Andile Mngxitama | Dr Baba Buntu | Land Noli |

Ntsiki Mazwai | Thandolwethu sipuye | Vukulu

Sizwe Maphindani

BLACK CONSCIOUSNESS THOUGHTS Copyright © 2020 by Classic Age

Publishing
 All rights reserved.
No part of this book may be used or reproduced in any manner
whatsoever without written permission from contributing authors and
the publisher except in the case of brief quotations em- bodied in
critical articles or reviews.

First Published by Classic Age Publishing in 2020

For more information contact; info@classicagepublishing.com or
blackconsciousnessthoughts@gmail.com

Book and Cover design by Classic Age Publishing

Typesetting by Rosa penn on behalf of Classic Age publishing

Vol 1: June 2020

 CONTENTS

MBEKI BETRAYS BLACK NATIONALISM AGAIN: THE LAND

DEBATE ................................................................... 1
UBUHLE BENDALO AS A POLITICAL WEAPON .....................11
CODESA & THE IGNORED QUESTION OF REPARATIONS IN SOUTH
AFRICA………….20
PRACTICAL PAN-AFRIKANISM AND THE FEAR OF BEING
BLACK……………32
SOBUKWE & THE LAW CHANGING THE RACIST LEGAL
PHILOSOPHY – INTERROGATING AFRIKAN JURISPRUDENCE ....45
ONLY WHITE PEOPLE WERE CONSULTED IN CREATING THE
SOUTH AFRICAN CONSTITUTION…………..58
THIS PUBLICATION is a concerted effort to mother Africa; the voices
herein have been selflessly contributing to the politics of Identity
consciousness, Black nationalism, Pan Africanism and the Self-
determination of Africans – Home and Abroad and have joined
hands to take a unified stance in the struggle for black liberation
through Thought leadership hence the birth of Black
Consciousness Thoughts. Kindly read and share.

All Power to The People!

 1

Thabo Mbeki 1979, Ottawa

he land question has been betrayed several times in South

Africa, primarily by the ruling party, the African National
Congress (ANC). This piece seeks to focus on the latest
betrayal of the land question by the ANC amid a groundswell
for the demand of land expropriation without compensation. I will
argue that to understand why after twenty-six years of ANC rule,
land has not been transferred to its rightful owners, and one ought
to first understand how the ANC abandoned the black agenda.
There is nothing inevitable about how things ended up. The
contradictory nascent Black Nationalism that informed the
formation of the ANC in 1912 provided enough possibilities to
ground the ANC as an organization that can address black
aspirations. It couldn’t have been a mistake that the founding
fathers of the ANC had designated it a blacks-only organization.
However, once the ANC was fully captured by whites after the
untimely death of Anton Muziwakhe Lembede, the prospects of
ever realizing the black agenda were diminished significantly, and
the black leaders of the ANC became servants and spokespersons
of the white agenda. Blackness was considered backward.
However, the roots of black nationalism in the ANC keep shooting
out new sprouts and creating a crisis of identity that can only be
defeated by the violence of betrayal.

The land expropriation without compensation debate was

another moment of deep ideological crisis for the ANC. The former
President Jacob Zuma had towards the end of his second (and last)
term, turned sharply towards black nationalism yet again. His
Radical Economic Transformation (RET) agenda can be read as an
abandonment of the anti-black policy perspective that has guided
the ANC government since 1994 with the advent of democracy.
The ANC took power firmly guided by the white agenda, which
found expression in the new Constitution which protected the land
rights of whites. The Section 25 of the Constitution is, in reality,
the cornerstone of the so-called democratic order in South Africa.
The capture of the ANC by whites is codified in its bible called the
Freedom Charter, which decrees that "South Africa belongs to all
who live in it, both black and white." The Freedom Charter is a
statement of surrender. It serves as an ingenious strategy by whites
to submerge into the black struggle and fundamentally alter its
objectives. The adoption of the Freedom Charter amounted to the
most subliminal destruction of the black agenda. Black people were
given a white programme that simulated the black agenda, when
in fact, it was its antithesis. Consequently, black revolutionaries
who were captured by the apartheid regime and subjected to
inhumane torture fortified themselves with reciting the same
Freedom Charter; or even more poignantly some are known to
have thought about the document as they were led to the gallows.
Black bodies fighting for a white agenda - this makes the white
revolutionary the most effective agent of white supremacy.

The defeat of black nationalism inside the ANC gave birth to

a raft of liberal discourses and demands to give shape to the white
agenda, including the commitment to a liberal rights regime,
democracy; the rule of law; and constitutionalism. The Nelson
Mandela era sustained itself through these modalities of
legitimation, and the anti-black Constitution was turned into a
sacred document. The glaring contradictions were laid bare by the
notorious Thabo Mbeki in his speech on the eve of the acceptance
of the final Constitution in 1996. He waxed lyrically about being
an African in the “I’m an African “speech - a speech that, in essence,
confirms the surrender of African land rights to white settlers. All
were declared African, and thereby, no one was an African. It was
back to the essence of the Freedom Charter and its handing over of
the country to colonialists.

The Radical Economic Transfrmation (RET) of Zuma was in a

sense, a rebellion from within the ANC against the white agenda.
The white agenda was pursued by the ANC government, even
under Zuma. Without addressing the impact of this agenda, Zuma
would have left office with no revolutionary legacy just like Thabo
Mbeki, who had squandered the two-thirds majority, which gave
his government the required votes to amend the Constitution and
deliver land to black people. This failure of the Mbeki era to amend
the Constitution can in fact be read as a betrayal of Mandela’s
tactical retreat through the Sunset Clause compromises which was
undertaken to create the conditions to wrestle the state apparatus
from the Afrikaners and once this was secured, to return to the
path of redress. Mbeki was therefore given the sword, but he
instead chose to be truthful to the white agenda. Zuma tried to turn
to the strategic advantage late in his second term with RET which,
amongst other things, calls for the nationalization of the South
African Reserve Bank (SARB); the redistribution of mineral rights
to blacks; free education; and, most importantly, land
expropriation without compensation. To this end Zuma told
parliament:

“We need to take bold steps that will transform our economy,
including land ownership, very fast...We are busy amending (laws)
to enable faster land reform, including land expropriation without
compensation as provided for in the Constitution."

Zuma turned this RET call into the policy battle towards the 2017
ANC Elective Conference. Ideologically it meant once again that
on the one hand, there was the white agenda politically
represented by the Ramaphosa faction and, on the other hand, an
attempt to reinstate a black agenda in the ANC represented by Dr.
Nkosazana Dlamini Zuma (NDZ). This became the CR17 versus
NDZ battle. The first battlefront of these contending agendas was
the ANC Policy Conference, which was held from June 30 to July
5, 2017. The RET forces decisively won the policy conference,
thereby signaling the real possibility of victory in the Elective
Conference scheduled for 16 to 20 December 2017. The defeat of
the white agenda was so bad that white liberals inside the ANC
dropped the mask of being part of the black agenda and openly
opposed the land expropriation without compensation policy. In
order to police the implementation of the Freedom Charter Derek
Hanekom, one of the leading Afrikaners inside the ANC, stood in
the Conference of over two thousand predominately black
delegates and said that land expropriation without compensation
was nonsense. Later he told the media that land expropriation
without compensation “…will do severe damage to our economy and
is seriously unjust.”

It must be remembered that Derek Hanekom, who was the first

Minister of Land Affairs under President Nelson Mandela, failed
during his first five years in government to deliver even 1% of the
30%, which was promised by Mandela‘s Reconstruction and
Development Policy (RDP). In fact, during his tenure, massive
evictions were executed by landowners who happen to be
Afrikaner like him. The defeat of the white agenda at the ANC
Policy Conference and the adoption of RET policies alarmed the
white agenda defenders. Part of the immediate strategy was to
subvert the meaning of the policies through the final drafting
process, which was under the control of the white agenda agents
like Enoch Godongwana. The final resolutions were tweaked to
take out their sting and render them lame duck. However, a real
policy momentum was created. It’s under these conditions that
Thabo Mbeki entered the fray with a thirty-page document
directed against the land expropriation without compensation
agenda. In the document titled “What About Land Expropriation?”,
Mbeki starts with a caution that the policy adopted has grave
consequences for the very nature of the ANC. He wrote:

“The decision taken by the 54th National Conference of the ANC in

December 2017 on “land expropriation without compensation” has
posed pressing strategic Challenges with regard to many issues
which relate to the very character of the ANC.”

Mbeki’s “What About Land Expropriation?”, starts off by

establishing that over time the ANC had abandoned its character
passed on by its founding fathers, which was “The Parliament of
Black People”, and had become a non-racial movement in that it no
longer prioritized the black agenda. Mbeki is correct to say this.
However, he doesn’t explain what makes sense about leaving the
black agenda in a country where the black majority is oppressed
by a white minority. Mbeki is alarmed by the adoption of land
expropriation without compensation because it suggests a move
from the premise that land was stolen from black people. He wrote:

“It is obvious that as the 54th ANC National Conference discussed

the Land Resolution, the delegates understood that with regard to
the proposal to expropriate land without compensation they were
going outside of and beyond then existing ANC policy, hence the
heated and fractious debate which ensued at the Conference. “

Mbeki then quotes at length the justification for land expropriation

to show just how “unANC” this resolution is:

“The European settlers who colonized our country expropriated the

land they came to own from the indigenous people using force and
without paying any compensation. Accordingly, the ownership of
the land by the descendants of these settlers is illegitimate. To
correct this historical injustice, it is necessary to reverse what
happened during the process of colonization, including the
apartheid era, by expropriating this very same land without
compensation and returning it to the formerly dispossessed, the
Africans! During the implementation of this policy, care must be
taken not to discourage investment in the economy, to make a
negative impact on agricultural production, etc.”
Mbeki subsequently goes on to argue that this is not the reasoning
of the ANC - it is, in fact, the logic of the Pan Africanist Congress
(PAC) which had broken from the ANC because of the Freedom
Charter which in turn doesn’t accept the logic that land was stolen
from Africans. He is emphatic that this is black nationalism and
has no place inside the ANC. He wrote:

“A central issue which led some members of the ANC at the time to
break away and form the PAC was their objection to the idea stated
in the Freedom Charter in these words – ‘South Africa belongs to
all who live in it, black and white’, as well as everything else which
derived from this principle. This break-away group considered this
a betrayal of the national liberation struggle and countered with the
slogan – Africa for the Africans! However, the ANC and the broad
democratic movement defended the positions stated in the Freedom
Charter as the correct and progressive posture to take in the context
of our national reality.“

Mbeki feels that the land expropriation resolution is a betrayal of

non-racialism and a horror to be avoided. He is a conservative
defender of the white agenda. It didn’t occur to him that the main
reason the ANC government had failed to deliver land to black
people is precisely because of the same non-racialist white agenda.
After almost 26 years into democracy, the ANC government has
only bought back 8% of the land. Mandela had set himself the target
of 30% in the first five years. Mbeki, having established that the
ANC is a non-racial party that had abandoned the black agenda;
cleansed itself of blackness; forced those like Robert Sobukwe who
insisted on the black agenda to leave the ANC; and expelled others
like the Makiwane brothers who remained when Sobukwe left,
expressed his horror at the return of blackness into the ANC
through the land expropriation resolution. He wrote:

“Certainly, the argument that has been advanced by the ANC

leadership since the 54th National Conference about the Land
Question communicates the firm statement that the ANC has
 changed in terms of its character. It is no longer a representative of
the people of South Africa.”

