good, "Pa" Tiko, their excellent coach, sometimes had to warn them off scoring goals whenever the tally was becoming embarrassing--as it happened in their warm-up match against Canada, the host country, before they were sent home with the contingent. "Pa" Tiko had to bench Thompson Usiyen when he scored the fourth goal--against instructions. That team was so sharp they made it all look easy.

The trail of development was subsequently almost destroyed when South Africa later became embroiled in a diplomatic situation with Nigeria, just before the 1996 Africa Cup of Nations which South Africa was to host that year, and the Head of State, General Abacha simply ordered Nigeria to stay away from the event. The coach had never recovered from the disappointment of Montreal. "Pa" Tiko could not stay with the Eagles. Many of them, including Thompson, also soon faded off.

It was the same stroke of frustration that cast several of the athletes down after Montreal. Modupe Sokoya probably missed the Gold in the long jump, and the Silver in the pentathlon which she had spent two years of intensive training to re-capture from her feat at the Christchurch Commonwealth Games. That was the intervening period between the two Games at which she had reached her peak only to see all her efforts blown away in the wind.

Whatever the merits of the imbroglio with Nigeria could have been at that time, many of us felt that South Africa had approached the matter from a high ground of arrogance, and so we supported the decision of the government. What one felt at that time, and said out loud too, was that South Africa had proved to be ungrateful to Nigeria. I even suggested on this page that, instead of being so temperamental with Nigeria, they should have been busy building a monument to Abraham Ordia, who had fought valiantly against apartheid, or named a street in Pretoria for Modupe Sokoya whose magnificent career had fizzled out for her country's stand on behalf of South Africa's freedom.

Of course, the two countries have mended fences to the disadvantage of Nigeria. No surprise. The South Africans have openly defrauded us, and bullied us with insults. It was perhaps more tolerable in the days of the Mandela government or those of Thabo Mbeki, but this man, Jacob Zuma, whose public bridal dance with his fourth or fifth wife has been about the most noticeable achievement he has to his credit so far, simply does not make the honey flow.

He comes here straight from scraping through a vote of no confidence, after sacking two Finance Ministers in a matter of barely as many weeks, to "fix" the mess that a large commercial firm from his country has made. And so he would also "fix" the xenophobia that has his country in thrall, and also "fix" the harm that is daily inflicted on Nigerians in his country, just because they are Nigerians... .and what else besides? A two-day trip will not "fix" that.

Time out

How Mbeki's character and his AIDS denialism are intimately linked

Katherine Furman, London School of Economics and Political Science

Former South African president Thabo Mbeki’s character was a salient feature of his presidency. Accusations that he suffered from character flaws – such as being aloof and paranoid – were widespread at the time and have become part of the lore surrounding his time in office.
Some have gone as far as to argue that Mbeki would actively seek out critics to lash out against and humiliate. This is not all that is remembered about his character. He was also famously hard working as well as studious. And, some believe, he had the courage to stand his ground against the odds.
In a public letter campaign that kicked off at the beginning of 2016, Mbeki is disputing the negative labels attributed to him. He wants people to know that he is not aloof. Nor, he argues, was he a “paranoid” leader who was overly “sensitive to criticism”.
Some critics have responded by saying that Mbeki’s character is irrelevant. They argue that what really matters are the AIDS denialist policies he adopted during his presidency. These were based on his false belief that HIV does not cause AIDS – and they had tragic consequences.
But such criticisms miss the intimate connection between Mbeki’s character and his denialism. They also don’t take into account the impact that this connection has on assessing his moral responsibility.

