Admin
18 Oct, 2013
Investigation needed: the protection of South African national assets
Open letter to Secretary General of the United Nations regarding international investigation needed: South Africa’s relationship with the Central African Republic and the protection of South African national assets from Mr Bantu Holomisa, MP (UDM President) (28 March 2013) Dear Sir The abovementioned matter has reference. I write on behalf of the United Democratic Movement (UDM), an opposition party in the parliament of the Republic of South Africa (RSA) (www.udm.org.za). The current situation with South Africa’s military presence in the Central African Republic (CAR) has caused some embarrassment for our country, when a number of our military personnel lost their lives to protect so-called South African assets, amongst others. The South African National Defence Force’s (SANDF) presence in the CAR was justified by our government saying that it was honouring an agreement, reached in 2007, to protect President François Bozizé, and to train military personnel in that country. What has now come to light, after this tragic loss of life, is that South Africa’s presence in the CAR was not only to protect President Bozizé and to train personnel. In fact, there seems to be a generally corrupt relationship emerging between South Africa and President Bozizé’s regime. South Africans were deceived about the nature of this relationship and the reason for our troops being sent to the CAR. To this day, our government refuses to take the nation in confidence and explain in unambiguous terms what the nature of this relationship is and which South African assets were to be protected. Today’s Mail & Guardian, a South African newspaper, has revealed that (as early as April 2006) a co-operation agreement was signed between the RSA and the CAR in the defence, minerals and energy sectors (http://mg.co.za/article/2013-03-28-00-central-african-republic-is-this-what-our-soldiers-died-for). Given that South Africa is a member of the UN and as such, there is the potential that this situation will negatively affect our future participation in peacekeeping missions, we appeal to the UN to institute a commission of inquiry. We suggest that such an inquiry should have wide terms of reference, where all countries involved must explain what the true state of affairs is. The pertinent questions: a. What were the reasons for South Africa to enter into a cooperation agreement with the CAR in 2006/7? b. What were the reasons for the five-year extension of the agreement in December 2012? c. What are the details of the South African assets that needed protection? d. Are there any documents conferring mineral rights to South Africa and its businesspersons? e. Does South Africa still own those mineral rights and if not, to whom were they sold and for how much? f. Who benefitted from the proceeds of such transactions if any i.e. South African National Treasury, individuals and/or political parties? g. Was there any collaboration between South Africa, the UN and the African Union with this mission? h. Was there an entry-and-exit strategy for the South African troops? i. Were South Africans only there to train, refurbish bases or to stand guard as alleged by the troops themselves? j. Who exactly was involved in the contact i.e. CAR government troops, and/or RSA troops and/or the Séléka rebel alliance and what are the details? k. Who resourced and trained the Séléka rebel alliance and with what motive? This request to intervene is necessitated by the fact that our government’s leadership has been compromised. It is reported that the ruling party, its senior leaders and its business investment arms are involved in pillaging the resources of the CAR. Of interest to the people of South Africa is which assets were so important to protect that justified the spending of billions of Rands of State funds and the careless loss of our soldier’s lives. Yours sincerely Mr Bantu Holomisa, MP UDM President
Admin
18 Oct, 2013
Which South African ‘assets’ needs protection in the Central African Republic
Open letter to Chairpersons of the Parliamentary Portfolio Committees on Defence and Military Veterans of Intelligence of International Relations and Cooperation about “Which South African ‘assets’ needs protection in the Central African Republic” from Mr Bantu Holomisa, MP (UDM President) (26 March 2013) Given the seriousness of the tragic death of our soldiers in the Central African Republic, (CAR) and that this is a matter of public interest, I would suggest that the Parliamentary Portfolio Committees of Defence and International Relations and Cooperation have a urgent joint session to get to the bottom of why the South African National Defence Force (SANDF) was deployed in the CAR. There has been conflicting reports from the Presidency, the Department of International Relations and Cooperation and the Department of Defence and Military Veterans on the reasons for South Africa to have a military presence in the CAR. We first heard that there had been an agreement between our two countries entered into in 2007 for Operations Morero and Vimbesela. The former, we were told, was for a unit of the SANDF Special Forces to be deployed in the CAR to provide VIP protection to President Bozizé. Operation Vimbesela involved the refurbishment of the military bases and the training of military personnel of that