Mbeki is defending the character of the ANC as a party committed

to the white agenda, which has come under attack by the RET
agenda which in turn is pro-black. He puts the blame squarely on
Jacob Zuma for this black turn of the ANC. He says that the ANC
is no longer non-racial, but “[r]ather, as its former President, Jacob
Zuma, said, it is a black party!” The horror of horrors!!! Mbeki
can’t believe that anyone would try and turn the ANC into a party
that put blacks first. According to Mbeki, the ANC is not about
taking the land from the settlers and giving it back to the rightful
owners; and Zuma, by insisting on land redistribution, is
threatening to destroy this very non-racialism which defines the
ANC. Mbeki laments the fact that Zuma had called on black parties
to unite. He wrote in shock:

“In this regard, as reported by the newspaper, City Press, when ANC
President Zuma addressed the National House of Traditional
Leaders on March 3, 2017 he called on “black parties”, including the
ANC, to unite to get the two-thirds majority to amend the
Constitution to allow for land expropriation without
compensation!“

Shock and horror! Mbeki believes that calling for black unity is a
bad thing and not in line with the ANC character. He rebukes
Zuma for daring to call on blacks to unite. He wrote:

“Jacob Zuma was advancing a perspective about ‘the resolution of

the National Question’ radically different from the long established
an historic position of the ANC, which he led at the time... It is very
 obvious that this Zuma position fundamentally repudiates the
historic positions of the ANC not only on the National Question.”

There you have it! Calling for black unity to return the land to
blacks is an unacceptable sin for the ANC. Mbeki is evidently
horrified by the call to expropriate land without compensation
because he considers such a move contrary to non-racialism and
the Freedom Charter. He is correct that black nationalism was
defeated in the ANC. What he is not telling his readers is that this
defeat of black nationalism has compromised the interests of black
people. Mbeki had 25 years to inquire and establish what the
position of the black is. It is clear that the attempt by Zuma to unify
blacks to attain the envisaged land redistribution was also an
admission that the white agenda doesn’t solve the historical
injustices suffered by blacks. The debate on land expropriation has
indeed exposed once more that the character of the ANC is
essentially anti-black. The ANC is driven by a white agenda. It’s
clear that the defeat of the black agenda has had massive negative
consequences for black people. There is a need to understand
better why black leaders in the ANC would be so adamant to
defend something so harmful to black people. There is little doubt
that Mbeki is correct to accuse Zuma of trying to blacken the ANC
again; to almost take it back to its roots before its capture by whites.
To serve black people, the ANC would have to abandon the white
agenda as framed in the Freedom Charter and the South African
Constitution. Perhaps it’s time to go back to making the ANC a
parliament of black people again. It remains to be seen if this can
be achieved, given the hegemony of white thinking that drives the
ANC today.
 About the Author

Andile Mngxitama is the president

of Black First Land First, a coeditor of
BIKO LIVES: The Contested Legacies
of Steve Biko [2008]. He is also the
founder of the New Frank Talk
journal which published amongst
others, the popular essay Blacks can’t
be Racist.
 2

fricans are the only race who have had a warfare waged
against their Blackness. Africans are the only race who have
had to arrive at the table in costumes, while other races arrive
as themselves. It is Africans who have had to change their
blackness to be allowed a seat at a sophisticated table. It is Africans
who are made to feel like animals and who must change form and
behaviour to appease the master’s eye. We live in a world where
systems have been designed to deny us the experience of our own
identity as Africans. We are excluded from the economic system;
should we not conform to a western standard of beauty and
etiquette. Throughout our lives, we are inundated with the western
experience of life to a point where we think it is by choice that we
do the things we do.

In his interview on Mavis on 4, James Baldwin, when asked

how to measure progress, said, ‘……progress is a white man’s word.
Which really means; progress is measured by how closely I become
white. How closely I began to resemble a white person. It means that
you and I have become progressively less and less savage. Savage is
proven by the colour of our skin.’ Africans are born into a world that
teaches them that they are inferior to Europeans. From childhood,
it is instilled in us that we should aspire to whiteness. The books
and fairy tales we were raised on were based on white culture and
glorifying whiteness. Cinderella and Snow-White defined beauty
for us as little girls, and when we weren’t watching Disney Movies,
Barbie took over the job. We black girls played with Barbie’s hair
and changed her hairstyles doing things we could not do with our
own hair. There were no black women on tv, and on magazine
covers, African people on mainstream covers were only introduced
around the mid-2000s when Chichi Letswalo was hailed as the first
African to grace the covers of Glamour and Cosmopolitan
Magazines. Before her, in South Africa, a black-dominated country,
the magazine covers were all snow-white except for the magazines
that were specifically targeted at Africans like Drum Magazine and
Bona Magazine. Even to this day, when you look at magazine
shelves, you would think you live in Europe as most magazine
covers are European faces. There has been no radical
transformation in magazine covers; they remain predominantly
white.

The mainstream media feeds us a white narrative of what is

happening in South Africa. For decades, our tv and magazines have
been feeding us western culture. There has been nothing done by
Africans to counter that uninterrupted stream of information that
makes western culture superior to our own. Black girls did not
grow up with a black barbie, with black hair, and a black booty to
celebrate and get accustomed to what we realistically look like.
There was no black doll marketed aimed at black children, so even
in our formative years, it was instilled in us that the only valid
people were white. Even the cartoons we grew up on were based
on white physical attributes and not our own. From a young age,
it has been instilled in us that the world is white. In the 80s we
were fortunate to grow up in an era when they translated English
cartoons into indigenous languages, in a way, this helped enrich
our community in that it taught us each other’s languages and
when we played with other children on the playground we could
engage in the various languages. In this day and age, everything is
in English. We are now raising children who can’t even speak their
mother tongues.

Then we took our children to multiracial schools, which are

only multiracial in make-up. The curriculum is not multiracial; it
is European. We take our children to go and learn how to be white
so that they can cope in the world. In these white schools, we were
taught that we are not allowed to speak our home languages
without getting punished. I distinctly remember an incident in
grade 4 when we were sitting on the stairs as black girls and
chatting and laughing in great black girl splendour. A teacher came
out and shouted, ‘who is that bellowing on the stairs?’ Because that
is what we sound like when we speak our home languages. We
sound like we are bellowing. We were taught to behave like quiet
English ladies. Because we make Europeans feel uneasy, we also
had to change our hair. Our hair has been policed by white people
since their arrival on this continent. Ukuthi how and why it affects
them so much is beyond comprehension. In these schools we take
our children to, their hair is policed. It is not allowed to stand out.
When you look at all the races in the world, our hair is the ONLY
hair that looks like that, how can it not stand out? It is in the nature
of black hair to stand out, and in the school system, they force it to
dim down, be a little bit less kinky. Burning your scalp and relaxing
your hair is welcome in the school system. It emulates long silky
hair like white people. An afro is an abomination in the school
system, as the incident with Zulaika Patel in August 2017 showed
us that the black girl is still being oppressed for having big,
beautiful hair. What is it about our hair that makes white people
feel so uncomfortable? Why can the black child not arrive at school
as herself? Why must her identity be tampered with? I tend to lean
towards women because it is women who are not shy to express
themselves; our men seem to be stuck when it comes to expression.
However, we do see the impact of the same miseducation on how
black men associate money and power with women outside their
race.

In the white schools we take our children to, there is

absolutely no acknowledgement of their culture or their blackness.
The less black they become, the more they excel at school. Children
with good English have the sun shining upon them. Children with
good English are showered with words like ‘cute’ and ‘adorable.’
So again, I bring attention to the fact that in our formative years,
we are taught that white is right. We even have black parents who
see no shame in their children being unable to speak isintu. They
don’t think its that bigger deal. The irony is that these parents can
speak their mother-tongue, but they do not mind denying their
children the same thing. These children are often alienated when
it’s time to go to the village/township and time to play with other
children. Can you imagine the frustration when you are used to
being outspoken and suddenly have no voice? In these white
schools, we incubate our young ones, where they are not exposed
to any African history and heroes. The schools that teach them to
celebrate Kruger, Rhodes, and Van Riebeeck. In primary school,
during story hours, black girls would play with the white girl’s hair,
a continuation from the “Barbie syndrome.” They played with the
white angel’s hair and continued the white supremacy of
celebrating whiteness. I remember after every school holiday;
black girls would arrive with freshly done hairstyles. In hindsight,
I am realising that white girls just came as themselves. Quick
ponytail, and they were ‘enough.’ So as a black child, your entire
schooling is based on making you less black and more acceptable
to the white community. The more you spoke in the language and
did their sports, the more you were likely to be given a leadership
position. Black children are awarded for white assimilation. The
black teenager continues to be flooded with American and British
culture but no African culture on mainstream media.

You then enter a university system that is unapologetically

European. All the reference material is based on the west. Even
African studies are through a European lens, it is writers who are
given the green light by white professors. White professors have
extremely limited information on indigenous knowledge systems.
So, we have an African child who is now 19 years old and has never
been exposed to themselves. They know nothing about their
history; they cannot speak their own language; they have started
to change what they look like in order to imitate their white
counterparts. You now have young black boys who relaxed and
chemically treat their hair to look like their ‘Hey Broer’ friends.
Young black children have never had role models to show and tell
them that their hair and melanin is beautiful. When white people
were flicking their hair and having conversations about rosy
cheeks, the black girl looked on longingly. With nobody telling the
black child that they are beautiful, they started to experiment with
their own looks. They started to wear weaves; they began to bleach
their skin; they began to study western fashion magazines and
blogs so that they could get the look right. Black men began to
wear skinny jeans and aspire to wear tuxedos. Africans began to
mutate themselves to fit in, and it worked because indeed they got
jobs and magazine covers for changing themselves. The world
rewarded them economically for turning their backs on their
blackness and becoming whiter and more sophisticated. The
apartheid system no longer had to use force and using a pencil
system to allow Africans into the job sector. White people didn’t
need a pencil anymore because black people now willingly wear
white people's hair to be acceptable in corporate spaces and
socially. The brainwash has worked. The most progressive blacks
are a room full of black women in high heels and weaves; with men
with no hair and wearing western suits, smoking cigars. Black male
self-hate of their own hair has the brush cut as their religion. They
say less hair makes them look clean. So basically, our hair is dirty
to the average black male. An African can reach the age of twenty-
five without any cultural intervention or indoctrination on the
ways of Africa and African spirituality. We just do as we see on tv
and magazine pages. Currently, we are dealing with a brain
damage that forces us to have two weddings because we feel
invalidated without a white wedding. We spend all this money on
white weddings, suits, and costumes just to look like somebody
else, anything but ourselves.