Possible excuses

When people do things with harmful consequences we might take them to be initially morally responsible until they offer a plausible excuse for their action. If the babysitter feeds a peanut butter sandwich to a child who has a nut allergy, we might hold her morally responsible for the harmful consequences until she provides a convincing excuse for why she did it.
One good excuse is ignorance. Perhaps the babysitter did not know about the allergy. But ignorance only succeeds as an excuse if such ignorance is not itself blameworthy. The babysitter is not going to get off the hook morally if she was explicitly warned about the allergy but was distracted by something trivial at the time and ignored what she was told.
Similarly, given how severe the consequences of Mbeki’s action were, there’s an initial case available for holding him personally morally responsible for the consequences of his denialism.
Hypothetically, he might then offer an excuse for his action and ignorance might provide an excuse. He might argue that had he really known HIV causes AIDS he would have made treatment available. Mbeki has never made such an attempt, but let us imagine the possibility.
The problem is that it seems unlikely an excuse of ignorance would be very convincing in this case.

Scientists explicitly disagreed

The international scientific community made its disagreement with him explicit in the form of the Durban Declaration, a petition signed by more than 5000 scientists that endorsed the mainstream scientific view on HIV and AIDS.
It is clear that Mbeki should have taken the objections from scientists seriously, given that they are the experts. But part of what went wrong in the Mbeki case was that he was confused about who exactly the real scientific experts were. He believed that the denialist scientists he supported were an oppressed minority group who had been unfairly treated by the scientific community – a feeling that was all too familiar to him emerging from the struggle against apartheid.
We could concede, albeit grudgingly, that maybe Mbeki’s confusion was understandable under the circumstances. But even when presented with the Durban Declaration, Mbeki didn’t step back and re-examine his views. This is an astonishing response.
It is almost a matter of received wisdom that you should at least pay attention to what the experts have to say on a matter even if you decide to go a different way when looking at all the evidence. Instead Mbeki’s spokesman Parks Mankahlana said shortly after receiving the declaration that it would:

… find its comfortable place among the dustbins of the office.

So why was Mbeki so unshakeable in his beliefs?

Rejecting dissent

Within the disagreement literature in epistemology – the philosophical study of beliefs and knowledge – there is a position known as the “conciliationist view”. This argues that a person should revise their beliefs when encountering disagreement from their epistemic peers. An epistemic peer is anyone who has similar reasoning abilities to you and similar access to evidence.
The underlying idea here is that disagreement indicates one of you is wrong, and you cannot tell from the mere fact of disagreement which one of you that is.
If anyone would have counted as Mbeki’s epistemic peers, it would have been other members of the African National Congress. It is safe to assume that they had similar reasoning abilities to him and would have had access to similar evidence. What, then, was the state of disagreement with Mbeki from within the ANC? This is where it gets tricky.
There seems to have been very little explicit disagreement with Mbeki from within the party, even though some members did actually seem to disagree with him. By all accounts, this was because ANC members were afraid of him and it was understood that one had to toe the party line.
Ignoring disagreement from the international scientific community and creating a climate of fear speak exactly to the kind of character flaws that Mbeki is now trying to contest. They are also the kind of character flaws that prevented him from getting at the truth about HIV and AIDS and ultimately led to the tragedy of AIDS denialism in South Africa.
Mbeki ultimately relented and ARVs become available via the public health system in 2004, but this seems to have had more to do with legal intervention, rather than a change in Mbeki’s personal beliefs on the matter.
Mbeki has been notoriously unwilling to speak about the era of his AIDS denialism. Perhaps his letters, a clear attempt to redeem his character, are as close as we will get. Either way, his character is not irrelevant.


Katherine Furman, PhD Candidate in Philosophy, London School of Economics and Political Science
This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article.

Nigeria: Should Jacob Zuma Have Been Welcome?

OPINION

By Timawus Mathias

President Jacob Zuma just like Thabo Mbeki before him are familiar with Nigeria, particularly Lagos and Abuja. The two statesmen were their country's representatives in Nigeria in the early 70s when Nigeria led the world in the fight against apartheid and the eventual liberation of South Africa, with every citizen making a contribution in cash and kind. Yet Jacob Zuma's return to Nigeria this week is that of a colonial master, come to see the extent to which his country's expertise buoyed by the colonial experience has held a firm choking hold on the Nigerian economy.

