Icasa.weebly.com - Explains just how much has southern Africa been Exploited

  Attachment 6a**:  

      San and Congo, with reference to the mining corporations                                  and Fracking in the Karoo*.

 

The oldest known indigenous tribe of Southern Africa is the Bushmen, called 

The San by The Khoikhoi. Western scholars call them the KhoiSan from their 

Language Group.  Many of the Khoikhoi people had moved up north from the 

Cape, after the colonisers arrived in the Cape forming new groups such as 

the Griqua. They settled in the areas which were harsh to survive in, the 

deserts of southern Africa and South West Africa (Namibia).

Repeatedly when natural elements considered to be of wealth are discovered 

in the area inhabited by the KhoiSan, the KhoiSan are displaced and the 

wealth taken from the land they inhabit without their permission and 

without compensation.

 

 

*Namibia diamond mines*

After the discovery of diamonds during the 1800’s in the Kimberley area, 

which is situated below South West Africa, the precious mineral bearing 

veins were followed into South West Africa, and once again, the indigenous 

people of Southern Africa were attacked and their land annexed by the 

Crown. These people now live in abject poverty, whilst the mining magnate 

associates of the Crown, inclusive of the De Beers mining corporation, rape 

the land of all its wealth. Not only do they take possession of the 

minerals of the land they invade, but also rule the economies of the land 

they invade, and have become a law unto themselves. To point, Namibian 

Mines and Energy Minister Erkki Nghimtina signed an agreement to create the 

Namibia Diamond Trading Company with Nicky Oppenheimer, Chairman of the De 

Beers Group. Neither the Minister, nor the Chairman, are of the KhoiSan 

tribe.

 

*The modus operandi of the mining corporations*

The modus operandi of the mining corporations remain the same throughout 

Africa, wherein we can see most clearly what had happened in South Africa, 

and caused instability amongst the people who live in the land they operate 

in. 

The inhumane Anglo-Boer War of 1899-1902, instigated by these same mining 

interests - to gain control of the mineral wealth of the Transvaal - saw 

24,000 Boer children and 3,000 women killed in British concentration camps; 

and the Boer farm houses, crops and livestock burned down in the British 

"Scorched Earth Policy". 

The Boers thus impoverished after the war, were obliged to find an income 

where ever they could. Many flocked to work in the mines, which now 

belonged to the enemy of the Boers, on the land which had been stolen from 

the Boers.

 

In 1922, Ernest Oppenheimer fired them overnight, and replaced them with 

illiterate African workers. Boers had worked for £30.00 a month; the 

Africans would work for only £3.00 a month.

 

This substitution represented a saving of £27.00 per month per employee on 

the wage bill -- an immediate benefit to the company! The subsequent riot 

by the Boer miners was put down brutally by the British employed General 

Smuts whose troops, armed with machine-guns, enforced the decision of Mr. 

Oppenheimer, the London Elite, and the Royal Institute of International 

Affairs (RIIA), which has directed matters in SA ever since, and upon whose 

Inner Circle, sat Rothschild and his henchman, Lord Milner. 

 

After the Anglo-Boer War, Milner, whose aim it had been to exterminate the 

Boers "for ever and ever," declared: "It is no longer war with guns and 

bullets, but it is war still." So it has been ever since, and is still 

today, though a new generation of Rothschilds and Oppenheimers now direct 

matters.

 

Cyril Ramaphosa, prominent African National Congress member, one of the 

Black oligarchs created by the Oppenheimer-Rothschild financial empire, was 

detained in the 1970’s for his work as a black consciousness movement 

organizer. He had organized and unionized South Africa's mineworkers, who 

were forced to live in single-sex, military-style barracks under the 

control of the mining houses. 

The Machiavellian Oppenheimer profited from cheap labour under the 

Apartheid government, forcing his workers to live under these conditions, 

while simultaneously financially supporting the African National Congress, 

and developing strong ties to their leaders; this association has paid off 

very beneficially for the Oppenheimer family as various exceptions to 

regulations in government have been made by the African National Congress 

in government to the benefit of the Oppenheimers at the cost of the nation, 

including astronomical tax concessions, disinvestment by the Oppenheimer 

conglomerate De Beers, and protection of mining enterprises by the South 

African security forces, even at the cost of South African lives. 

 

 

*Mining conglomerates do not contribute to the progress of the country they 

are in*

 

Following a trend from 1980, by 1990, just four mega- corporations, mainly 

mining companies, controlled 82% of the Johannesburg Stock Exchange (JSE), 

which represented almost the entire GNP of South Africa: Oppenheimer's 

Anglo-American (including De Beers) by itself, controlled over 52% of the 

JSE, however the gold mining companies paid a mere 2.9% of the taxes.1 

 

*Mining corporations forge links with rebel groups in Africa with reference 

to the Congo *

AngloGold Ashanti, part of the international mining conglomerate Anglo 

American (Oppenheimer), won the mining rights to the vast gold concession 

in Mongbwalu, DRC in 1996. Prevented by ongoing war, (until a peace 

agreement was signed and a transitional government was established in 

Kinshasa), from gaining access to its claims, the company forged links with 

the armed group, Nationalist and Integrationist Front (FNI), which retained 

control of the gold-rich mining site in the north-eastern Ituri district.