That same African child we have been unpacking throughout

this paper then has a child. And the cycle resumes as we lose our
identity and place in the world. When you look at other races, you
see who they are and their place in the world. When I look at
Africans, I am confused at who we are becoming, and it is glaring
to me that we are at the bottom of the food chain. What is it about
us that has us in ghettos and always living up to another standard?
How do we change this? White people have built-in systems to
ensure their privilege remains unaffected. They have built a world
where everything serves them, and we are playing along. When do
we start to build systems that counter the damage in our education
system? We are creating black zombies who do not love
themselves. How does black thought infiltrate the education
system to provide an alternative to the “whitification” we are
enduring? The education system has failed us in the townships,
and many parents flock to white schools as a better alternative, but
how do we integrate these schools with our own teachings? It is
over two decades into the so-called democracy, and we are
producing black children with nasal twangs who cannot speak
their mother tongue, who do not know their clan names and who
have never heard of Nubia and Kemet. History shows us that there
was a time when Africa was a place of great development and
wealth, it also shows us that all the developments in Africa ended
during the colonial holocaust; the ‘Scramble for Africa.’ This
means that when we were ourselves and lived by our own values,
we were successful and powerful. It is when we moved from our
identity that we lost our strength. When we look at other races like
the Indian and the Chinese, they are united and rich in culture.
They do not suffer as much as we do as they move as one. Not only
that but how they dress and present themselves speaks to their
culture, so one is forced to respect that.
We, on the other hand, arrive in the costume of the white man;
one is forced to laugh at that and not take it seriously. We need to
come to the table adorned in something unique and unattainable
to the other races. We need to take out our afros and beads; our
myths and our legends; our languages and our idioms. We need to
take out everything that makes us African, things that no one else
can have or do. In the same way that they have taught you to lust
after what they look like, switch it, and make them buy afro wigs
and imitate you. Switch it and make white men wear Zulu vests in
the boardroom. Switch it and have only people who look like
themselves on magazine covers and tv. Switch it and stop burning
our hair; basically, just leave our hair alone and; also show up as
ourselves. Switch it and have more dark-skinned people on tv and
reposition what we call beauty. When and how do we create
platforms, that counter the white narrative, we are born into that
leaves us nothing but dirty slaves. The cycle of self-hate is recycled
with each generation as we never get to some kind of cultural
revolution, which will lead to healing our self-esteem. Much of the
success enjoyed by China is because of their cultural revolution
under the leadership of Chairman Mao which overthrew capitalist
and imperialist ideas. Through the Chinese, we can learn that
when you denounce a system that does not work for you and
choose one that is rooted in your own values, you start to see
victory.
 Until we Africans remove other people’s costumes, body parts,
and ideologies, we will remain at the bottom of the food chain.
Until we take pride in who we are as Africans, we will remain in
the ghettos because we do not know our own worth. We do not
love ourselves. We do not look in the mirror and see a beautiful
people. Until we consciously create education systems that counter
the brain damage and stop pretending that we are evolving, we will
continue to go nowhere as a people. The past few months, with the
COVID 19 pandemic, we have learned how financially vulnerable
we are as people, we have realized how we don’t own the economy.
We need to ask ourselves why we have excelled in matters of
image but failed in acquiring anything. This thing of judging black
excellence based on how much we have emulated whiteness needs
to be revisited. A time has come for us to look inside ourselves and
identify our strengths as a people and focus on them.

When we start to love what we look like, we will begin to behave

as a people who love themselves.
 About The Author

Ntsiki Mazwai, born on 3 September 1980 in Pimville Soweto,

Gauteng, South Africa, is a social
activist, musician, poet, and author.
Her name Nontsikelelo, translates to
‘the mother of blessings’. Known to
her fans by her clan name MaMiya,
she is sometimes described as the
StreetQueen. Her social activism has
led to national debates about social
issues affecting women in South Africa and her boldness has led
her to becoming the voice of the voiceless. Ntsiki is a brave and
courageous woman, and a pioneer in the construction of what she
terms ‘’Spoken Music”. She has influenced a popular trend of dance
music producers collaborating with poets to create club hits. She
also runs a blog and is a producer, beadwork artist.
 3

“Truth is on the side of the oppressed”

Malcolm X

t was on the 6th of April in the year 1652, about 368 years ago,
when a Dutch descendant in the person of Jan Van Riebeek
arrived in Cape Town, South Africa. That very day has had a
significant impact in the entire history of South Africa. The
arrival of that European crackhead has compromised the
thriving Mapungubye civilization amongst others. However, the
generally accepted account rigorously privileges the notion that
Europe Civilized Africa – an ahistorical illusion. In as much as
Europe’s falsification of South Africa’s history is concerned, the
misrepresentation and mistelling of these elements of our very
truth remain secreted amidst the colonizer’s quest to justify
Colonization, Apartheid, and Slavery in South Africa and to further
repel the psychological existence of black people. By the year 1989,
South Africa was headed towards an economic collapse after 338
years of colonial rule. This, of course, was a result of various beasts
of burden. Amongst them was the Guerilla Wars waged by
liberation groups like the Azanian People’s Liberation Army, Poqo
and Umkhonto We Sizwe (Amongst others); also, the sanctions by
the United States Congress and various Superpower countries
around the world played a fundamental role. Upon the realization
of this sudden devastation, the National Party government
announced the unbanning of political parties/leaders and the
release of political prisoners/exiles. By 1990 the situation had
severely degenerated, forcing the NP government to negotiate with
various liberation groups to discuss the country’s way forward
which was a strategic move to have the sanctions lifted since the
sanctions reciprocated preconditions to be honored before they
could be lifted – a hegemonic practice that was inherent in the
Colonial government/s politics of “self-preservation.” So, in short,
the defeat of Apartheid was already inevitable. But economic
Hitmen in the form of European Descendants who were already
foregrounded on the politics of racialism were not that oblivious
to perceive this basic pattern from a far-reaching distance. So in
this regard, the Convention for a Democratic South Africa
(CODESA) was their very last hope at retaining the upper-class
privileges for their future descendants after 389 years (1990) of
slogging tooth and nail for the bastardization, dehumanization,
enslavement and the extermination of the “Kaffir” in order to
copyright South Africa for the benefit of their future generations
and not those of the “Kaffir” (Black people in their definition). The
very first CODESA meeting took place in the year 1991. Present
was the African National Congress, Inkatha Freedom Party, the
National Party, the South African Communist Party, amongst
others; this very session was considered the plenary session.
CODESA’s negotiations remain a determining factor in
today’s window dressing democracy. This is because the
negotiation inputs were never made public – and thus, the
liberation project was compromised although publicly inscribed as
the peacemaking settlement. As I was going through a document
published on the government website in 2012, I came across a
report on Reparations and Rehabilitation from the Government’s
justice.gov website (I suspect the content is now detached). One of
the points on the report pointed out that “The Incoming
government has accepted the responsibility for reparations.” As
much as I recognized the fact that the ANC conceded a great deal
during CODESA’s negotiations, there was no way I would have
imagined that they would in their right mind, not only inherit the
Apartheid monetary debt across the globe but most importantly –
to accept the responsibility for the damage in which they were a
victim of. For almost 400 years, European nations, mainly Dutch
Descendants and Britain; have enslaved, incarcerated, mass
murdered, dehumanized, economically exploited, and raped
Africans in this part of the world and in return, instead of repair
the unparalleled damage of that gradation, they instead – protected
those ills perpetually. And to this day, Black people are still being
held economically hostage under the guise of a free market
capitalist system, whereas that’s nothing but the continued
bloodsucking of black people.

It’s necessary to assume that we have lost more than a

million lives under colonialism and Apartheid crimes and that’s
genocide. Also, we have lost our wealth, land, property, civilization,
and humanity, but despite all that, when the topic of reparatory
justice arises – the descendants of white slave masters instead
accuse black people of being lazy and dependant to government
welfare – such is self-immolation. I have never seen such
arrogance anywhere else in the world except in cases where black
people are involved. When the African National Congress accepted
and appropriated the responsibility for reparations and
rehabilitation, Colonialism and Apartheid crimes – Desmond Tutu
was appointed the Chairperson of the Truth and Reconciliation
Commission without a legal background. The Truth and
Reconciliation Commission established The Reparations and
Rehabilitation Committee (R&R), and unfortunately, the
Committee was suspended in 1998 without producing quantifiable
progress. The R&R only accepted individual submissions of those
who were directly “attacked” by Apartheid Mafias or those whose
loved ones were murdered/raped etc. And most importantly, the
Reparations and Rehabilitation Committee only accepted those
submissions if the incidents were from 1960 onwards – That was a
scam, but instead, the African National Congress approved that. In
reality, colonialism in South Africa was not a 1960-1994 event. It
was a very prolonged evil era affecting more than eight
generations since the arrival of Jan Van Riebeek in 1652, and the
process of reparatory justice is not something to be made
submissions on, because the United Nations has already laid
guidelines in dealing with the question of reparations as a
supervisory tool toward affected nations.

Under the guidelines by the United Nations are the following

critical steps:

1. Restitution: this refers to measures which “restore the

victim to the original situation before the gross violations of
international human rights law and serious violations of
international humanitarian law occurred,” for example, restoration
of liberty, enjoyment of human rights, identity, family life, and
citizenship, return to one’s place of residence, restoration of
employment and return of property (in this regard it’s land, wealth
and commercial properties).
2. Compensation: “should be provided for any economically
assessable damage, as appropriate and proportional to the gravity
of the violation and the circumstances of each case, resulting from
gross violations of international human rights law and serious
violations of international humanitarian law,” such as lost
opportunities, loss of earnings and moral damage.

3. Rehabilitation: “should include medical and

psychological care as well as legal and social services.”

