Writes James Kariuki

African-American Pan-Africanist, Molefe Ashante, often laments that Europe has robbed Africa of its history. The charge is an inverted vindication of the old adage that, as long as the lion remains the writer of history, he will always emerge the victor.

In complacency, Africans may uphold the position that apartheid deprived South Africa of the opportunity to make history. Yet, victimized South Africa was a vibrant actor in the global political stage. Indeed, it is arguable that apartheid pushed the country into the global screen radar harder than would have been otherwise possible.

For decades, apartheid’s oppression provided the cement to hold the rest of Africa together. Its collective humiliation was the one issue that Africa shared; a perverted contribution, but a contribution nevertheless.

The Organisation of African Union actually established the Liberation Committee whose mandate was specifically to provide full support to the liberation movements of Southern Africa. In context of the OAU, "unfreed" South Africa was indeed already shaping the collective foreign policy of the African states three decades before the demise of apartheid.

It is true that some African states were more anti-apartheid than others. Tanzania was clearly a leader of the pack. In endorsing the establishment of the Liberation Committee, President Julius Nyerere declared that his countrymen were "prepared to die a little" for the final removal of colonialism in Africa.

... continued

Comment below and/or discuss this article at: Club Afrika Forums
Recommend Club Afrika to your friend: Click Here
Invite your friend to Club Afrika Forums: Click Here

Social bookmark this

Writes Dan Okoth

The recent acquittal of former South African President Jacob Zuma shows an emerging pattern of vice-presidents engulfed in the mire of political backstabbing and raw ambition.

African presidential deputies are not an enviable lot. In Kenya, former Vice-Presidents Jaramogi Oginga Odinga, Josephat Karanja, George Saitoti and Musalia Mudavadi drank from the cup of sorrows, and it still overflows. 

But the colourful mosaic of anguished vice-presidents and presidential challengers is evident in Africa’s other big names, including South Africa, Botswana, Malawi, Sudan and Nigeria.

There is a link between VPs’ woes, extensions of presidential terms and the battle for survival by incumbent presidents. Sometimes, it also involves former presidents extending their hands from political oblivion. 

In other cases, a conspiracy of silence, "higher authorities" and "fate" has helped to keep the Number Twos in their place better than any wily president could imagine.

In Kenya, President Kibaki has not said a word about the accusations of corruption against Vice-President Moody Awori. The allegations relate to the infamous Anglo Leasing scandal, in which Kenya is said to have lost billions of shillings in dubious security procurement tenders.

Botswana’s Festus Gontebanye Mogae is also silent about cries by MPs about vice-president Ian Khama’s authoritarianism. He recently threatened to dissolve Parliament if MPs did not endorse Khama’s presidential bid. Khama is also the minister for presidential affairs in charge of communications, the Botswana Defence Forces, police, the media and the civil service, leaving other ministers with little to handle.

In Sudan, religion and politics have blended into a potent mix that has sucked in the vice-presidency. President Omar Hassan el-Bashir has differed with his first vice-president Salva Kiir over proposals for United Nations forces to take over from African troops monitoring a truce in the Darfur region. While Bashir insists that such a proposal can only be considered after a peace deal is reached with the Darfur rebels, Kiir feels UN troops could go to Darfur even before such an agreement is signed.

... continued

Comment below and/or discuss this article at: Club Afrika Forums
Recommend Club Afrika to your friend: Click Here
Invite your friend to Club Afrika Forums: Click Here

Social bookmark this

Nigerian President Olusegun Obasanjo’s backers had placed much hope on the international community’s support for his third term bid because of his economic reforms and his central role in resolving conflicts in Africa. But what he got was opposition every step of the way, writes Tony Eluemunor

Surprise! That is the word to describe the killing of Nigeria’s President Olusegun Obasanjo’s bid to prolong his tenure on May 16. Weeks after the bid died, Nigerians are still asking the question: “How was it killed?”

Granted that the President and his pointmen in the third term project that had heightened tension in the country had appreciated the fact that they lacked the two-thirds majority votes in the National Assembly to advance their bid, yet, such little matters made them even more determined to employ state powers to win legislators to their side.

It was for the lack of the required number of votes that the President’s supporters suspended, as it were, the administration’s much-touted anti-corruption stance and reportedly began to shell out bribes of over US$357,000 to each member of the House of Representatives and US$500,000 to each Senator. The true picture of the magnitude of the alleged bribery would only be appreciated if one considers that Nigeria’s House of Representatives has 360 members while the Senators are 109.

Where would the President’s men have got such a large war chest with which to prosecute this bribery war? No, the President did not need to raid the Central Bank of Nigeria, or to divert the proceeds from the excess crude oil revenue (whatever accrues to the nation that is above the budgeted figure. For the 2006 budget, the benchmark expected revenue is $33 per barrel, but oil has hovered around the $70 mark).

Read Full Article

Social bookmark this