Around this time August 2012, South Africans were both appalled and in awe.
Mineworkers at a Lonmin mine had mobilized a wildcat strike; they gathered on a koppie in the platinum belt, in Rustenberg, to demand a R12, 500 salary. They ditched the National Union of Mineworkers, which had a monopoly then, and the Association of Mineworkers and Construction Union, a politically-unaffiliated newcomer, was inexorable in its demands.
While many pundits and analysts complained that the demands were unreasonable or unsustainable in economic terms, many understood that the demand were “intergenerational”. The demands were based on many centuries of virtual servitude. They were thus as much historical as they were forward-looking––a manner of securing economic justice for a future generation of miners. This was certainly something to be admired.
However, South Africans were horrorstruck by the level of violence during the strike. The wildcat strike, which began on 10 August, had 9-10 casualties by 14 August 2012. The worst was yet to come. On 16 August 2012 the police opened live automatic fire during a scuffle, killing 34 mineworkers and injuring over 70.
As the events surrounding the strike uncovered, it was discovered that (now Deputy President) Cyril Ramaphosa, then a non-executive director at Lomnin and a member of the National Executive Committee of the ANC, had sent emails urging the Minister of Police to curb what her termed “dastardly criminal acts” at the Marikana mine.
On 23 August 2012, President Jacob Zuma appointed the Marikana Commission of Inquiry chaired by retired Supreme Court of Appeals judge, Ian Farlam: “[to] investigate matters of public, national and international concern arising out of the tragic incidents at the Lonmin Mine in Marikana, in the North West Province which took place on about Saturday 11 August to Thursday 16 August, 2012 which led to the deaths of approximately 44 people, more than 70 persons being injured, approximately 250 people being arrested.”
Ramaphosa was called to testify before the Commission and his testimony, and cross-examination thereon, spanned from 11 to 13 August 2014. The testimony was intense. It was disrupted on several occasions by hacklers (or activists, rather) from the Commission’s gallery chanting that Ramaphosa had “blood on his hands” and calling him a murder.
There are two events from Ramaphosa’s testimony and cross-examination that highlight the precarious nature of the Commission.
In my view, these events, although neither new nor isolated, are starkly reflective of how the Commission has been reduced to a political circus, where stakeholders and representatives come to score political brownie points at the expense of victims and their families. Both events were during Advocate Mpofu cross-examination of Ramphosa.
The first event was during an exchange about whether Ramaphosa used the phrase “dastardly criminal” in order to invite a “fight fire with fire” response from the South African Police Service. When Ramaphosa’s and Lomnin’s representatives objected to the line of questioning, and the Chairman intervened, Adv Mpofu went on a rant about the fact that Ramaphosa had white representatives.
MR MPOFU: Okay, now that the Chairperson has repeated it himself, I wanted to repeat it – I know the witness well and I know he has forgotten the question.
MR RAMAPHOSA: I hadn’t forgotten the question, Mr Mpofu, I just wanted to know whether you would be able to have the capability that the Judge has displayed of repeating it in the way that he did.
MR MPOFU: Oh, ja, no. Look, it’s Bantu education. Now I know why you have a white team.
CHAIRPERSON: Mr Mpofu, that is a thoroughly objectionable.
MR MPOFU: I withdraw.
CHAIRPERSON: I know it was said in jest but you know that’s the kind of joke which doesn’t go down well.
MR MPOFU: It’s not a joke, Chairperson, it’s not a joke. It’s a serious, the witness is seeking to insult my intelligence without an intervention from
Not only did Mpofu pick a fight, he was also the first to cry foul when the dogs he set off came back to bite him. More pertinent in this scenario is the fact this belligerent exchange has nothing to do with the plight of victims or their families.
Mpofu is a prominent leader in a political party — the Economic Freedom Fighters. By all accounts, Mpofu is a political opponent of Ramaphosa. Mpofu’s party is well-known for its claims to further the “cause of blackness”. Thus, his utterances are not random; they are calculated to introduce his partisan politics to the Commission.
The second event came during Mpofu’s closing remarks.
MR MPOFU: Ja. Mr Ramaphosa, Mr Phatsha here sitting next to me is a gentleman who lost his big toe in the shootout on the 16th. He’s also a gentleman who has been working in the mines for more than 30 years. He joined the NUM in 1982 when it was formed and he specifically asked me to say to you that as someone who was used to be his hero and as somebody who is now in high office he does not believe that even if I put the proposition that I put to you, which is that you should be charged criminally, but he also believes that because of your current position and the other positions of the politicians that I’ve mentioned, that we should also make a recommendation, successfully or not, to the Chairperson that you and those people should be charged criminally in the International Criminal Court.
At first blush, this proposition by Mpofu appears to be a random outburst, at best, calculated to rile up emotions behind the cause of victims and their families. It is neither.
The proposition that there is even a prima facie case for Ramaphosa to be charged of war crimes in an international court – even if not taken seriously by the majority of those following the Commission’s proceedings – seeks to discredit Ramaphosa, even before the Commission has reached its finding.
Others may think that this is necessary banter in the sport of cross-examination. I disagree. Ramaphosa is not at trial and it serves no purpose to attack his character. Further, commissions such as the Marikana Commission are unsuited for such combative cross-examination. The Commission is a national, non-partisan, effort to discover the truth behind a terrible tragedy.
The victims and their families are not served by grandstanding on the Commission’s floor. Introducing partisan politics induces further division on the subject.
When politicians feel threatened, they generally react by manipulating their constituency for support. Ramaphosa may have appeared tame and unpopular, but he has de facto support of the ANC. The ANC is the majority bloc in Parliament and the Commission’s finding will be retarded without its support. Even if the Commission makes findings against Ramaphosa in earnest, those finding will be meaningless if the ANC and its constituencies believe that the findings were due to manipulation by the political agenda of Mpofu and his ilk.
My advice to all stakeholders: remember why we are here and how we got here. The broader issue of the plight of mineworkers is very divisive.
For the first time we have an opportunity to shine the spotlight on the economic and social injustice in the mining sector. There is a lot at stake. If we keep calm heads and take calculated actions, we can cajole significant players into action. If we seem combative and partisan, we isolate them, entreching the status quo.
Justice is not about what, it is about whom!
Comments
Share On