4. Satisfaction: is a broad category of measures, ranging

from those aiming at a cessation of violations to truth-seeking, the
search for the disappeared, the recovery and reburial of remains,
public apologies, judicial and administrative sanctions,
commemoration and memorialization, and human rights training.

5. Guarantees of non-repetition: is another broad category

which includes institutional reforms tending towards civilian
control of military and security forces, strengthening judicial
independence, the protection of human rights workers, human
rights training, the promotion of international human rights
standards in public service, law enforcement, the media, industry,
and psychological and social services. This, in relation to the
Jewish genocide, is the criminalization of anyone who can make
public assertions in defense of the Holocaust. So because we never
had this in South Africa, we have seen leaders of White South
Africa publicly applauding the system of Apartheid, eg. Hellen
Zille of the Democratic alliance, Kallie Kriel of Afriforum and FW
De Klerk. These very steps were never considered in the
Reparations and Rehabilitation Committee in South Africa. Adding
to this insult was the Committee paying about 17000 families a
settlement of R30 000 per family, which, by any means, bear no
respect for the process and also, no respect for the entire black
humanity. In South Africa today, the land is still in the hands of
Whites, the economy in the hands of whites, and the control of
goods and the value chain in the hands of Whites.

Here are 8 major banks in South Africa and their ownership

demographics:

1. First National Bank (Private and White-owned)

2. Standard Bank (Private and White-owned)
3. Absa (Private and White-owned)
4. Nedbank (Private and White-owned)
5. Bidvest (Private and White Owned)
6. Nedbank (Private and White-owned)
7. African Bank (Private and White-owned)
8. Investec (Private and White-owned)

And as the saying goes, those who controls the money controls the
Government; so this means, whatever they say goes – and these
politicians on our screens are nothing but puppets. The circulation
of the South African currency doesn’t happen without the
knowledge of the aforementioned banks, and none of them is State
nor Black-owned. In March 2019, I visited Lilongwe, Malawi. I still
remember the events of my first day in the country vividly. As I
was hungry and wanted to get something to eat after travelling for
about 3 days by bus with little to eat during my journey, I then
asked the owner of the B&B that I rented for the duration of my
stay to take me around so that I could get something to eat,
possibly a South African equivalent of Pap and beef stew. The
owner of the B&B was a 65-year-old retired IT specialist who
instead offered to give me a mini-tour, although it was about 9 pm.
As he was taking me to the nearest hotel to get something to eat,
we passed via an ATM so that I could withdraw some Malawian
Kwacha just in case I could experience issues with my South
African VISA bank card at the hotel.
The nearest ATM, about 7 minutes drive from the B&B, was
by a bank named NBS Bank limited. At first, I never really paid
attention to the bank ownership because we in South Africa have
many banks, with none of them owned by Black people. But out of
curiosity, I so happened to ask about the ownership of the bank,
and the gentleman, my host, advised that it was owned by a
Blackman named Vizenge Kumwenda. I was shocked for a moment,
considering the fact that Malawi is a landlocked country with
limited economic activities but a Blackman in that country was
owning a bank, which is doing good by the way – this was
interesting because it meant that, even though they are having
economic difficulties, they still had a say in the circulation of their
currency. Well as if that was not enough, the following day I
withdrew money from a bank named Eco bank, which I was told,
although not owned by a Malawian National, it was definitely
owned by a Blackman named Emanuel Ikazoboh. It is a Pan-
African bank for that matter – okay, this to me was fascinating. On
my third day, again, I withdrew money in area 6, Lilongwe from a
bank named FDH bank Limited, this time around, I was moving
round Lilongwe with a driver who hardly understood English and
I never really bordered to ask a thing to avoid the perpetuation of
an already existing language barrier. So, unfortunately, my bank
card was swallowed by the ATM. At this point I’m frustrated
because I hadn’t bought my bus ticket home, and I still had about
seven more days to stay, and that was my only South African bank
account. So we informed the security of the challenge at hand, and
they requested for my passport, I gave it to them – and 10 minutes
later they came back with my card, this was amazing. And again, I
was prompted to ask about the ownership of the bank, and I was
told that it belonged to a Blackman by named Mark Mikwamba. I
was never this impressed by Black nationalist thinking of this
magnitude ever. And the following morning, I came to learn that
almost 70% of Malawian Petrol stations were owned and controlled
by black people, and so, I was profoundly troubled.

Because, I then reflected broader when coming home, that in my

country, all banks are White-owned. All petrol stations (White-
owned). All major food stores (White-owned). Major Clothing
factories (White-owned). Major insurance businesses (White-
owned). All Cellphone networks (White-owned). Commercial
properties (90% white-owned) and I had to think again and again
about CODESA’s negotiations where everything happened. Yes,
the acquisition of White economic power in South Africa happened
during the 342 years of White rule. Still, most importantly, the
sustainability of this phenomenon was endorsed by the African
National Congress during CODESA’s negotiations, and out of all
African countries, we are the only country that’s not truly liberated.
Yes, of course, the infrastructure is good, just like in all countries
built on slave labour, but our infrastructure is not so different from
the fake life people portray on social media while dealing with the
worst in their day to day lives. We lease our properties from them
(Preceding colonialists). If lucky enough to buy the land, we will
build our houses using blocks of cement purchased from them and
all the equipment, so we cannot be liberated until we realize and
accept that we are still slaves in the land of our forefathers, who
thrived in every aspect of life until European Colonization,
miseducation, and Television. Since then, they were bastardized to
reflect backwardness.

Any political party that goes into Government, primarily if

interested in social justice, needs to solicit the ignored question of
reparations when drafting a way forward for South Africa. In a
couple of instances, I have argued that reparatory justice is one
fundamental and rather a critical solution to South Africa’s
question of inequality – which is a byproduct of Colonialism and
Apartheid. This will help ease the slowly burning desire for civil
war. Having one race on top of the other is mental sickness, and
retaining such a bubbling status quo will lead us to an anarchic
genocide.

Black Consciousness, therefore, is necessary for the psychological

re-orientation of black minds from early childhood development.
For example, the most critical tool that was completely destroyed
throughout the 342 years of Colonial South Africa was black
thinking. So the educational system must be converted to a
rehabilitation and skills centre for both black and white children.
As much as white children have been psychologically miseducated
to believe that they are superior to blacks, Black children were
systematically miseducated to believe in the inferiority complex,
much that 400 years later – we are dealing with a compromised
social order working towards the maintenance of White terror
domination and Black ecocide (Economic genocide).
 To elaborate, since South Africa thrives on Gold,
Manganese, diamond, platinum, and chromium mining, the
educational system must be designed to maximize on our Gross
Domestic Product (Skills set). But most importantly, a child from
Grade 1 till Grade 5 must only study African history, Economics,
Mathematics, Land literature and their choice of specialty. Then
from Grade 6 to 12, they will take on from their specialty.
Specialties may include, Mining, Production, Business
Management, Information and Technology, Astrology, Geography,
Land literature, Science, and so forth. All the above are within the
confines of the South African state; it’s economy, it’s resources,
land and practical enough to help maximize the economic growth
than study “Photosynthesis” your whole primary and secondary
education and still have to go to university and be treated as an
empty vessel. What is the purpose of the 12 years of schooling if
one will even need to go to university? Primary and secondary
education is enough to serve as University exemption if the
educational system is correctly equipped.

As much as the Apartheid economy thrived in the confiscation of

black people’s property for White people’s benefit and Black slave
labour, in about 400 years, it has placed White people at the top of
the economic chain because they have a sovereign government and
henceforth, sovereign economic system. This time around, we need
to recover the sovereignty of our economic system. For example,
all banks that were established with the help of the colonial
Government are inherently a State institution. All minings, all
superpower corporations that were established with the support of
the Colonial government, need to be reclaimed. Land rights must
belong to the Government and no one else, henceforth, those who
use the land for commercial purposes will need to pay Land tax,
and also, if the commercial land is used for mining, then the state
will have shares on same.

In Conclusion, once the question of education is solved, and the

economic problem resolved too; everything else will fall into place
because we have gotten used to suffering in the hands of White
Domination for 400 years now, which was also preceded by the
Arab enslavement of mostly Northern parts of Africa.

ALL POWER TO THE PEOPLE!!!

 About The Author

Vukulu Sizwe Maphindani is a Reparationist, Black

Consciousness adherent, Author, Thought leader, aspiring avid
reader, and Publisher. He is the Founder
and President of the Black Centric
Forum Movement (A post Liberation
Black Consciousness and Black
Nationalist Movement). He has written
and published 4 books in the past 10
years. His book, I’m Still A Kaffir has
sparked thought-provoking
conversations around the State of
Blackness in South Africa since it was
published in 2017. He is also the founder
and publishing Director of Classic Age Publishing – a leading
black-owned custom publisher in South Africa.
 4

This article is an amended version of responses to questions

asked by a student who attended a lecture on Practical Pan-
Afrikanism. The lecture is available in a three-part series on
YouTube. Link to Part 1: https://youtu.be/Lb2mbuoT3nE

an-Afrikanism, as a concept, refers to many schools of

thought that may be ideologically far apart. Most Pan-
Afrikanists, however, have in common that they advocate
for unity among Afrikan people, although the arguments
may differ in reference to whether this unity should be
formed on the basis of continental unity, global unity, cultural
unity or racial unity. “Practical Pan-Afrikanism” is a term I have
coined to articulate the necessity of seeing Pan-Afrikanism as a
holistic practice and not, as it has often been interpreted, as an
elitist, academic tradition of intellectual debates; often far removed
from the realities it seeks to impact on. In January 2020 I was
invited to do a lecture on “Practical Pan-Afrikanism for
Entrepreneurs” by Ujuzi Talks at The Leadership Centre of MUBS
(Makerere University Business School)in Kampala, Uganda. In the
lecture, I positioned a brief definition of Pan-Afrikanism as “the
idea that people of Afrikan descent share similar histories and
struggles, a common destiny, and processes for forming cross-
cultural unity in areas of history, politics, and economics.” The
lecture, in a nutshell, advanced the idea of deconstructing all ideas
and models for development we have been brainwashed to
internalize through Western-centric education and programming.
And that we must strive to anchor strategic, spiritual and
operational building power by centering new concepts of Afrikan-
centered power, unity and will – to develop self-determined
Afrikan societies.

A couple of weeks later, one of the students wrote to me and asked

some questions, seeking clarity on some of the issues raised in the
lecture. The text below is an amended version of the response I
gave.

Q: What is practical Pan-Afrikanism about – in essence?