From Banking to Oil and Gas, media, entertainment, tele-communications, aviation, tourism, fast foods, property, retail and to the arts, over 120 South African companies thrive in businesses in Nigeria, taking advantage of a lacking in management capacity, corruption and outright indiscipline and unpatriotic nature of the Nigerian citizenry, engage in sharp practice to aid the pillage of the nation's economy with impunity.

The South African brand is distinct. Laws you dare not break in the South African business climate, appear nonexistent in Nigeria, where as it seemed, you can get away with anything. South African companies in Nigeria meanwhile, enjoy bogus tax heavens, yet dodge and evade taxes through the wide open loopholes that abound over and above what palm greasing of greedy Nigerian officials could offer. The South African flagships Multichoice and the GSM Carrier MTN though Nigerian registered companies, operate obnoxious foreign exchange repatriation practices detrimental to the Nigerian economy. Bulk of earnings from DSTV the satellite TV giant, operates the highest tariff in a policy that charges clients whether they watch or not. Together with MTN the sister GSM conglomerate, sales are repatriated through all ways and means that require scrutiny more now. To imagine that for years, the scratch recharge card was imported alone tells you how much damage was possible under the guise.

Watching from a far thus, many Nigerians who recall with nostalgia how their country embraced the war against apartheid, and now only to be economically colonised by the "liberated" South Africa, albeit by proxy, can not have been enthused by Zuma's late hour visit.

Until President Muhammadu Buhari took charge in Abuja, South Africa had impounded over $10m ferried in a private jet to that country, ostensibly to pay for an order of military ordinances and hardware, but clearly in contravention of that country's currency control laws. South Africa held on to the cash but let the criminals return to Nigeria, probably in hope that more dollars would come from where this cache originated. This was at a critical time when Nigeria was prosecuting and losing a war to a home-grown insurgency. Was this not a time for South Africa to have reciprocated the counter apartheid gestures of Nigeria and her people? The government took an aloof stance and mercenaries cashed in to further make the counter insurgency effort, a business opportunity for South Africa. President Jacob Zuma all unpatronising, was disrespectful of President Goodluck Jonathan and indeed part caused the latter's failure to win a reelection bid in which progress in the war against Boko Haram was crucial.

Then suddenly for no apparent reason, Nigerians in South Africa suffered xenophobic attacks that claimed their lives and their properties. Thriving ordinary Nigerian traders and menial work migrants were targeted and annihilated while Jacob Zuma did not warm up to returning a hospitality of many years that he had savoured in Lagos and Abuja in the 70s. That Zuma came now is mainly because the MTN, a South African concern is in some bad, and has a case to answer, having flouted the simple process requiring by law, that SIM cards it was selling be registered, even as a crucial counter insurgency step! By failing to do so, the company afforded insurgents untraceable communication and prolonged the counter effort. This was criminal negligence that undermined the security of Nigeria. The Nigerian Communications Commission last year slapped a $3.9bn fine on MTN Nigeria after the mobile network failed to disconnect five million SIM cards it had failed to register. MTN has argued that the fine is too high, but Nigerians feel that gains it had made on those five millions lines ought to shore up for the fine. Since that sanction, MTN clients have noticed a rise in frivolous debit and charges on airtime and data, and suspect that in effect, MTN has fleeced Nigerians to even profiteer on the sanction.

Elsewhere, Etisalat is in court with MTN over the latter's purchase of Nigerian internet provider Visafone Communications, a purchase Etisalat is worried, was not transparent and could create a dominant data services market player in Nigeria, harming competition.

If President Muhammadu Buhari lifts his carpet, he might find swept underneath it, that the same MTN and Stanbic IBTC, a South African banking interest have been embroiled in a reported $8b Money Laundering Scandal in which it was alleged that MTN made illegal remittances to several Directors and Share Holders in safe havens abroad, hurting the economy badly, we now find.

South African companies are also currently embroiled in not so clean practices as Nigeria struggles to meet the June 2017 new deadline for Nigeria's Digital Switch Over (DSO), compromising many local competitors who have taken to the courts to secure redress. Jacob Zuma needs to be told. MTN must pay that fine. Nigerian businesses in South Africa should expect retaliatory sanctions and brace up as well. South Africa is the new unwelcome colonial master. But Nigeria let it happen.