 

Human Rights Watch researchers documented meetings between the company and 

the armed group leaders. FNI president, Floribert Njabu, told Human Rights 

Watch, "The [Central] government is never going to come to Mongbwalu. I am 

the one who gave Ashanti permission to come. I am the boss of Mongbwalu. If 

I want to chase them away, I will." 

 

 

*(i)         Mass genocide of indigenous people in the Congo *

 

The mineral-rich North-eastern Congo has been one of the worst hit areas 

during Congo's devastating seven-year war. Competing armed groups carried 

out ethnic massacres, rape and torture. 

According to United Nations estimates, a local conflict between Hema and 

Lendu ethnic groups, allied with national rebel groups and foreign backers, 

including Uganda and Rwanda, claimed over 60,000 lives between 1999 and 

2005. These losses are just a portion of an estimated four million 

civilians dead throughout the Congo, during the same time period, yet 

artisanal gold mining continued throughout the conflict.

 

 

*(ii)        Gold smuggled out of the Congo*

 

Millions of dollars worth of gold is smuggled out of the Congo each year, 

some of it destined for Switzerland. 

One starving miner told Human Rights Watch: "We are cursed because of our 

gold. All we do is suffer. There is no benefit to us," while a Congolese 

government official lamented: "We just watch our country's resources drain 

away with no benefit to the Congolese people." However, Anglo AngloGold 

Ashanti is showing a huge profit ...but it was this conglomerate which 

toppled SA's white so-called 'apartheid regime' on 'moral' grounds.2

 

 

 

*Fracking in the Karoo*

 

In September 2012 it was announced that the African National Congress had 

given permission for fracking in the Karoo, despite huge protests against 

fracking in the Karoo by the people who live in that area. To add to this 

consternation, the KhoiSan who live in the desert areas, depend on the 

underground water systems for their survival. Fracking not only uses the 

underground water, but poisons the water once it has been used. 

Fracking in the Karoo is a direct onslaught on the lives of the people who 

live in that area, and should be seen as treason by a government who are 

allowing for the destruction of the means by which its nation lives. 

Fracking in the Karoo is further discussed in Footnote 1 – Fracking in the 

Karoo.

 

*The KhoiSan are calling for their right to self determination*

The KhoiSan have publically called for their independence from the South 

African government in 2012 during a peaceful protest during which they 

handed over their demands to Parliament as was seen on public television.

As yet, the nation has heard no response from the present government.

 

 

*References:*

 

1 Although White individuals constituted only 15% of the population, they 

contributed 77% of the taxes. The state then spent 45% of all taxes on the 

Black population, 5% on the Coloureds (mixed race), and 5% on the Indians, 

but only 38% on Whites. (The Star, 2nd May, 1990)

.2 http://www.hrw.org/english/docs/2005/06/02/congo11041.htm

 

*Footnote.*

Footnote 1 – Fracking in the Karoo.

 

FRACKING THE KAROO - THE PEOPLE SAY NO!

Somerset East; Jan 31, 2011

 

“Do you know what fracking the Karoo is like?” demanded Esme Senekal of 

Somerset East. The people from Royal Dutch Shell and their consultants 

didn’t reply, their faces impassive.

“It’s like you coming and drilling holes in our mother, and then leaving us 

to look after her and take her to hospital. Leave the Karoo alone! 

 

 

*Heaven forbid*

 

“This is the last piece of holy nature in this country. No money is worth 

this. You can’t replace pristine nature with money.”

The surrounding sunburnt Karoo farmers, not a group usually given to high 

emotion, loudly applauded her.

The public meeting, organised by Shell’s consultants, Golder Associates 

(slogan: “Engineering Earth’s development, protecting Earth’s integrity”), 

was held at the Somerset East Town Hall, and started with a prayer to 

protect God’s creation, nature.

Most of the attendees bowing their heads were farmers who face the 

possibility of losing everything if, heaven forbid, shale gas is found 

under their farms – or for that matter, anywhere in the Karoo.

The municipality, which has just as much to lose since Somerset East 

depends completely on groundwater, had sent not a single representative. In 

fact, most Karoo towns depend wholly on groundwater, as do farmers.

 

 

*What the Frack?*

 

Fracking is simply this: it is a process of drilling 1 to 5 km under the 

surface to a layer of shale where natural gas is trapped. Using millions of 

litres of water, sand and an array of chemicals (many of which are 

carcinogenic, endocrine disrupting or just plain toxic), the rock is 

repeatedly fractured by high-pressure explosions underground, allowing the 

gas to be collected. Tens of thousands of wells have been dug in 32 

American states, Canada, Australia and many other parts of the world, and a 

groundswell of popular protest has started.

This is because groundwater has frequently been contaminated as a result, 

either with methane or the chemicals.