A: Let us start with Pan-Afrikanism: In brief, it is a worldview in
which it is asserted that all people of Afrikan Descent – wherever
they are born, whatever language they speak, whichever passport
they carry – are part of a cultural family which needs to unify and
work together for political reasons. We may be diverse, but we
share a similar history, a similar cultural background, and are
similarly positioned within a Western-centric world. We have been
pushed to the margin – yet, we come from a history of incredible
innovations and power. Invasions, religious wars, enslavement,
colonialism, and new forms of coloniality have kept us in bondage,
made us lose our awareness of history and ability – and have
altered us into dependent, weak and powerless non-beings. Adding
the word “practical” to Pan-Afrikanism means to make these
realizations your vocation; To not only THINK about the need for
solutions. But actually, BE the solution. It means that as workers,
students, activists and grassroots mobilizers, we do not wait for
governments to act, we do not trust that our elected leaders or
international structures will ever fix the problem – and, therefore
we understand the absolute necessity to make a plan and act it out,
on our own terms. Wherever we are, and in the many contexts we
operate. Does this mean we should leave out questions of currency,
trading politics, nation-state structures, and how we engage with
the global world? No, not at all. We need ideological concepts,
deeply founded political theory, and over-arching ideas about how
to shape an Afrikan-determined future. But we also need to be
practical! Right now, many of us are not in a direct position to
influence global politics; we don’t hold powers that move the
world, we are a disunited people – easy to exploit because we do
not feed into a collective agenda for our liberation. So, there is a
revolution we need to carry out, starting within our own minds, in
our families and in our communities.

Q: If I embrace a Pan-Afrikan view, will I not be seen as if I have

lost it by people around me?
A: My Warrior, there is no way to avoid this. Remember, you are
working alongside Afrikan people who have been enslaved to low
self-esteem, loving Western ideas, and keep having a practical
experience that Afrikan solutions do not seem to work. Let me
pause on this point: Why am I saying that Afrikan solutions do not
work? Is this true? It is not the truth, but it is reflective of our
experience in this world at this present time. Think about it – our
cultures do not APPEAR to be robust against Westernization; our
ancient wisdom does not come across as having the power to stand
up against modernization etc. And, having repeated experiences
with this, makes us doubt what we represent and desperately seek
to immerse ourselves in foreign ideas and realities. The pressure to
make us fall for everything Western, European, American and
White is exceptionally militant. And, when you take the courage
to stand up against these realities – you become a threat. First and
foremost, to the “system”; which you will experience in the
backlash against you when you talk your truth in learning
institutions, government spaces, leadership seminars and business
places. But you will also be seen as a threat by our own people.
Colonized and enslaved in our minds as we are, many of us are
overly loyal to – and protective of – those who oppress us. You will
be challenged and attacked by other Black people for standing up
for Blackness. So, if your plan is to be seen as “normal” – you are
definitely choosing the wrong path right now. Because standing
up against our “Masters” is not seen as normal. It is regarded as too
radical, dangerous, and risky. And a storm of attempts will be
mounted against you, to “whip you back in your place”.

Q: What is this anger I have within me? Am I about to become

hateful?
A: Realizing the terrorism, the many waves of genocide, and the
extremely brutal force that have been employed in the destruction
of Afrika and Afrikans – just because of our color, our superior
culture, and our oppressors’ fear of us – cannot make you anything
else than angry. Not even angry; enraged! We have not only been
held back; the plan was to literally DESTROY and CRUSH us
completely. Now, we can argue to what extent they have been
successful in this plan, but I think we see ample evidence of how
they have disempowered us and come to define our oppressed
reality. We have become begging tenants in our own yards. We no
longer own our resources; we plead with the West to support us,
fund us, and acknowledge us. While they are milking Afrika dry
and bask in racial privilege. It is against this background that we
need to regard the leadership of Idi Amin and Robert Mugabe to be
evidence of Afrikan leadership reaching some level of sanity; the
sheepish servitude by the majority of Afrikan leaders is not just
painful – it is a direct stab into our colonial wound. So, being angry
– as a Black person – means you have become awake and that it
upsets you that our people have been pushed into such a dark
corner. We need to consider this healthy and normal, not radical
and extreme.

But, you may ask, weren’t we always raised to NOT hate?

What is the difference between hating Europeans for atrocious acts
and the hatred we have seen in people with truly evil intent, such
as Hitler, Churchill, Macron and Trump? Is one form of hatred
justified, and the other not? The main difference here is that white
supremacy is based on unfounded fears, grotesque greed, and the
absolute refusal to extend an expectation of human worth to
anyone else than themselves. The intent is to overpower, destroy,
and own. The drive is to define, regulate and create illusionary
power so that they end up – and remain – being superior. The
white supremacist worldview commands that every “other”
(persons who are not white) need to be labelled inferior, in order
to nurture and solidify white power. Now, your anger is not even
related to this type of worldview. Your rage is against unfairness,
injustice, division, terrorism, inhuman treatment, designed
powerlessness, staged poverty, greed and absolute hatred for no
reason. While nothing was done to white people for them to hate
us, a LOT was done to us for you to hate what they did – and the
after-effects that continue to amputate our continent. They hate
Black people. We hate what whiteness has done and become (i.e.,
oppression). There is a HUGE difference. So, do not confuse the
worldviews and reaction patterns. The colonial design does not
expect you to stand up and be a “trouble maker.” They invested in
Christian missionary schools, oppressive Arabization, colonial
education and the ridiculing of Afrikan knowledge to such an
extent that you should be subdued, fearful, self-doubting and
apologetic in all your engagements with them. So, your anger is
not supposed to be pronounced. You are expected to bite your teeth
together, keep it in and if you are to take it out – their design has
planned that you will rather take it out on another Black person
(your partner, your brother or your child), than to actually
confront the real enemy.

Q: What is at stake if I fully embrace – and act on – the thoughts

and emotions that are building up in me around this topic?
A: Revolutionary Black Consciousness and Practical Pan-
Afrikanism come at a cost. Mostly because these are not just
theories (you may have observed that a number of radical theories
are “allowed” within the colonial design – as long as you don’t act
on them…) – these are practical tools of actually fighting, opposing
and creating new realities. And many are not willing to pay the
price. It feels uncertain, provocative and too idealistic, for many of
us. Some friends may abandon you – thinking you are “too much.”
Some will turn their back on you, some will render you “stubborn”,
“difficult” and “stuck,” some will actively fight you, and others may
ignore you and call you a “lunatic.” If you are not willing to become
“unpopular,” seen as a “hater” or be criticized – you should stop
this journey right now. But then, again, can you really stop? If you
should stop at this point, aren’t you then – again – letting your
deep-felt ideals, the necessity of liberating our people, and the
cause you wake up to each morning, down? This is, of course, a
decision only you can make. Should you soften it down? No! No!
No! Given what I have shared above, for our own SANITY – we
NEED to be angry. Enraged. Upset. Without apology. This is a sign
that your mind is logical, and that you are no longer interested in
bottling your emotions for the protection of whiteness. Let us
remember that whiteness is not only the physical presence of white
people – it is their knowledge, their concepts, their practices, their
rituals, their clothing, their cultural ideas that they have implanted
into us.

My point: It is healthy and necessary to be enraged about the

effects of white supremacy. But, also remember that anger is a
consuming energy, so you need to give it a constructive outlet. Just
allowing it to fester within yourself can destroy you. So, work hard
to transform your anger into productive energy: In addition to
soaking up as much Afrikan-centered knowledge as you can, also
engage in solution-oriented work – be a practical Pan-Afrikanist.
The best way to teach others is to lead by example in everything
you do. Just think about it; it is an inspiration of huge proportions
when you get to experience a Sister or Brother who fearlessly
stands up against injustice, remain consistent in their work to
ending colonial pain, AND building new power. So, instead of
waiting for someone, you need to BE that somebody – for the next
generation, for other young activists, for others to see that it is,
indeed, possible and necessary to work against the stream. You will
inspire many to reflect deeper and act bolder. This is how
generational freedom is built; for each generation to take over
where the last one left off. Right now, it appears that, for each new
generation – we are starting from scratch…

Q: Are we saying that we should completely de-link from the West?

Aren’t there things we could benefit from keeping?
A: It is quite alarming how our oppressors have made us tired and
upset with their invasive power techniques, and at the same time
made us fearful of losing what they have forced on us. We over-
rely on Western products, theories, manufacturing models, trade
networks and financial dynamics. We are at the receiving end of
unfair imbalances and exploitation. In fact, we are feeding the
world and ensuring that opulence and welfare remains a dominant
feature of Western countries while also paying the price for that in
terms of poverty and low standards in our own communities. And
we seem to have no filter; we just consume uncritically. By now,
we must have learned that when the West wants our buy-in, it is
never solely for our empowerment. It is an exploitative, systematic
effort to dominate and squeeze profitable arrangements out of us.
We can no longer act surprised or unknowing about this. It’s been
like this for a LONG time, and we have an obligation not just to
tone it down, but dismantle such systems.

Should we then boycott all products and stop trade with the
West? Remember, a similar question came up during the dialogue
after my lecture, and I responded that I don’t understand why
THAT is your burning question when whatever you do or think
about, it does not really affect the macro-economic realities. At the
same token, I do believe that since we are now in a period of
reclaiming, rethinking and repositioning ourselves (away from
powerlessness), we don’t have so much of a choice. We need to use
the technology, machinery and products available to us. But, we
must use it with a conscious mind, knowing that we are working
towards self-determination. For now, we need to self-produce, spy
a lot on what others are doing and reproduce our own – so that we
can create an economic basis. At the same time, we need to slowly
work towards a bold sense of independence and self-sufficiency
through limitless innovation. Until we reach a certain power level
and renegotiate terms in our favour; insist on justice or no deal.
Terminate the contracts of multi-nationals, break oppressive
relations and teach the outside world how to treat us. Or lose out.

With Practical Pan-Afrikanism, we need to apply the

principles of self-determination and cooperative economics within
our minds. It is a constant relearning and preparation process
towards the future we need to build. We need full-fledged, Afrikan-
centred schools in our near future, but for now, we may start a
Saturday-program. We want the wealth of our indigenous
medicines to be available for all in our near future, but for now, we
may begin introducing a few remedies. Everything starts
somewhere. So your question must be: What am I starting? What
legacy am I contributing to?

Q: Does Pan-Afrikanism have a future? Where will it be in 2050?