MTN FAILURE TO REGISTER SIM CARDS KILLED 10000 NIGERIANS

President Mohammadu Buhari has said that 10,000 lives of Nigerians were lost due to the delay in the registration of sim cards by MTN.

Buhari who spoke in a joint press conference with the visiting South African president, Mr. Jacob Zuma at the presidential villa, Abuja was giving reason why the Nigeria National Communication NCC, fined the network provider.

He said that this would be his first time to speak on the issue as the president of Nigeria.

He said that the concern of Nigeria was basically on the security of lives and property of the people in the midst of terrorism.

He also hinted that the court action by MTN slowed the intervention of the government as it could not have interfered on the matter before the court.

He said: "This is the first time I will personally as a president be making a public comment about it. The concern of the federal government is basically on the security and not the fine imposed on MTN. You know how the unregistered GSM are being used by terrorists.

"And between 2009 and today, at least 10,000 Nigerians were killed by Boko Haram. That was why NCC asked MTN, Glo and the rest of them to register GSM.

Unfortunately, MTN was very, very slow and contributed to the casualties"

Africa's Two Superpowers Try to Kiss and Make Up

President Jacob Zuma will travel to Nigeria next week with a large delegation of ministers and business leaders in a concerted attempt to repair the strained relations between Africa's two largest powers.

Those relations went sour under the previous Nigerian presidency of Goodluck Jonathan, reaching a low point in April last year when Nigeria recalled its acting high commissioner. Whether true or not, Pretoria took this as a protest against the eruption of xenophobic attacks, mostly directed against other Africans, including a few Nigerians.

The South African Department of International Relations and Cooperation (DIRCO) retaliated with a remarkably strong statement, which clearly vented resentment that had been accumulating for some time. It lashed Nigeria for wanting 'to exploit such a painful episode for whatever agenda.' And it also took a hefty swipe at Nigeria for the more than nine months' delay in repatriating the bodies of the 84 South Africans who had died when a church collapsed in Lagos the previous year. And for returning them 'in a state that they could not be touched or viewed as required by our burial practice.'

Strong stuff. By then Muhammadu Buhari had already been elected to succeed Jonathan; and so the DIRCO statement made clear that Pretoria was happy to be seeing Jonathan off and would reset bilateral relations once Buhari was in office.

Yet relations have not really been reset, nearly a year later.

There are still many niggles, including the 'harsh' fine of US$5.2 billion (later reduced to US$3.9 billion) that Nigeria imposed on South African cellphone operator MTN for failing to disconnect unregistered SIM cards.

Several other South African companies invested in Nigeria have also run into trouble with the authorities. Last month, three South Africans and one Nigerian employed by the Sun International hotel group were arrested by the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission and detained without charge for four nights. Digital satellite television company MultiChoice has been charged with price gouging, and other companies have also had problems with the authorities.

Some South African business people and officials suspect that South African companies are being targeted because of envy from local competitors. Others believe that South African companies have just coincidentally been caught up in Buhari's overall campaign to clean up the mess left by his predecessor.

There is not a great deal of sympathy in Nigeria for MTN because it has made so much money. Many Nigerians believe it was grossly negligent about obeying the rules and arrogant enough to think it did not have to.

There is also friction between the two countries over visas. Nigerians often complain that Pretoria is reluctant to grant them visas and then only issues them for three months, whereas Nigeria is ready to issue them for South Africans for much longer, or scrap them entirely.

Jakkie Cilliers, Head of the African Futures and Innovation Section at the Institute for Security Studies (ISS) says the ISS has encountered the occasional obstacles from Pretoria in granting visas to Nigerians to work for the organisation. He nevertheless also acknowledges that the extent of Nigerian involvement in organised crime and drug trafficking in South Africa is not just a stereotype and makes visas necessary.