Just Google ‘fracking’ (short for hydraulic fracturing) on the internet and 

you’ll be hard put to choose between the hundreds of heartrending accounts 

and YouTube videos from all around the world. Ordinary people  who have 

experienced this method of gas extraction close to their homes have 

recorded their experiences.

Poison, radioactivity, contamination

 

They are horror stories. The water coming out of their taps becomes 

flammable, contaminated with methane and oil, undrinkable. They suffer 

strange lesions, cancers, tumours. Their livestock is poisoned, sometimes 

with radioactive substances brought up from underground as waste material. 

Arsenic and other substances poison their vegetables and crops.

Each account is a little different, but almost every one mentions the fact 

that the oil and gas companies who came to drill and fracture the earth 

assured them that it was safe.

Shell did the same to this crowd, but the attendees had done their homework 

and remained completely sceptical except for one emerging farmer who asked 

hopefully about job creation.

 

 

*No benefits, only risk*

 

Shell at least had the good grace not to even pretend there will be jobs or 

any benefit whatsoever to the community. The only ones to benefit will be 

Government (which owns any and all minerals, gas and oil underground) and 

Shell, and they admitted as much.

Again and again Shell were asked if they could give an assurance (and to 

back it with money) that groundwater and therefore the health, livelihoods, 

communities and towns in the Karoo would not be affected. All Adam 

Dodson could say was that Shell had never any incident of contamination 

while doing exploratory fracking.

He also said the Government was the only recourse for compensation of any 

kind. There was a stifled groan from the crowd.

 

 

*Rupert to the Rescue?*

 

A few of those attending told me they were buoyed by the front page story 

in the Afrikaans weekly, Rapport (30 January 2011), which had come out the 

day before. In it, industrial giant Johann Rupert (no stranger to mining, 

but a man who has property and roots in the Karoo - in particular 

the Graaff-Reinet area) pinned his colours to the mast.

“We are not against responsible exploration or extraction; we are against 

Russian roulette.”

Rupert gave his assurance that he and his family will be fully involved in 

the battle against Shell to the bitter end, and added they will not be 

using Shell products.

Not a Clue

 

Wherever public meetings have been held in the Karoo (including 

Graaff-Reinet and Hofmeyr), angry community members asking pertinent 

questions came away with nothing.

According to Adam Dodson, Shell’s Unconventional Oil & Gas Exploration 

Manager (New Ventures), they still have no idea where the millions of 

litres of water needed for fracking will come from. Possibilities at this 

stage included treated surface water (for which read sewage), deep saline 

aquifers or seawater trucked in by train.

They also could not say which of the chemicals would be used underground, 

what quantity remained underground after fracking (in other parts of the 

world, between 20% and 40% have been found to remain).

In fact, Shell and Golder made it clear there would be no real answers at 

all – this was just the first phase of a very long campaign.

“You’ll be seeing us a lot,” Tisha Greyling of Golder Associates assured 

the discontented crowd.

 

 

*The Karoo lives on Groundwater*

 

Also present at the meeting was Ernest Pringle, president of Agri-Eastern 

Cape and a farmer in the affected district. He stood up in front of the 

meeting to emphasise the importance of groundwater. The recent crippling 

drought in the Bedford and Somerset East region was just a reminder, he 

said.

“I spent all my time trying to pump up more groundwater to keep going. So 

we want to know with certainty what the effects will be to the underground 

water supply.”

When asked if there was any kind of possibility that contamination could 

happen, Dodson pursed his lips and looked down.

Dr Fiona Brown, who also farms nearby, implored Shell to use the 

precautionary principle.

 

 

*Radioactive Karoo*

 

“You know nothing about the Karoo’s groundwater and how aquifers are 

interconnected. No one does. And you don’t know what can go wrong.”

Shell and Golder representatives were unmoved. Tisha Greyling of Golder 

conceded that there will, inevitably, be unhappy people.

One of the things that can go wrong of course, is that the Karoo is riddled 

with uranium, and the chance of raising radioactive waste rock to the 

surface is better than excellent.

Still, despite the complete lack of information coming from Shell or Golder 

Associates, a few eyebrow-raising facts did come through. One was that 

Shell was not alone in wanting to frack the Karoo. Just south of their 

concession was Falcon Oil & Gas’s one. This American company received a 

permit from the Petroleum Agency of South Africa late last year.

 

 

*Attack of the Falcon*

 

Their concession area covers a slightly narrower band than Shell’s band 

including the towns of Merweville, Leeu Gamka, Rietbron, Jansenville and 

Aberdeen. Sasol and other companies are looking at another broad swathe 

northwards, including Bloemfontein and surrounds.

Also, they revealed that the long term plan for the gas was that it would 

be used for power stations to be set up across the Karoo (with the 

attendant power lines, substations and the rest).

After the repeated entreaties for Shell to drop the bid or to rather look 

into solar and wind energy, the last ominous word on the matter came from 

Tisha Greyling of Golder Associates.

“If it’s not Shell, it will be someone else.”