A: THAT is the question we now will begin to answer. Through
our actions. And if we continue to sheepishly hope that our
colonizers will tone down and become gentler, it is clear that we
don’t live in the real world. It is nice to hope for peace and love,
but it has nothing to do with the reality we live at present. And
THAT must be our point of departure, in positioning the
practicality of Pan-Afrikanism. Right now, we need a courageous
practice; an unafraid approach, and a non-apologetic energy. We
are not interested in sitting down with anyone but ourselves right
now. We have a LOT to resolve and we will take the time that it
takes to achieve the outcome we want. On our terms. For our
future. Inspired by our past.
 My vision for Practical Pan-Afrikanism is that is positioned
as a philosophy to decolonize holistically; mind, body, production,
politics and soul. What that means – in practice – is that the first
step is to work harder in smaller spaces: Within families, in
communities and regions. Establish our own productions units,
cooperatives and markets—exchange services and goods within
our continent. Do away with the shame of our values, cultures and
philosophies. Be bolder, more courageous and determined. On our
own terms. Stop seeking permission and validation from our
oppressors. Limit and eventually eradicate their direct influence
and domination. Can it work? Personally, I am convinced about
our victory, and I take my hope and faith from young Afrikans who,
across the continent, are doing exactly what you are doing:
Questioning the unquestionable. Asking new questions and
seeking new information. Insisting on new – home-grown –
solutions. And expecting them to come from our ancient wisdom.
A new revolution is slowly unfolding. But the window of solutions
will not be open for very long. So the real answer to the question
lies both in how resilient young Afrikans will continue to be – and
for how long they are willing to endure the hardships that come
with this commitment.

Closing statement: Practical Pan-Afrikanism as an outcome

of our revolutionary fitness. A fundamental part of our ability to
create a liberated Afrika rests with those of us who have been on
this journey for a lifetime. Young Afrika needs to see and
experience the power that lies in Afrikan self-knowledge,
restoration, empowerment, and re-learning. There is a desperate
need for Elders, teachers, guides and practitioners who can instill
and demonstrate Pan-Afrikan values, methods, and practices. In
ways that make sense to young Afrikans, and draw them closer
rather than pushing them away. If Elders do not step up and give
massive support, guidance and encouragement to our youth, we
are also complicit in delaying our achievements. It is important to
give respect and honor to the many inspirational women and men
who have championed Pan-Afrikanism for more than 100 years; to
remember those who have died in bitter struggles for our victory;
and to hold in high esteem the names of the many who have fought
with courage and determination for Black power, Black progress
and Black freedom. For us. But we also say: We need a revived form
of revolutionary fitness. This revolutionary fitness can be
described as an acute sensitivity to the complex and challenging
nature of the change operation we are engaging in. And also as a
militant, fearless and centred commitment to Afrikan people and
our collective advancement. But, more than anything, it is a
practice of emergence; a bold journey where strategies and
mechanisms unfold along the way, and adapts to the changes of
time and circumstance. It is great to be principally anchored and it
is important to agree on a roadmap for the struggles we engage in.
It is also equally important to understand that many, tactical
realizations grow out of experience. While you engage. As you
work. Through your accumulated exposure. Revolutionary fitness,
therefore, describes the level to which we are willing to prepare
and practice: Read books and work the land. Engage in cultural
theory and raise children. Study leadership and manufacture
Afrikan-centred toys. Learn militant warfare strategies and build
balanced Afrikan families.

Pan-Afrikanism of relevance is not best studied at seminars and

conferences, but in the homes of those of us who claim we are
practicing it. It is not a moment, not a speech harvesting applause,
not a passage of quotes. It is a practice. Something you can observe
and experience. I will confidently say that a Pan-Afrikan
organization that does not bring youth to the front of their
leadership, mobilization and operation is a dead organization. And,
at the same token, a Pan-Afrikan movement that does not have
women at the front in their leadership, mobilization and operation
is an irrelevant movement. Our revolutionary fitness must actually
liberate us, not enslave us to concepts that were forced on us to
suffocate our power. Are we willing to suffer for the outcomes we
need? Or do we want to chill our way there? I hope we all know
which one of these decisions is the only one that will warrant
meaningful results.
 About The Author
Dr Baba Amani Olubanjo Buntu is an Activist Scholar and Founding
Director of eBukhosini Solutions; a community-based company based in
Johannesburg, South Africa, specializing in Afrikan-Centred Education.
As a Pan-Afrikan educator, writer,
mentor, and practitioner, Dr Buntu
has more than 30 years of
experience in conceptualizing and
contributing to programs on social
development, innovative
entrepreneurship and cultural
empowerment. His practices are
anchored in Black Consciousness,
Pan-Afrikan decoloniality and
indigeneous spiritual philosophy.
Buntu is also the founder of many
empowerment projects, geared
towards the healing and
restoration of the Afrikan family. As an educator, writer, mentor and
practitioner, with broad experience from work in Afrika, the Carribean
and Europe, Baba Buntu’s passion lies within people-centred
development of Afrikan communitites. He holds a Doctoral and Master’s
Degree in the Philosophy of Education from UNISA.
 5

rom the inception of his political work, Robert Sobukwe

challenged the jurisdiction of the racist legal philosophy; he
identified jurisprudence, legislation and law enforcement as
key institutions to be challenged. Sobukwe understood that
the settler colonialism and the subsequent dispossession and
oppression of Afrikan people were not only instituted and
legitimized through conquest, rape and murder, but also
maintained through the prescriptions of the law. According to
Sobukwe, the racist project of settler imperialism was maintained,
sustained, and perpetuated through judicial, legislative and law
enforcement institutions and agencies such as the police, the courts
and parliament. There are perhaps at least seven significant areas
or stages of Sobukwe’s encounter with the law that are critical,
namely: (1) dismissal from Jandrell Secondary School; (2) rejection
of the Freedom Charter; (3) the Positive Action Campaign Against
Pass Laws; (4) imprisonment at Pretoria Central; (5) the Sobukwe
Clause; (6) banishment to Galeshewe; and (7) his death.
In 1950, Sobukwe was appointed as a teacher at Jandrell Secondary
School in Standerton, where he taught History, English, and
Geography. In 1952 he lost his teaching position after speaking out
in favour of the ANC’s Defiance Campaign. This was perhaps one
of Sobukwe’s earliest recorded encounters with the law. At that
time, he was serving as the secretary of the ANC’s Standerton
branch. He challenged his dismissal and, owing to the supreme
prowess of his articulate arguments; he was reinstated as a teacher.

Sobukwe’s second encounter with the law followed the signing of

the Freedom Charter in 1955. When leaders of the ANC signed the
‘Freedom Charter’ which claimed South African belongs to all who
live in it, Sobukwe and his other colleagues rejected it, stating that
the land of the Afrikan people belonged to the indigenous people
who were colonized and dispossessed by European settlers.

“In 1955 the Kilptown Charter was adopted, which according to us,
is an irreconcilable conflict with the 1949 Programme seeing that it
claims that the land is no longer for Africans, but is auctioned for
sale to all who live in this country. We have come to the parting of
the ways, and we are here and now giving notice that we are
disassociating ourselves from the ANC as it is constituted at present.”

Sobukwe and the Afrikanists within the ANC called this document
the ‘Freedom Cheater”. Certain elements of the ‘Freedom Cheater’
were incorporated into the preamble of the new South African
constitution in 1996. The preamble to the South African
constitution reads: “We, the people of South Africa, believe that
South Africa belongs to all who live in it, united in our diversity”.

It is important here to note that the rule of law and

supremacy of the constitution are fundamental concepts in the
hegemony of western democracy. The constitution is the supreme
law of the land. In fact, the preamble to the South African
constitution further reads that the people of South Africa: “adopt
this Constitution as the supreme law of the Republic”. This
inevitably means that today the colonial dispossession of Afrikan
people’s land and the perpetuation of gross violation of crimes
against Black humanity since the 06th April 1652 continue to be
ensured and protected by the prescripts of the South African law,
officiated through the constitution, legislated through parliament
and enforced through the judicial court system. In rejecting the
Freedom Cheater, Sobukwe and his Afrikanist colleagues were in
fact rejecting the perpetual legitimization and legislation of this
dispossession of Afrikan people.

On the 06th April 1959 the Pan-Africanist Congress (PAC) of

Azania was formed in Orlando in Soweto, and Sobukwe became its
founding President. He immediately launched the Status Campaign
which was followed by the Positive Action Campaign Against Pass
Laws. On the 07th March 1960, Mangaliso Sobukwe announced the
PAC’s national anti-pass campaign and on the 16th March 1960 he
wrote to the Commissioner of Police, Major General Rademeyer,
informing him that the Pan-Afrikanist Congress (PAC) of Azania
would be holding a five day non-violent, disciplined and sustained
protest campaign against Pass Laws starting on the 21st March
1960. Sobukwe then issued a circular titled ‘Calling The Nation’ on
the 18th March 1960 in which he announced the PAC’s Positive
Action Campaign, saying: “We pay no bail, no defense, no fine.
This is the call the African people have been waiting for, it has
come. On Monday the 21st of March 1960, we launch our positive
decisive campaign against the Pass Laws”.

The PAC launched its Positive Action Campaign Against

Pass Laws on the 21st March 1960; the young Philip Kgosana led
the PAC march in Langa Township in Cape Town; Zachius
Botlhoko Molete led the PAC march in Evaton; George Ndlovu led
the PAC march in Alexandra Township; Robert Sobukwe led the
PAC march in Soweto, and Nyakane Tsolo led the PAC march in
Sharpeville. As per Sobukwe’s instruction to “go to jail under the
slogan ‘no bail, no defence, no fine’”, all these leaders, including
Sobukwe, were arrested on that day. The rest is history, the
Sharpeville-Langa Massacres occurred, resulting in the widespread
arrest of PAC leaders all around the country, including Sobukwe.
An order was issued on 25th March 1960 for the banishment of
Sobukwe to the Driefontein Native Trust Farm in the Vryburg
District in the North West. The banning order noted that Sobukwe
had been arrested and was awaiting trial but stated that “it was
necessary to have a banishment order in hand just in case he is
released”. Interestingly, Sobukwe never spent time in banishment;
on the 04th May 1960 he was sentenced to three years
imprisonment for inciting Afrikans to demand the repeal of the
racist pass laws. At his trial, Sobukwe refused to neither plead nor
appeal against his sentencing, as well as the aid of an attorney, on
principled grounds that the racist court had no jurisdiction over
him and his co-accused as it was illegitimate.

Speaking in court, Sobukwe said: “We decided to bring

about the immediate abolition of the Pass Laws because that was
the immediate needs of the Afrikan people… We refuse to plead to
the charges against us. We feel we have no moral obligation to
obey the laws made by a white minority. Without wishing to
impugn the personal honour and integrity of the magistrate, an
unjust law cannot be applied justly”.

