Mangosuthu Buthelezi’s Weekly Newsletter to the Nation
My dear friends and fellow South Africans,
Two pieces of this past week’s news illustrate how many things I proposed in the interest of South Africa while in the Governments of both President Mandela and President Mbeki, which were not taken seriously merely because I was not trusted.
The first refers to the case decided last Tuesday by the Pretoria High Court, in which the Freedom Front Plus Party challenged the constitutionality of the denial since 1994 of the right to vote for many South Africans abroad, including those working and residing there. I was Minister of Home Affairs from 1994 to 2004. In that capacity I pleaded very hard with my colleagues in Cabinet to let me make provision for the right to vote of these South Africans in the legislation I formulated for Cabinet’s consideration. This was the Electoral Laws Second Amendment Bill. They would not let me do so.
I abided by my duty which required me to respect Cabinet decisions. But I reported the matter to Parliament, as Parliament has the duty to hold Cabinet to account. In my speech in the National Assembly on the 25th of November 2003 I stated –
"Subsequent to the passing of the Electoral Laws Amendment Act, 2003 by Parliament, representations were made to the President and the Deputy President. Reportedly, a key promoter of such representation was our colleague Dr C. Mulder MP who reportedly made them on behalf of South African citizens living abroad, arguing that the Electoral Laws Amendment Act as it stands infringes upon their constitutional right to vote.
When I spoke to this House during my Department’s budget debate, I had committed myself to make provision to enable South Africans abroad to vote. Accordingly, in the Electoral Law Amendment Bill which I brought to Cabinet provision was made for all South Africans abroad to vote, irrespective of their reasons to be abroad. However, Cabinet chose not to adopt my proposal. During its parliamentary process the Electoral Law Amendment Bill was amended by the Portfolio Committee to make provisions similar to the one now contained in the Electoral Law Second Amendment Bill which is before us. However, such provisions were then dropped.
After considering representations submitted to him, the President instructed that urgent amendments be prepared to provide for the casting of votes by South African citizens who are registered on the voters’ roll and are temporarily absent from the Republic during the election, elsewhere than the voting district where they reside.
I am pleased that what I had originally proposed as the responsible line function Minister has now been partially accepted and is before us for approval. I have made many other proposals within my line functions responsibilities and as the leader of a minority Party in Cabinet, which proposals have not been embraced, ranging from civic affairs matters to HIV/AIDS, crime and unemployment. Because he seems to carry more credence than I do, I should have perhaps considered asking Dr Mulder to champion them!
I do not believe that the Electoral Law Amendment Act is as it stands, unconstitutional, for the right to vote of citizens abroad may be limited, as it is limited in many established democracies. However, I felt that as a matter of policy it was essential to allow all South Africans an opportunity to participate in the electoral process. However, what in my opinion was not constitutionally problematic, may become so as the Bill before us now only allows certain citizens who are abroad for certain temporary purposes to vote, while depriving others who are in a similar situation of the same opportunity.
For instance, a citizen who is abroad working on a temporary basis as an employee will not be able to take advantage of this opportunity. The same will apply to all South Africans who live abroad for an extended period of time. It may be problematic to justify for such differentiation of treatment. It may also be problematic to administer this Bill as it may become difficult to judge whether somebody is indeed abroad on a temporary basis and to give meaning to the expression "temporary" under the various real life circumstances. As I have always spoken with candour to my colleagues, I felt I had to share these concerns.." [Emphasis added].
This speech was quoted in, and relied on in last Tuesday’s Pretoria High Court Judgment which declared the Electoral Act unconstitutional on the basis of the very same concerns I expressed. It could had been avoided had Cabinet accepted my good faith in 2003.
Now, Mr Willem Stephanus Richter, the Plaintiff in that case and a teacher abroad who is supported by the Freedom Front Plus Party, has a chance to vote, subject to the final say of the Constitutional Court.
President Motlante, our Head of State has already announced that the election will be held on the 22nd of April 2009. But we now need to wait for the Constitutional Court to hear this case and possibly the one which is now pending before the Cape High Court and commenced there by the DA. My Party, the IFP, has been allowed to join in DA’s case as a friend of the Court [an "amicus curiae"], and has taken a position which supports the DA.
All this litigation would have been unnecessary had I not been slapped down by my Cabinet colleagues. I think they did so to remind me that, although a Minister and their peer, I was nonetheless an outsider because I was the leader of another Party in opposition to them. For this reason most of what I proposed in the interests of the country and not just in the interests of my Party was always opposed by them.
The second piece of news of this past week which illustrates how what I proposed in the interest of South Africa was not taken seriously by Cabinet is the saddening announcement by the UK Minister of Home Affairs that the United Kingdom will impose visa requirements on South Africans visiting the UK.
Also in respect of this issue, I sounded many warnings in my capacity as Minister of Home Affairs, which were again ignored by my colleagues in the Cabinet. As Minister of Home Affairs I identified the need to restructure the Department in order to address its chronic shortcomings, including potential corruption and also lack of security of its internal procedures. My proposals were frustrated and dismissed, whether they were expunged out of my Draft Immigration Bill or on account of the Minister of Public Service and Administration cancelling five consecutive meetings with me scheduled to discuss this very issue.
The South African passport has all the required security features. The problem lies in the many opportunities which remain open for people who are not entitled to have passports to obtain one through corrupt practices or by resorting to weak or non-secure steps in the chain of documentation and actions which entitle one to a passport.
One may remember last year’s extraordinary event which found well-known American film star Wesley Snipes with a South African passport. That is how far this rot in Home Affairs has gone.
It will be recalled that my Cabinet colleagues opposed just about every provision in my Immigration Bill. It was discussed in Cabinet for 3 months and in Cabinet workshop for 3 hours, which is more than any other matter ever discussed in Cabinet in the 1994–2004 period. In those 10 years that I was Minister, nothing remotely similar happened to any other Minister.
Ministers were given authority by the President to tear apart my Draft Bill and they took full advantage to vent their spleen. This whole drama ended with my President and Head of Government suing me in the Cape High Court to proclaim my regulations for the Immigration Act null and void and to ask the Court to order me to pay the costs from my pocket. That is how angry he was with me. But he lost on the cost issue. And I was doing nothing but fulfilling my duty to give our country the best and strongest immigration system I could. They did not listen to me and the results speak for themselves.
All these inconveniences could have well been avoided had there not been such mistrust between me and my Cabinet colleagues in the ruling Party. What we see now in the Courts are the consequences of that mistrust. It is this mistrust which, notwithstanding my participation and the participation of the other IFP colleagues of mine in the Government of National Unity for 10 years, make it impossible for real reconciliation between the ANC and the IFP to stabilize.
Yours in the struggle for true democracy,
Prince Mangosuthu Buthelezi MP
Contact: Liezl van der Merwe, 083 611 7470