 

 

*Famous on Facebook*

 

Popular Karoo writer and photographer Jonathan Deal has opened a Facebook 

group called chase 

SHELL OIL out of the Karoo! Within 

24 hours, hundreds of people from all over South Africa and beyond signed 

on as supporters of this group.

 

 

 

*Attachment 26**: Economic debts of the Crown to South Africans*

 

Debt occurs when products or services are taken for use but not paid for. 

 

The Crown has amassed economic debt to South Africans for reasons which 

include the following:

·        *Direct economic debt*.

Representatives of the Crown has amassed direct economic debt to South 

Africans as it attached land which belonged to South Africans through 

deceit and then sold it without the permission of the people from whom they 

took the land. The proceeds from the sale of such land were channelled to 

the Crown. The theft of land through deceit is discussed further in 

Attachment 7 - Land annexed and the colonies established by the Crown to 

form the Union of South Africa.

 

·        *Indirect economic debt.*

Representatives of the Crown have amassed indirect economic debt to South 

Africans as it funded political destabilization of South Africa which led 

wars in Africa. Such wars led to financial losses to the South African 

nation as South Africa was forced to spend money on restoring its 

buildings, railway lines, busses, cars, trains, electrical sub-stations, 

and various other components of its infrastructure. 

South Africa was further forced to spend money on medical expenses for its 

people and salaries on staff to protect the nation from physical attacks.

South Africa was also forced to spend money on the purchase of armaments in 

order to protect the nation against acts of terrorism. 

 

Destabilization of South Africa by representatives of the Crown is 

discussed further in the following attachments:

Attachment 5 - Key Role Players in the wars against South Africans before 

the Union of South Africa - Rhodes, Smuts, Milner;

Attachment 6 - War against Southern Africans and mass extermination of 

indigenous tribes for the creation of the Union of South Africa;

Attachment 9 - Objections to the formation of the Union of South Africa;

Attachment 10 - South Africa is bound as a possession by the Crown;

Attachment 12 - Zionist Jewry supported the pre-1994 reigning NP South 

African government and the anti-government movement;

Attachment 14 - MK soldiers.

 

·        *Tangible economic debt*

Representatives of the Crown have amassed tangible economic debt to South 

Africans as it took possession of her mineral wealth and the proceeds of 

the sales thereof without the permission of the majority of South Africans. 

Mining in South Africa by the Crown is discussed further in Attachment 27 - 

Restitutional atrocities committed by the Crown against Southern Africans, 

sub-section: Mining in South Africa.

 

·        *Intangible economic debt*

Representatives of the Crown have amassed intangible economic debt to South 

Africans wherein the means by which South Africans were able to provide for 

themselves was taken away by the Representatives and the only means 

available to breadwinners to earn a living was to be employed by the 

Representatives for salaries far below the standard of which their work was 

worth, which forced the South African nation to be able to spend less than 

what they would have been able to spend inside their country which effected 

the growth of the South African economy adversely. 

 

 

*A.        Her experiences in South Africa advanced the wealth of the Crown 

*

 

*a)         The First World War*

 

The Crown benefitted economically during the First World War from 

technological innovations developed in South Africa which altered mining, 

guns, and transportation. 

 

Technology used in mining for metals used to create armaments used in the 

First World War was improved through experience gained from mining South 

African minerals. The advantage of improved manufacturing helped to tip the 

scale in the war to the benefit of the Crown. 

 

*Deeper mining to delve Kimberley diamonds *

In the 1800’s, mining difficulties helped to create and utilise new 

technology in the Kimberley diamond mines, where new means of extraction 

were needed. Originally, numerous small mines created a strange network of 

larger mining claims. 

By 1873, Kimberly miners were forced to construct a cable transport system 

due to several collapses of the roads leading into the mines. The cables in 

the Kimberly mines were held up by support beams that were placed around 

the perimeter of the mine. Each level of the mine had two to three 

platforms. Originally the ropes were made of animal hides or hemp, within a 

year there was exponential growth of the cable system. The natural 

materials used for the cables were replaced with wire. After only a year, 

the mines had grown so elaborate with this system that it inspired awe in 

people. As mines were dug deeper into the ground, water extraction became a 

problem. The miners brought in electric pumps to help pump out the 

water. Cecil Rhodes started a pumping business during this time. The growth 

in the mines allowed large business owners from the Crown to take control 

of the mines.

 

 

*Improved gun technology *

The annexation of land in Africa by the Crown during the 1800’s and 1900’s 

led to an increase in gun manufacturing. It is notable that gun technology 

greatly improved during the 1870’s. 

During her war against the Boers, the Crown discovered that the accuracy of 

Boer soldiers when shooting was so good that it forced the Crown to improve 

the quality of her guns. One major creation was the repeating rifle. With 

these new improvements, companies which belonged to members of the Crown 

sent large quantities of older models of guns to Africa to sell for large 

profits. This influx of guns greatly influenced and helped to escalate the 

war. 

Historians estimate that towards the end of the 19th century around 4 

million pounds of gun powder was sold in the German and British occupied 

regions of Africa. 