Subsequently, Sobukwe was jailed for three years at Pretoria

Central Prison, now Kgosi Mampuru. At Kgosi Mampuru,
Sobukwe was subjected to hard labour and consistent
psychological check-ups to assess his mental state. On the 22
November 1962, while Sobukwe was on his second year serving a
prison sentence at Pretoria Central Prison, about 250 Poqo
guerrillas carrying axes, pangas, and other handmade weapons
unleashed the Poqo Insurrection in Paarl. The primary targets of
this insurrection was the prison in Paarl, where the intention was
to release prisoners, as well as an attack on the Police station to
acquire more weapons. Even though Sobukwe was serving his
prison sentence incarcerated at Pretoria Central at this time, the
Snyman Commission instituted to investigate the circumstances
surrounding the Poqo Insurrection identified Sobukwe as a co-
conspirator. Justice Synman declared that there was a direct
correlation in meaning between the titles Poqo and PAC; both were
names of the same organization led by Sobukwe. In line with this
thinking on the 04th March 1963 the Cape Times published an
article titled ‘Sobukwe Was Poqo Leader’ in which Sobukwe was
cast as the leader of a blood thirsty movement of Afrikans who
wanted to kill whites or drive them to the sea.
Just before Sobukwe was due to complete his three-year prison
sentence on the 03rd May 1963, the white parliament urgently
enacted a General Law Amendment Act, which included Clause
Number 4, which was named the 'Sobukwe Clause'. Significantly,
in the same year and month that the ‘Sobukwe Clause’ was being
passed by the racist South African Parliament, the Organisation of
Afrikan Unity (OAU), now Afrikan Union (AU), was established in
Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, on the 25th May 1963. The Sobukwe Clause
empowered the racist Minister of Justice, Balthazar Johannes (B. J.)
Voster, to prolong the detention of any political prisoner
indefinitely. Voster told parliament that: “Sobukwe will have
served his sentence on 3 May… He was firstly the leader of the PAC
and I can tell honourable members there has been no change of
heart in him during the time he has not been in our midst… The
government has to consider this matter… and the facts as exposed
in the Snyman Commission Report, that it would be failing in its
duty of the peaceful citizenry if it were to set this man free. This
clause will be used to keep him there longer… I know the principle
that here is a man who has served his sentence. But having regard
to the circumstances, the government may decide that it is
necessary for the security of the state to do so”.

Voster further revealed that he had received a letter from Justice

Snyman which stated that: “the PAC is a cancer in our
community… I am offering these comments because I think it can
be exterminated provided it is dealt with firmly. It should not be
permitted to develop. Yours faithfully, J. H. Snyman”.

Concluding his submission before parliament Voster stated:

“on this matter, including all representations I received in this
regard, and that I also paid a private visit to the person concerned
 (Sobukwe)… I am convinced that at this stage it is not in the public
interest that he should be released”.

Subsequently, Robert Sobukwe was blind-folded and secretly

transported from Pretoria Central Prison to Robben Island, where
he was incarcerated in solitary confinement indefinitely. The
‘Sobukwe Clause’ was renewed annually by the racist South
African Parliament and was never used to detain anyone else. By
1968 Sobukwe’s detention was still a matter of annual debate
before the white parliament. Both houses of the parliament were
united in their desire to have Sobukwe imprisoned on Robben
Island without trial. In one of the annual parliamentary debates on
the Sobukwe Clause Helen Suzman said: “This clause was
introduced in 1963 in a great rush in order to deal with one man
and one man only, and that of course is Robert Sobukwe… This will
be the ninth year that Sobukwe will be held, for only three years
of which period he in fact was serving the sentence imposed upon
him by a court of law. Sobukwe was sent to gaol by a judge for
incitement against the pass laws. He was sentenced to three years
imprisonment. He is still paying for the tragedy of Sharpeville,
although it was not he or the people who were protesting against
the pass laws who opened fire”. Contributing to this debate
honourable M. W. Holland said: “I was convinced that that
legislation was necessary in the interest of the security of South
Africa… if the honourable Minister, a man with a deep sense of
justice and legal training, had to take such a decision, then there
must have been good reason for it. It is quite clear to me, however
much I pity Robert Sobukwe, that if he were to be released then it
will not take long before he is smuggled to Dar Er Salaam to
reunify the PAC”. So Sobukwe was kept alone in solitary
confinement, he had no contact with any other prisoners. Even the
prison guards were not permitted to talk to him; he spent much of
his time writing and studying. In fact, Sobukwe also wrote a
number of letters and books that were confiscated by the
authorities. He was considered enemy number one of the state so
everything he wrote and communicated was intercepted and
censored to ensure that he would never "incite" Afrikan people
towards revolution again.

While incarcerated on Robben Island, Sobukwe obtained a degree

in Economics from the University of London. In 1964 he was
offered a job by the National Association for the Advancement of
Coloured People (NAACP of W.E.B. Du Bois) and the Montgomery
Fellowship for Foreign Aid in the US. Sobukwe applied to leave
South Africa permanently with his family to take up the job offer;
this request was denied by Minister of Justice, John Vorster. In his
own words Voster said that his department had made a thorough
study of Sobukwe and concluded saying: “I decided that in the
interests of South Africa I could not permit him to go overseas”.

Whilst on Robben Island Sobukwe was poisoned and fed food with
glass. He subsequently fell ill. His wife, Mama Zondeni Sobukwe,
engaged the state through a number of combative letters
challenging Sobukwe’s incarceration. She demanded several
meetings with the government leaders, none of which were
honoured. When all her requests for meetings failed she asked the
state for permission to become a voluntary prisoner and stay with
Sobukwe on Robben Island to oversee his health. This request too
was denied. The state was determined to deny any form of justice
on Sobukwe and his family. Their aim was to kill him.

Realising Sobukwe’s deteriorating health condition, and fearing

that he would be martyred in prison; on the 25th April 1969
Minister of Justice Petrus C. Pelser announced that Sobukwe would
be released “subject to such restrictions as are deemed necessary for
the safety of the state”. On the 13th May 1969 Robert Sobukwe was
released from Robben Island and banished under to Galeshewe
Township in Kimberley where he was joined by his family. In
Galeshewe he remained under twelve-hour house arrest and his
banning order prohibited him from participating in any political
activity.
In fact Sobukwe was not even permitted to teach in any
school nor preach or pray at any church. While banished under
house arrest Sobukwe started his studies for a law degree at UNISA.
On the 12th February 1970 he registered with UNISA for the
Attorneys Admission Examination. Upon completion of his law
degree, he entered articles of clerkship with Howard Zondwako
Mbava Nzimande Attorneys, practising at No. T12 Nyambane
Street in Galeshewe. After Sobukwe had completed his articles and
qualified as an attorney he was barred from practising law or and
denied permission to enter the courts of law except as an accused
or witness. On the 01st March 1971 Minister of Justice Jimmy
Kruger issued a notice prohibiting Sobukwe from attending any
court for the purpose of his performance of duties at Nzimande
Attorneys. The courts wrote several letters to the then Minister of
Justice requesting his written statement that he had no objection
to Sobukwe being admitted as an attorney. Sobukwe had to fight
that racist banning order and law to be accepted as a practising
attorney. On the 30th March 1974 Sobukwe’s employment and
services as an articled clerk at Nzimande Attorneys came to an end.

On the 18th May 1974 Sobukwe was issued with a certificate

recording that he had passed the Attorneys Admission
Examination here at UNISA. The government then reversed the
decision and withdrew the clause that banned Sobukwe from
entering a court of law. On the 13th June 1975 Sobukwe was finally
admitted to practice as an attorney in Kimberley, under strict
surveillance and monitored conditions. Although allowed to
practise law, he was not allowed take up any political cases. In
1975 he established his own law firm, R.M. Sobukwe Attorneys, in
Galeshewe and started practising as an attorney.

All media and newspapers could not interview or quote anything

he said in court, nor could they report on any of the cases he
handled. None of his clients and associates were allowed to speak
to the media about him or any case he handled. As a result, today
there is not a single publicly available record of the court cases
Sobukwe presided over as an attorney. We are made to believe
these documents were destroyed as part of the conspiracy to erase
and silence him. The offices of Sobukwe’s law firm - declared a
national heritage site by the government in 2005 - are today an
indictment on the conscience of South Africa as they lie abandoned,
rejected just like him. Sobukwe was an outlawed lawyer. In fact
there is a 1970’s newspaper article which reported on the
sentencing of a Cape Town man named Abdul Quyum Sayed who
was jailed for quoting Sobukwe.

Mr Abdul Sayed was sentenced to nine-month

imprisonment for quoting Sobukwe by the Cape Town Regional
Magistrate. Very few people are aware that Robert Mangaliso
Sobukwe also inspired South Africa’s first Black woman Judge of
the South African Constitutional Court, Justice Yvonne Mokgoro,
to study law. Mokgoro was represented by Robert Sobukwe after
being arrested for standing up for a young man arrested by the
apartheid police in Galeshewe for loitering. Sobukwe, who was one
of only two Black lawyers in Galeshewe, secured Mokgoro’s
release and inspired her to take up law in the fight against
apartheid by telling her she should consider becoming a lawyer.
Mokgoro was enrolled as a teacher at university at first and
dropped teaching for law after being inspired by Sobukwe when
he said to her “there’s no law that precludes women from studying
law”. Sobukwe continued practising law, primarily helping and
handling cases of poor Black people in Galeshewe. This he did pro
bono (free of charge) for all his clients until he became seriously ill.
In September 1977 Sobukwe was admitted at Groote Schuur’s
cardiac and pulmonary ward. While he was in the hospital the
security branch instructed the medical staff not to permit any
visitors to visit him except his family.

On the 12th September 1977 (the day Steve Biko was killed),
Dr Christiaan Barnard and his team, including cardiothoracic
surgeon Dr Jose de Nobrega, secretly operated Sobukwe for an
alleged removal of a cancerous lung without the knowledge or
consent of his wife, or any member of his family. The racist courts,
parliament and the medical establishment all collaborated in
creating unjust and inhumane conditions that resulted in
Sobukwe’s untimely death under detention.

On 27 February 1978 Sobukwe died from lung complications at

Kimberley General Hospital. Sobukwe did not die a natural death;
his was an orchestrated and systematic murder. 41 years after his
murder, neither Commissions of Inquiry nor Inquests into the
assassination of Sobukwe have ever been instituted. The silence
around his memory and legacy extends to the circumstances
around his untimely killing. Sobukwe was also honoured
posthumously with a number of law degrees. The first one, Doctor
of Laws, was awarded by the University of Ahmadu Bello in
Nigeria seven years on the 16th February 1985, seven years after
his passing. The second one, Doctor of Laws, was awarded by the
University of Fort Hare in 1998. The third one, Doctor of Laws was
awarded by Wits University in 2003. The fourth one, Doctor of
Laws, was awarded by UNISA on the 20th October 2015.