'This is a country largely without functioning institutions and therefore it is difficult to accept documentation, such as passports, at face value. In that sense the South African government has a responsibility that it should not shirk. What we probably need is a comprehensive system that, after a thorough process, results in multi-entry, multi-year visas.'

It is significant that South African Home Affairs Minister Malusi Gigaba will be in Zuma's delegation.

Lulu Mnguni, South Africa's High Commissioner in Abuja, acknowledges there are 'some irritants' in the relationship, including the visa issue which he believes Gigaba will resolve next week. Trade and Industry Minister Rob Davies will also be in Zuma's delegation to 'settle certain uncertainties which have developed' in the trade relationship.

One of the main items on the agenda is likely to be resolving the MTN fine issue. Mnguni said that although his office always emphasises to South African companies that they must respect Nigerian law, he also felt the fine that Nigeria had imposed on MTN was 'a bit harsh and not in keeping with our good relations with Nigeria.' He had pointed this out to Abuja and hoped it would be borne in mind when negotiations resumed imminently to settle the issue.

Overall, though, he did not think Nigeria was targeting South African companies. 'It's just that most foreign companies here are South African; there are over 150 of them. Perceptions are being developed. Our task is to use our friendship to clear the air so our companies can help to develop Nigeria.'

But Dianna Games, Executive Director of the South Africa-Nigeria Chamber of Commerce, says the chamber believes the question of whether or not Nigeria is targeting South African companies should be raised on Zuma's visit next week. 'If there is any truth in it, it should be dealt with. If not, then it's important that during the state visit, a statement is issued at the highest level giving the assurance that this is not the case.'

Mnguni said the strategic aim of Zuma's state visit was to strengthen both political and economic ties with Nigeria. Economically, one of the main aims was to help Nigeria diversify its 'mono-product' economy, including mining its minerals and helping it to improve its 'epileptic' electricity supply and to better its agriculture and tourism.

The presence of Defence Minister Nosiviwe Mapisa-Nqakula in Zuma's delegation is an exciting curiosity about the kind of defence cooperation the two countries have in mind, though her ministry is keeping mum about it. All of this makes for a busy schedule for Zuma's delegation.

And apart from economics, the two giants of Africa have also been at odds politically for some time, clashing on international issues such as Western military intervention in Libya and Côte d'Ivoire.

Goodluck Jonathan's Nigeria vehemently opposed the candidature of South Africa's Nkosazana Dlamini Zuma for the chair of the African Union Commission in 2012. He also tried to block or hobble the South Africa-championed African Capacity for Immediate Response to Crises – a mechanism whereby volunteer countries would form coalitions of the willing to intervene militarily in continental conflicts.

Jonathan clearly resented what he regarded as South Africa beginning to flex its muscles too boisterously on the continent, including, potentially, in West Africa, Nigeria's backyard.

Cilliers believes that a fundamental cause of the friction between the regional superpowers is their different world views. 'For South Africa, it's basically an anti-Western, pro-Chinese, colonialist interpretation.

'The Nigerians are largely pro-Western and have no qualms about, for example, accepting US military help. There is often a deep sense of frustration amongst Nigerians about the extent to which South Africa is trapped in the post-colonial debate of the 1960s – something that the Nigerians have long since graduated from.'

That is very true.

Mnguni said the strategic aim of Zuma's visit would be to resolve such issues 'to ensure that the two major economies on the continent don't mutually exclude but rather reinforce each other.' The aim would be to adopt common positions at the United Nations and in other multilateral fora, 'so that whatever we embrace does not leave the continent divided.'

These are lofty goals. But Anton du Plessis, Executive Director of the ISS, is not entirely convinced that that's what this visit is really all about. He acknowledges Mnguni's point that 'getting the relationship on track is certainly good for Africa.'

With a sceptical eye on Zuma's mounting problems back home, he adds, 'but the biggest winner would probably be South Africa and Zuma. He needs new friends. And a powerful one like Buhari comes at a good time.'

How often do we find ourselves asking about Zuma's foreign policy initiatives; what's in it for him?

Peter Fabricius, ISS Consultant