Around 1896 the Shona and the Ndbele had around 10,000 guns between the two 

groups, and by 1879 the Zulu tribes had around 8,000 guns. The Shona were 

even taught how to manufacture ammunition as well as repair broken or 

damaged guns by representatives of the Crown. The guns were also used to 

attract miners because they were sold at and close to mining camps. 

 

Sometime in 1890, a blockade was placed on the importation of guns and 

ammunition in southern Africa. 

 

*Protection of transport lines*

The Boers used guerrilla warfare to protect themselves during the 

Anglo-Boer Wars, which forced the Crown to develop new technology to 

protect their transportation and communication lines between London and the 

British Military. 

 

The telegraph was important for the movement of communications between Cape 

Colony and Griqualand West. In 1881, Cecil Rhodes began working on plans 

for the construction of a railway from Kimberley to Cape Town. These trains 

would become part of Boer's guerrilla warfare by blowing up trains, lines, 

and bridges with soldiers on them. They developed new technology to handle 

the new military tactics. Eventually Hilton, an ex British army Boer 

guerrilla leader, abandoned the Pretoria Delagoa Bay Railway Line as 

impossible due to blockhouses, barbed wire, ditches on either side, 

armoured trains, and frequent checks. Technological developments brought 

into Cape Colony as a need for them developed.

 

 

*b)        The Crown installed regulations in South Africa which allotted 

all          mineral rights to members of the Crown.*

 

The British decided to take control of the Cape Colony (1806), as a 

temporary measure against the French, to protect the trade route between 

Europe and Asia. As time progressed, British policies such as Proclamation 

141, which caused the Black Flag Revolt and the Franchise Dispute which 

culminated in the removal of rights of South Africans.  

 

 

*c)         The Crown used the South African Courts to protect their mining 

assets*

 

“The Black Flag Revolt” in 1875 was between the independent diggers and the 

Cape’s colonial government. Frustrated by high taxes and increased rent for 

mining sites, rebel diggers agreed to revolt when a black flag was mounted. 

The rebel leaders were arrested and put on trial but were found not guilty 

by a jury of their peers. The significance of the “Black Flag Revolt” was 

the end to independent diggers and signalled the rise of diamond magnates.

 

As at present, all mining rights belong to the mining magnates and private 

Southern African civilians are not allowed to mine, or trade with the 

minerals of the land. All profits from these minerals are shared between 

the mining magnates and the state.

 

None of the land has been given back to its original owners or ethnic 

groups prior to the annexation by the Crown, nor have they received any 

compensation for it. 

 

 

*d)        The Crown used the British Military to expand their mining 

assets in    South Africa*

 

As diamond mining communities developed within the Orange Free State, their 

great wealth attracted the attention of the Crown; their new found interest 

eventually led to a heated debate between both the Orange Free State and 

the British Government.

In 1871, the discovery of diamond deposits by prospectors in Griqualand led 

to a struggle for control between Britain, the Orange Free State and the 

Transvaal. 

A Griqua chief claimed the land that the mines were located on belonged to 

him and asked for the protection of the British Government. This action 

resulted in the British annexation the region which became known as 

Griqualand West. In 1880, Griqualand West became a separate province of the 

Cape Colony, allowing for Cecil Rhodes' entrance into Cape Colony politics 

to further his agenda as one of the mining magnates when he stood for 

election to parliament in Barkly West. 

In 1886, gold was discovered in the Zuid Afrikaanse Republiek of the Boers, 

which led to attacks on the Boers by such as the Jameson Raid of 1895 and 

the Anglo-Boer war by the British Military in 1899 by instructions of the 

Crown.

  

*e)         The Crown precipitated war to expand their mining assets in 

South     Africa*

 

John Hays Hammond, chief mining engineer for the House of Rothschild, also 

was sent to South Africa to precipitate the war.  He formed the “Uitlanders 

Reform Committee”, with Lionel Phillips, head of gold and diamond mining 

firm Eckstein–the Corner House;  George Farrar of East Rand Property 

Mines;  and Col. Frank Rhodes, brother of Cecil Rhodes.  The Committee was 

financed by Abe Bailey, Solly Joel, Barney Barnato, and the Ecksteins, all 

of whom were big winners in the partition of the gold and diamond 

properties after the war.  During this activity, Hammond was arrested by 

Paul Kruger, sentenced to death for promoting revolution, and was allowed 

to leave only after paying a $100,000 fine;  he was then hired by the 

Guggenheims at $500,000 year salary, and in 1921 became chief lobbyist for 

the Council on Foreign Relations in Washington. 

 

 

*f)          The Crown used South African Military to protect their mining 

assets*

 

With the discovery of diamonds in Kimberley, gold in Witwatersrand and also 

coal in the Transvaal, industrial capitalism in the region was markedly 

accelerated, and independent African chiefdoms gave way to the mobilisation 

of large numbers of African labourers who migrated to the cities where they 

provided cheap labour for this industrial revolution. 