country. After this weekend’s tragedy, the Minister of Defence and Military Veterans, Nosiviwe Mapisa-Nqakula, denied that our troops were in the CAR to protect President Bozizé. She did however admit that they were there to “protect South African assets”. If nothing else is clear, it is that our Government is speaking from different mouths and no-one really knows what is going on. Or, between the Presidency and the relevant ministers no one is telling us what the real reasons are. The only way to find out the truth is for the Portfolio Committees of International Relations and Defence to urgently have a joint sitting and demand that the Presidency and the relevant ministers come to sort out the confusion. In preparing for this meeting, these Departments must give: a) Background on the reasons for entering into a cooperation agreement with the CAR in 2007. b) Reasons for the five-year extension of the agreement in December 2012. c) Details on which assets the SANDF were to protect. d) Any documents conferring mineral rights to South Africa. e) Information on whether South Africa still owns those mineral rights and if not, to whom they were sold and for how much. f) Information on to whom the proceeds of these transactions were paid i.e. Treasury, individuals and/or political parties. The Department of Defence should also give information regarding the state of readiness of our troops deployed in the CAR. Reports suggest that intelligence showed early this year that the rebels were ready to advance on the capital, Bangui, but the tragedy that played out over the weekend suggests that the SANDF was unprepared for this scenario. The Nation was told, in January, that 400 troops were to be sent to the CAR to protect the SANDF instructors; the question is why was half of that held back? It is incumbent upon Parliament, and the relevant Portfolio Committees, to play its oversight role and expose the truth. This matter is urgent; we cannot accept the current explanations of what is going on. South Africans are in the dark about what circumstances led to the deployment of our service men and women in the CAR. Yours sincerely Mr Bantu Holomisa, MP President of the United Democratic Movement
Admin
08 Oct, 2013
Parliamentary Debate on deployment of SA National Defence Force to Central African Republic
Address by Mr Bantu Holomisa, MP in the Parliamentary Debate on deployment of SA National Defence Force to Central African Republic 23 April 2013 Mister Speaker, Mister President and Honourable Members, “They had gone to CAR to assist. We never anticipated that we would be attacked. Somebody said when they were interviewing me, is it that maybe we were failed by our intelligence that had not picked up that we were going to be attacked”. This is what the Honourable Minister of Defence told the Nation two weeks ago. The Minister would have given better answers had she demanded an operational report from her Commanders. Her argument that she “did not anticipate to be attacked” is incomprehensible, considering that the CAR government briefed her of the imminent offensive from the rebel forces during her visit to that country late last year. It was during this meeting that the CAR government requested reinforcement from the South Africa government. The Minister came back and briefed the President about this request. Subsequently, President Zuma announced the deployment of an additional 400 troops in CAR with the mandate to disarm, demobilise and integrate the rebel forces into the army as well as protect the SANDF’s 26 trainers in CAR. Given this unambiguous mandate, it is puzzling to hear the Honourable Minister claim that she and her Commanders did not anticipate to be attacked. The existence of the operational report mentioned above would have given us specifics on details about the people who failed our troops in CAR and in the process disgraced our country. This report is important if we are to avoid making similar mistakes in future and to ensure that we take punitive steps against those who did not carry out orders. The same report would interrogate the allegations that our troops were deployed in that country to protect former President Bozizé and the business interests and assets of some politically connected South Africans. While talking of former President Bozizé, he made a startling revelation in December last year, when he publicly complained that his government was being targeted for giving mining rights to South Africa and China. The question now remains: “To what extent have these mining rights been diverted away from South African State owned mining companies in favour of a select few politically connected individuals and companies, such as Chancellor House, as reported?” It is becoming a norm in the African continent for countries to help other countries in exchange for their resources. In light of all the above, we should ask ourselves whether our presence in CAR served national interests or narrow party political interests. However, the reluctance of Government to establish a Commission of Inquiry to look into this matter compels us to be in agreement with those who claim that our troops in CAR were used to ensure that the looting spree in that country continued unabated. I wish to conclude by stating that, no amount of cover-ups and misinformation will prevent the truth about what happened in CAR from eventually coming out. Thank you.