Today, 57 years after the passing of the draconian ‘Sobukwe

Clause’, Afrikan nations and leaders have failed to deconstruct the
continued Western (white) domination of the continent whether
socially, politically, economically, culturally, epistemologically or
jurisprudentially. Sobukwe’s memory and legacy continue to
languish in solitary confinement; his intellectual work and his
voice remain under house arrest. Today’s one sided historicity has
invented the myth of super-politicians; individuals who are puffed
up and cast as the sole agents of socio-econominc and political
change. Leaders like Sobukwe who consistently challenged the
racist legal philosophy of Herenvolkism (white supremacy) remain
muted, silenced and erased from public memory.
About The Author
Thandolwethu Sipuye is An
Afrikan-centred Historian and
Activist. He is the founder and
editor of The Black Voice, a
radical grassroots journal and an
executive member of The Ankh
Foundation and the Africentrik
Study Group
 6

he negotiations to create the South African Constitution

started in 1990 by people who selected themselves, and they
decided amongst themselves what they were going to discuss.
There was no attempt to make sure that they represented the South
African population, or whether citizens wanted a Constitutional or
Parliamentary democracy or any alternative system. They imposed
the Constitutional democracy onto South Africans. Nevertheless,
the White minority was eventually consulted in the middle of the
negotiations in 1992, for them to approve or reject the negotiations
process to create the Constitution. However, the majority of Black
people were never consulted on anything regarding the
negotiations. This piece is about unpacking the negotiation
process, chronologically.

The following are the chronological highlights of the negotiations.

On 02 February 1990, Apartheid President FW de Klerk

unbanned the African National Congress (ANC), Pan Africanist
Congress (PAC), the South African Communist Party (SACP)
and other liberation movements. On 11 February 1990, he
released Nelson Mandela and other political prisoners. Later,
the people who we in exile were also allowed to come back
home.

On 04 May 1990, the negotiations began with secret meetings

only between the African National Congress and the South
African Apartheid government. This was called the Groote
Schuur Minute; they said it was to prepare a climate for
negotiations. Then on 06 August 1990, there was a Pretoria
Minute , which included the suspension of the armed struggle
by the ANC and its military wing uMkhonto we Sizwe.
 On 14 September 1991 - The National Peace Accord was signed
by representatives of 27 political organizations and homeland
governments and prepared the way for the CODESA
negotiations. Then in October 1991, about 92 organizations
gathered in Durban. They agreed on the modalities of handing
over power to all South Africans. (These organizations
represented themselves, the public was cnsulted for their input}

On 21 December 1991, CODESA was presided by

judges Michael Corbett, Petrus Shabort, and Ismail Mahomed.
It was attended by 228 delegates from 19 political
organizations, to discuss:

1) The New Constitution

2) Setting up an Interim Government
3) The future of homelands
4) The period for the implementation of the changes
5) The electoral system

19 organizations participated:

The National Party negotiated as a political party and as a

government, that means it represented all White people because
the Apartheid government was only elected by White people.
The other participating organizations represented themselves, not
the public because the public, as already indicated, was not
consulted for their input.

a. National Party,
b. African National Congress,
c. Inkatha Freedom Party,
d. Democratic Party,
e. South African Communist Party,
f. South African Indian Congress,
g. Coloured Labour Party,
h. Indian National People's Party and Solidarity Party,
i. leaders of the nominally
j. Iindependent bantustans of Transkei, Ciskei, Bophutha
tswana, and Venda.
k. And others

The Conservative Party claimed that the Apartheid

government did not have the mandate to negotiate with the
ANC. Then on 20 February, 1992, the Apartheid State
President F. W. de Klerk announced a Whites Only
referendum.
De Klerk told the media that he would interpret a majority
"Yes" vote as a mandate to enter into binding agreements with
the ANC and other Black leaders, without further approval
from White voters. He stated that a second referendum to
approve the terms of the constitutional settlement would not
be necessary unless they differed substantially from the
Government's promises. These promises included a bill of
rights, separation of powers between the branches of
 Government, an independent judiciary, and a Parliament
consisting of two houses.

Results

South African Apartheid Whites-Only referendum

17 March 1992

Do you support the continuation of the reform process which

the State President began on 2 February 1990 and which is
aimed at a new Constitution through negotiations?

Votes %

Yes 1,924,186 68.73%

No 875,619 31.27%

Valid votes 2,799,805 99.82%

Invalid or blank votes 5,142 0.18%

Total votes 2,804,947 100.00%

Registered voters/turnout 3,296,800 85.08%

 De Klerk and his Government (National Party) received a clear
mandate from Whites to negotiate on their behalf, as two-
thirds voted ‘yes.’

There was no referendum or any form of consultation for Black

South Africans. Therefore, nobody represented Black people in
the Constitutional negotiations.

They negotiated as a government and signed all negotiation

documents as Government. They won a Whites Only referendum,
which means they had a mandate to represent all White people in
the negotiations.

The African National Congress represented themselves in the

negotiations. Because they only consulted within the ANC. They
did not seek a mandate from people outside their structures, to
negotiate for them. The ANC was banned from 1960 until 1990,
how many members did they have in 1990? Unless you were a
member of the ANC between 1990 and 1994, you were not
represented by the ANC in the negotiations. Also, the ANC is a
non-racial political organization; therefore, they represented all
their members’ interests, Black and White.
No other organization asked for a mandate from Black people to
negotiate on their behalf. These organizations only represented
their own members.

CODESA collapsed because of violence in the townships and

hostels; a lot of people were killed. Then on 26 September 1992,
the Apartheid government and the ANC agreed on a Record of
Understanding. This dealt with a constitutional assembly, an
interim government, political prisoners, hostels, dangerous
weapons, mass action and restarted the negotiation process
after the failure of CODESA

On 1 April 1993, the Multiparty Negotiating Forum (MPNF)

gathered for the first time.
In contrast to CODESA, the white right (the Conservative Party
and the Afrikaner Volksunie), the Pan Africanist Congress, the
KwaZulu homeland government and delegations of traditional
leaders participated in the Multiparty Negotiating Forum.
Following the Record of Understanding, the two main negotiating
parties, the ANC and the NP, agreed to reach bilateral consensus
on issues before taking them to the other parties in the forum. This
put considerable pressure on the other parties to agree with the
consensus or be left behind. In protest at the perceived sidelining
of the mainly Inkatha Freedom Party (IFP), Mangosuthu Buthelezi
took the IFP out of the MPNF and formed the Concerned South
Africans Group (COSAG; later renamed the "Freedom Alliance")
together with traditional leaders, homeland leaders, and white
right-wing groups.

8.
)
On 18 November 1993, the MPNF ratified the interim
Constitution (without a mandate from Black South Africans)
Thereafter, the Transitional Executive Council (TEC) oversaw
the run-up to a democratic election.
Look closely at the signatories & who they
were representing:
1. Constand Viljoen (Freedom Front)
2.Thabo Mbeki (African National Congress
3.Roelf Meyer (Government and National Party
Whites were represented by the Government.
The ANC represented the ANC. No one
represented black people.
Here there are many signatures, but there are When the Constitution was adopted in
also two significant signatures. had the Self Determination clause 235
1. US Ambassador P.N. Lyman
2. UK Ambassador A. Reeve

On 23 April 1994, the National Party Government, African

National Congress, and Conservative Party signed an Afrikaner
Accord for Self Determination. This became Section 235 in the
Constitution. Proof that what was discussed before the 1994
elections landed in the Constitution.
During the 1994 election campaign, The ANC never asked for
a mandate from voters to represent them in creating the
Constitution. People thought they were voting for “A better
life for all” – as per the ANC Slogan in 1994, through the
Reconstruction and Development Programme (RDP).

• Housing
• Clean water
• Electrification
• Land reform
• Healthcare
• Public works

Before the adoption of the Constitution, Parliament consulted

some people and organizations for their comments if they
approved of the Constitution. This consultation was not
scientific, because not all South Africans were reached,
Parliament chose who to consult. There was no referendum for
the entire country, just like the Whites Only referendum.

The Constitution was adopted on 10 May 1996 by

Parliamentarians who wrote it.
11. The 27 April 1994 National Election Results - 19 million
citizens voted
The Whites Only referendum had 1.9 million voters who were told
that the negotiations were for the Constitution, and they approved.
But the 1994 elections had 19.5 million voters. That means about
17 million were Blacks, how many of these 17 million were
represented in CODESA and MPNF?

a. What were the requirements to participate in CODESA

and MPNF?
b. How many people did those organizations represent,
compared to the country's population?
c. The ANC was banned from 1960; they had no members
inside the country in 1990 when they were unbanned.
Then how many people did the ANC represent in 1990
when they started negotiating?
d. The ANC is a non-racial party, and it could never
represent the wishes of Black people only.
e. Then who represented Black people, in those
negotiations?
f. Before the 1994 Elections, all these organizations that
participated in negotiations were campaigning for
power. None of them asked people for a mandate to
create the Constitution on their behalf when they get to
Parliament.
g. Even after they finalized the Constitution in 1996, they
adopted it themselves without having a referendum for
South Africans to approve or reject it.
 I hope it is now clear that the Constitution, just like
Colonialization and Apartheid, was created in the presence of
Black people but without their involvement. During
Colonialization, they arrived in 1652 and in 1913, they passed
the Land Act, which allocated most of the land to White people,
but without consulting Black people. During Apartheid, they
chose certain Black people to work with, as the Homeland
leaders, to make it seem like Black people approved of
Apartheid. Also, in creating the Constitution, the Apartheid
Government chose the Black organizations to negotiate with.
To make it look like Black masses were involved, but they were
not.

Therefore, it is inevitable that the Constitution benefits

Apartheid beneficiaries. It is the continuation of
Colonialization and Apartheid. In fact, the Colonial 1913 Land
Act is legal in the Constitution today, with the blessing of those
Black organizations that participated in the Constitutional
negotiations. To say you can amend it to also favour Black
people, is like saying you can amend Apartheid to also favour
Black people. It is impossible. Therefore, Black South Africans
will never be free until they get rid of the Constitution.

References: www.sahistory.org.za. www.iec.gov.za

About The Author

Land Noli is a Black Consciousness Activist who uses Social Media to
awaken Black people. Her Land Noli accounts are available on Twitter
and Facebook and she is continuously educating and playing the role of
Black media in a South Africa that is colonized in contemporary times.