 

The inhumane Anglo-Boer War of 1899-1902, instigated by those with mining 

interests to gain control of the mineral wealth of the Zuid Afrikaanse 

Republiek of the Boers, saw more than 24,000 Boer children 4,000 women 

killed in British concentration camps; and the Boer farm houses, crops and 

livestock burned down in the British "Scorched Earth Policy". The Boers 

thus impoverished were after the war, obliged to work in the mines. But in 

1922, after these Boers were used to build up these mines for twenty years, 

Ernest Oppenheimer fired them overnight, and replaced them with Blacks: 

Boers had worked for £30.00 a month; the Blacks would work for only £3.00 a 

month.

 This substitution represented a saving of £27.00 per month per employee on 

the wage bill -- an immediate benefit to the company! The subsequent riot 

by the Boer miners was put down brutally by traitor General Smuts whose 

troops, armed with machine-guns, enforced the decision of Mr. Oppenheimer, 

the London Elite, and the Royal Institute of International Affairs (RIIA), 

has directed matters in South Africa ever since, and upon whose Inner 

Circle, sat Rothschild and his henchman, Lord Milner. After the Anglo-Boer 

War, Milner whose aim it had been to exterminate the Boers "for ever and 

ever," declared "It is no longer war with guns and bullets, but it is war 

still." And so it has been ever since, and is still so today, though a new 

generation of Rothschilds and Oppenheimers now direct matters.

 

 

*(i)         The Rand Rebellion of 1922*

Frustration of poor living conditions and meagre earnings for physically 

taxing labour at the hands of the great mine-owners finally exploded in the 

Rand Rebellion of 1922. General Smuts, who represented the Crown as prime 

minister in South Africa, used troops, artillery, and even bombing by 

aircraft to crush this rebellion. Smuts had come down firmly on the side of 

the mine-owners, and the mine-workers were left worse off than ever.

 

 

*(ii)        East Rand Strikes of 12-16 August 1946*

 

Thirty years ago, on August 12, 1946, the African mine workers of the 

Witwatersrand came out on strike in support of a demand for higher wages - 

10 shillings a day. They continued the strike for a week in the face of the 

most savage police terror, in which officially 1,248 workers were wounded 

and a very large number - officially only 9 - were killed. Lawless police 

and army violence smashed the strike. The resources of South Africa, as a 

colony of the Crown, were mobilised against the unarmed workmen.

*Economic hardships led the workers to strike*

In response to growing unrest among the African mine workers, the South 

African government subject to the Crown, appointed a Commission of Enquiry 

in 1943.

The African Mine Workers' Union presented the worker’s claim to a living 

wage before this Commission. 

The Chamber of Mines made no serious attempt to rebut the Union's case, 

reiterating that its policy was to employ cheap African labour. Meanwhile, 

a South African weekly newspaper called ‘the Guardian’, the only paper 

which totally supported the strike, was sued by four mining companies for 

40,000 pounds for publishing the Unions’ memorandum on the grounds that it 

was false and that the recruiting of mine labourers would be hindered. 

The Court decided against the Guardian and awarded 750 pounds damages to 

each of the four companies. 

 

The report of the Lansdowne Commission which appeared in April 1944 

accepted the basic premise of the mine owners; all its recommendations were 

quite frankly made within the framework of preserving the cheap labour 

system. The miner's wage, said the Commission, was not really intended to 

be a living wage, but merely a "supplementary income". Supplementary, that 

is, to the worker's supposed income from his homeland. The evidence placed 

before the Commission of acute starvation in the Transkei and other 

reserves was ignored.

The report of the Commission was received with bitter disappointment by the 

workers. Even its wretchedly miserly recommendations were rejected, in the 

main, by both the government and the mine owners.

The recommendations were:

An increase of five pence per shift for surface workers and six pence per 

shift for underground workers, on the basic rate of 22 pence per shift 

obtained for nearly a generation;

Cost of living allowance of 3 pence per shift;

Boot allowance of 36 pence for 30 shifts;

Two weeks' paid leave per annum for permanent workers; and

overtime wages at time and a half.

 

Towards the end of that year, Prime Minister Smuts announced that wages 

were to be raised by 4 pence for surface and 5 pence for underground 

workers, and that the extra wage would be borne by the State in the form of 

tax remission to the mines. 

 

The Chamber of Mines also agreed to overtime pay. All the other 

recommendations, miserly though they were, were completely ignored.

 

At a conference of representatives of the workers on the 19th of May 1946, 

the African Mine Workers' Union instructed the Executive of the Union to 

make one more approach to the Chamber of Mines to place before them the 

workers' demands for a ten shillings (one Rand) a day wage and other 

improvements. Failing agreement, decided the Conference, the workers would 

take strike action.

From May till July the Union redoubled its efforts to get the Chamber to 

see reason. To all their repeated communications they received one reply - 

a printed postcard stating that the matter was receiving attention.

In his evidence at the subsequent trial of strike leaders and their 

supporters, Mr. Limebeer, secretary of the Chamber of Mines, said that the 

postcard had been sent in error. It was the Chamber's policy, he added, not 

to acknowledge communications from the Union.

