Fugitive Saif al-Islam Gaddafi and the South African Mercenaries
Disturbing reports about the late Muammar Gaddafi’s son, Saif al-Islam Gaddafi, allegedly hiring South African mercenaries to help him escape from Libya, come as no surprise. South African mercenaries continue to be active in deadly conflicts across Africa, despite the fact that an Anti-Mercenary Act was drawn up as far back as 2006.
Sabelo Gumedze, Senior Researcher, Security Sector Governance Programme, ISS Pretoria Office
Disturbing reports about the late Muammar Gaddafi’s son, Saif al-Islam Gaddafi, allegedly hiring South African
mercenaries to help him escape from Libya, come as no surprise. South African
mercenaries continue to be active in deadly conflicts across Africa, despite the
fact that an Anti-Mercenary Act was drawn up as far back as 2006. The Act has
still not been written into law due to inaction by President Jacob Zuma. This
procrastination is extremely damaging to the efforts to curb mercenary
activities.
It is clear that the South African Government has not
prioritised the prohibition of mercenary activities in order to give effect to
the values enshrined in the South African Constitution and international
instruments. These reports corroborate the assertion that South Africa is in
fact encouraging mercenary activities by its inaction to put a stop to the
breeding of mercenaries within its borders. The destabilisation effect of
mercenary activities within Africa is now well documented and the South African
citizens continue be active in these mercenary activities.
How plausible
are these rumours concerning Sail al-Islam? If one considers that mercenaries
are driven by private gain, the rumours of Saif al-Islam hiring
mercenaries not only to smuggle him out, but also to overthrow the National Transitional Council of Libya, are
not far-fetched. In fact Saif al-Islam reportedly vowed to take revenge for his father`s death and this
cannot be achieved without the use of mercenaries – in all likelihood South
Africans.
If these rumours
prove to be true, and if the Anti-Mercenary Act was in place, it would have
been the ideal opportunity for South Africa to try these mercenaries and show
its commitment to ridding the continent of mercenary activities.
The International Criminal Court
(ICC) process against Saif al-Islam in
itself could provide an opportunity to get to the bottom of the facts
surrounding the alleged mercenary activity in Libya. However, the fact that
South Africa has not promulgated the Anti-Mercenary Act will jeopardise any
processes against the South African mercenaries allegedly hired by Saif al-Islam to face criminal charges in South Africa in terms of
the Act. It must be noted that the Anti-Mercenary Act provides for
extraterritorial jurisdiction, according to which any act constituting an
offence under it and that is committed abroad is considered as having been
committed in South Africa and the person who committed the act can thus be in
tried in a South African court. This is an opportunity that would be missed by
South Africa once the identity of the mercenaries involved in the Libyan
conflict are revealed, possibly during the trial of Saif al-Islam by the ICC, that is, if he is eventually
arrested and tried.
It is almost four years that South Africa’s former
President Thabo Mbeki assented to the Prohibition of Mercenary Activities and
Regulation of Certain Activities in Country of Armed Conflict Act No. 27 of
2006 (Anti-Mercenary Act).
The
Anti-Mercenary Act clearly states (in section 2) that:
No person may within the Republic or elsewhere –
a) participate as a combatant for private gain in an
armed conflict;
b) directly or indirectly recruit, use, train, support
or finance a combatant for private gain in an armed conflict;
c) directly or indirectly participate in any manner in
the initiation, causing or furthering of –
i) an armed
conflict; or
ii) a coup d’état, uprising or rebellion
against any government; or
d) directly or indirectly perform any act aimed at
overthrowing a government or undermining the constitutional order, sovereignty
or territorial integrity of a state.
This Anti-Mercenary Act is still not in force because the
President of the Republic of South Africa has not as yet determined the date
(by Proclamation in the Gazette) upon
which it will come into operation. What seems to be preventing the
Anti-Mercenary Act from entering into force is the process of making the
regulations by the President that will bring the Act into operation. The
President’s inaction in the process ensuring that the Anti-Mercenary Act comes
into operation is regretted. As American entrepreneur Victor Kiam observed, ‘procrastination
is opportunity`s natural assassin’.
The Wonga coup of 2004, which
involved British mercenary Simon Mann and South African Nick du Toit is still
vivid in our minds. In 2009 President Zuma was reported to have justified the
release of Mann and du Toit in Equatorial Guinea on the basis that President
Theodore Obiang Nguema of Equatorial Guinea had learnt from former President
Nelson Mandela to forgive. This was an unfortunate statement, to say the least,
particularly because of the dangers associated with the use of mercenaries in
staging coups in Africa. According to the United Nations working group on the
use of mercenaries as a means of violating human rights and impeding the
enjoyment of the right to self-determination, such a move of pardoning mercenaries was not
in accordance with the Government of Equatorial Guinea’s obligation and
declared intention to hold mercenaries accountable for their activities.
In the same
year, 2009, there were reports of South African mercenaries being recruited to
reinstate deposed Malagasy President Marc Ravalomanana. These mercenaries are
reported to have held meetings with the deposed president in Swaziland where he
had fled to after being deposed by Andry
Rajoelina, the President of the High Transitional Authority of Madagascar.
As argued before, the reports on the use of South African mercenaries in Africa
remains an indictment to the South African Government that has procrastinated
in bringing into operation the Anti-Mercenary Act.
In conclusion, this issue of the alleged participation of South African
mercenaries in the Libyan conflict should provide the South African Government
with a sense of urgency to ensure the entering into force of the Anti-Mercenary
Act and the adoption of the required regulations necessary for the entry into
force and consequent implementation of the Act. Failure to do so, will cast
serious doubt over South Africa’s approach towards curbing the use of
mercenaries in African conflicts. At the very least, the President should
inform the South African public on why the Anti-Mercenary Act has taken so long
to enter into force. This would surely be not be too much to ask for especially
in light of these disturbing reports of South Africans involvement in Africa’s
deadly armed conflicts?