To Forgive Mercenaries in the Spirit of Madiba
The recent presidential pardon for convicted South African mercenaries in Equatorial Guinea is unprecedented. While others view this as an insult to justice and the fight against mercenarism in Africa, others view it as a triumph for the African spirit of forgiveness.
Sabelo Gumedze, Senior Researcher, Security Sector Governance Programme
The recent presidential pardon for convicted South
African mercenaries in Equatorial Guinea is unprecedented. While others
view this as an insult to justice and the fight against mercenarism in
Africa, others view it as a triumph for the African spirit of
forgiveness.
It cannot be denied that mercenaries continue to destabilize the
African continent and that some of them are now infused into the
so-called new modalities of mercenaries in the form of private military
and security companies. It is for this reason that the Republic of
South Africa passed the Prohibition of Mercenary Activities and
Regulation of Certain Activities in Country of Armed Conflict Act 27 of
2006. While this Act is not yet in operation, pending the finalization
of its Regulations, it however sends a very clear message that
mercenary activities cannot be tolerated nor condoned in South Africa.
Of significant importance is that the Act is founded upon the basis
that it is necessary to prohibit mercenary activity in order to give
effect to the values of the South African Constitution and the States’
international obligations.
South African President Jacob Zuma was recently reported to have
said that President Theodore Obiang Nguema of Equatorial Guinea released
the mercenaries because he had learnt from former president Nelson
Mandela to forgive. President Zuma said this while addressing a
gathering of African traditional leaders in honour of Madiba. The irony
of President Zuma’s statement is that it does not corroborate that of
the Equatorial Guinea Presidential in pardoning the convicted
mercenaries. The reason given by President Nguema was that the release
was solely based on humanitarian grounds.
The South African President surely needs to furnish a valid reason
for the mercenaries’ release beyond the use or misuse of the Nelson
Mandela name? If President Zuma was also one of those taught by Mandela
that “as Africans we must forgive”, are we yet to see presidential
pardons in South Africa in respect of those that were convicted of
serious offences in South Africa? If that is the case, South Africa’s
convicted serial rapist and notorious criminal Annanias Mathe
must be looking forward to his presidential pardon before the Soccer
World Cup in 2010. This will be in the Madiba spirit of forgiveness.
The release of the mercenaries and the subsequent behaviour of the
South African Government, which is being economical with the truth
regarding its role in the drama, raise more questions than answers. The
main question is, why?
The presidential pardon is in fact more than the release of
convicted mercenaries on humanitarian grounds and is far beyond what
the application of the Madiba spirit of forgiveness. The sheer
coincidence that the pardon came on the eve of an official visit to
Equatorial Guinea by Mr Zuma also deepens the question. If the South
African mercenaries were only pardoned on humanitarian grounds, it is
Simon Mann that should have been granted the amnesty, considering his
state of health. Mann was suffering from ill health for a long time and
operated on for a hernia in November 2008. Why the other convicted
South African mercenaries, whose state of health was not as bad, were
extended the “presidential mercy” is another issue.
Some have asked whether the mercenaries will be recharged for the
same offence, which they have already been convicted of, upon return in
South Africa. Section 35 (3) (m) of the South African Constitution
makes it very clear that this would be an exercise in futility. This
section provides that every accused person has a right to a fair trial,
which includes the right not to be tried for an offence in respect of
an act or omission for which that person has previously been either
acquitted or convicted.
Any attempt to recharge the already convicted mercenaries in South
Africa would be fiercely opposed based on this provision. This would
also be contrary to President Zuma’s understanding of the Madiba’s
spirit of forgiveness. Perhaps, the Madiba spirit of forgiveness needs
to be unpacked. Whether this so-called Mandela spirit is linked to
Equatorial Guinea oil and the prospects of good trade relations between
the two countries, remains to be seen.
The only thing that one can be sure of is that the South African
government was involved, in one way or another, in the discussions
relating to the eventual pardoning and release of the South African
mercenaries.
When South African mercenary Nick du Toit was reported to have said
that “President Zuma freed them”, this statement was strongly contested
by the South African government. The explanation given that the
release was done on humanitarian grounds, does not really hold water
because not all the men suffered from some serious disease.
The notion of the Mandela spirit of forgiveness is in fact a bit
far-fetched, especially when we are speaking here about convicted
individuals, who by the way never denied the allegations levelled
against them. That President Zuma has placed the oil-rich Equatorial
Guinea very high on his international relations priority list is a
fact, which seems to be one of the considerations for the presidential
pardon. However, the secrecy behind the travel arrangements of the
South African convicted mercenaries has also raised a lot of suspicion
in the minds of South Africans and leads some to conclude that
international relations with Equatorial Guinea is not the only reason.
It cannot be denied that the South African paroled mercenaries are
already in South Africa. They had 24 hours to leave Equatorial Guinea.
The South African government opted to keep their travel plans secret.
The media was never given an opportunity to witness the arrival of the
four men and no justification for doing so was given. The South African
public deserves to know the raison d’être for the release of
people who are considered to be very dangerous to society and to the
state. The public also deserves to know what guarantees the South
African government has put in place in order to prevent the so-called
mercenaries from continuing with their specialised trade or from
joining or establishing private military and security companies.