 

*Decision to strike*

On Sunday, the 4th of August 1946, over one thousand delegates assembled at 

an open air conference held in the Newtown Market Square: no hall where 

Africans could hold meetings was big enough to accommodate those present. 

The conference carried the following resolution unanimously:

"Because of the intransigent attitude of the Transvaal Chamber of Mines 

towards the legitimate demands of the workers for a minimum wage of 10 

shillings per day and better conditions of work, this meeting of African 

miners resolves to embark upon a general strike of all Africans employed on 

the gold mines, as from August 12, 1946."

Before the decision was adopted, speaker after speaker mounted the platform 

and demanded immediate action. One worker said:

"When I think of how we left our homes in the reserves, our children naked 

and starving, we have nothing more to say. Every man must agree to strike 

on 12 August. It is better to die than go back with empty hands."

After the decision to strike was adopted, the President, J. B. Marks, 

stressed the gravity of the strike decision and said that the workers must 

be prepared for repression by possible violence. "You are challenging the 

very basis of the cheap labour system" he told them, "and must be ready to 

sacrifice in the struggle for the right to live as human beings." His 

speech was loudly cheered, as was that of the Secretary, J. J. Najoro, who 

declared that their repeated efforts to secure improvements by negotiation 

had always ended in failure, owing to the refusal of the Chamber of Mines 

to recognise the existence of the Union. There was little doubt, he warned, 

that the government would attempt to suppress the strike by brute force.

An old miner shouted: "We on the mines are dead men already."

 

*The strike *

A letter conveying the decision of the meeting to the Chamber, and adding a 

desperate last-minute appeal for negotiations, was as usual ignored. The 

press and mass media, except the newspaper called The Guardian, did not 

print any news of the decision until the morning of Monday, 12 August, when 

the Rand Daily Mail came out with a front page story that the strike was a 

"complete failure". The report was obviously mischievous and a lie, as the 

paper went to bed before midnight, when the strike had not even begun.

The Star that evening, however, had a different tale to tell: tens of 

thousands of workers were out on strike from the East to the West Rand; the 

Smuts government had formed a special committee of Cabinet Ministers to 

"deal with" the situation; and thousands of police were being mobilised and 

drafted to the area.

They dealt with it by means of bloody violence. The police battened, 

bayoneted and fired on the striking workers to force them down the mine 

shafts. The full extent of police repression is not known but reports from 

miners and some newspapers revealed intense persecution and terror during 

the week following Monday, 12 August.

*Bloody Tuesday*

A peaceful procession of workers began to march to Johannesburg on what 

became known as Bloody Tuesday, 13 August, from the East Rand. They wanted 

to get their passes and go back home. 

Police opened fire on the procession and a number of workers were killed. 

At one mine, workers forced to go down the mine started a sit-down strike 

underground. According to the Star, the police drove the workers up "stope 

by stope, level by level" to the surface. They then started beating them 

up, chasing them into the veldt with baton charges. Then the workers were 

"re-assembled" in the compound yard and, said the Star, "volunteered to go 

back to work".

 

*Support by CONETU for the miners*

In protest against these savage brutalities, a special conference of the 

Transvaal Council of Non-European Trade Unions (CONETU) decided to call a 

general strike in Johannesburg on Wednesday, 14 August. The Johannesburg 

City Council sent a deputation to plead with CONETU to maintain essential 

services. Many workers heeded the call, but the weakness of the unions 

generally, and the failure to bring the call home to the workers in 

factories, resulted in only a partial success of the strike.

CONETU called a mass meeting of workers at the Newtown Market Square on 15 

August. The meeting was banned in terms of the Riotous Assemblies Act, and 

the decision banning the meeting was conveyed by a senior police officer, 

backed by a large squad of armed police. Those present were given five 

minutes to disperse. Only quick action by people's leaders who went among 

the angry crowd averted a massacre. A procession of women tobacco workers 

marching to this meeting was attacked by the police and one pregnant worker 

bayoneted.

By Friday, 16 August, all the striking workers - 75,000 according to the 

government "Director of Native Labour" were forced back to work.

 

*The effects of the strikes*

Throughout the week hundreds of workers had been arrested, tried, 

imprisoned or deported. 

Leaders of the African trade unions and the entire Executive Committee of 

the African Mine Workers' Union, the whole of the Central Committee of the 

Communist Party and scores of Provincial and local leaders of the African 

National Congress had also been arrested and charged in a series of 

abortive "treason and sedition" trials. Innumerable police raids, not only 

in the Transvaal but in all the main cities in the country including 

Durban, Cape Town, Port Elizabeth, Kimberley and East London, were carried 

out on the offices of trade unions, the Congresses and the Communist Party. 

The homes of leaders of the ANC, the Communist Party, the Indian and 

Coloured Congresses and the trade unions were also raided simultaneously. 

The South African Military had been mobilised and was rampant in defence of 

the cheap labour policy and big dividends for the mining magnates and big 

business. 

During the strike the central strike committee of the African Mine Workers' 

Union was effectively cut off from the workers at each mine by massive 

police action and the workers had to struggle in isolation. They were 

continually told that all the other workers had gone back to work, and 

apart from Union leaflets brought into the compounds by volunteers - a 

large number being caught and arrested - there was no system of 

interchanging information.

During the strike 32 of the 45 mines on the Rand were affected according to 

one report received by the Union and later confirmed by the 

Johannesburg Star. According to the estimates issued by the Chief Native 

Commissioner for the Witwatersrand, 21 mines were affected by the strike, 

11 wholly and 10 partially. The dead, according to this official, numbered 

nine, of whom four were trampled to death, three died in the hospital, one 

was shot dead and one "killed himself by running into a dustbin".

The government called the strike a failure. 

 

 

*g)        The Crown funded Black leaders to protect their mining assets in 

South        Africa*

 

Cyril Ramaphosa, prominent African National Congress member, is one of the 

Black oligarchs created by the Oppenheimer-Rothschild financial empire of 

the Crown today. Ramaphosa was detained in the 1970’s for his work as a 

black consciousness movement organizer. He organized and unionized South 

Africa's mineworkers, who were forced to live in single-sex, military-style 

barracks under the control of the mining houses. The Machiavellian 

Oppenheimer profited from cheap labour under the Apartheid government, 

forcing his workers to live under these conditions; while simultaneously 

financially supporting the African National Congress and developing strong 

ties to their leaders.

 Protests against low wages on the mines in South Africa are met with 

deadly restraint, as can be seen from the recent Lonmin miners at Marikana 

who were shot in August 2012. 

To point, it has been revealed in an IOL media news report titled 

“Ramaphosa under fire at Marikana” on 24 October 2012 that the night before 

the shooting of the striking miners at Marikana, Cyril Ramaphosa sent an 

email which led to the fatal police action taken, which we quote as 

follows: 

“ANC heavyweight Cyril Ramaphosa – who is being nominated by supporters of 

President Jacob Zuma to be his deputy – has been named as authoring an 

e-mail that called on the eve of the Marikana shootings for action against 

striking Lonmin miners.

Sapa reported that advocate Dali Mpofu told the Farlam Commission of 

Inquiry of an e-mail in which Ramaphosa condemned protests by workers at 

the mine, describing them as criminal acts and calling for “concomitant 

action”.

“This [e-mail] was on 15 August at 2.58 pm, exactly 24 hours before the 

people were mowed down on that mountain,” Sapa reported Mpofu as saying.

“We have e-mails that were being exchanged between Lonmin management, 

government ministers [of mineral resources and the police] and at the 

centre is a gentleman called Cyril Ramaphosa,” Mpofu was quoted as telling 

the inquiry.

“He advanced that what was taking place [was] criminal acts and must be 

characterised as such. In line with this characterisation [Ramaphosa said] 

there needs to be concomitant action to address the situation.”

In a statement on Tuesday night, Lonmin said that due to “the violence and 

loss of life in the period August 10 to 14”, it had “engaged with a number 

of stakeholders to ensure that the situation in and around Marikana was 

addressed in the appropriate manner”.

As it was a mining company and “not responsible for law enforcement”, it 

“stands to reason that the company, including members of its board, would 

communicate with the relevant stakeholders in government to ensure that 

they properly understood the company’s view of the situation on the ground 

to ensure a peaceful resolution of the matter”, the statement said.

“Lonmin’s action to engage with appropriate authorities of the state was 

simply part of a process aimed at achieving normality.”

Ramaphosa is a non-executive director of Lonmin. His Shanduka group owns 9 

percent of the company through its 50 percent stake in Incwala Resources, 

Lonmin’s black economic empowerment partner.

While he has given no formal indication of his willingness to replace 

deputy ANC president Kgalema Motlanthe, speculation that he is keen to play a 

bigger role in the party has been rife for months.

He has been nominated by the ANC in Mpumalanga on a pro-Zuma slate that 

would keep Gwede Mantashe as secretary-general, have Jessie Duarte as his 

deputy (in place of Thandi Modise), and Baleka Mbete as ANC chairwoman, and 

KwaZulu-Natal Premier Zweli Mkhize as treasurer-general instead of Mathews 

Phosa.

The same list of names was put forward after a meeting of the branch at 

Zuma’s home in Nkandla earlier this month, the Sunday Times reported at the 

weekend.

If the speculations are true, however, Ramaphosa – who last month 

apologised on national radio for bidding R18 million for a buffalo and its 

calf while fellow South Africans lived in poverty – could find the path to 

political power very convoluted.

The SAfm interview also offered Ramaphosa the opportunity to reject 

categorically “outrageous” allegations on a website that he owned a company 

that was contracting labour to Lonmin but pocketing the bulk of workers’ 

wages.

The former struggle activist and National Union of Mineworkers leader is 

now best known as a capitalist, and – as chairman of the party’s 

disciplinary appeals committee – the man who sealed the fate of ANC Youth 

League leader Julius Malema.

Elected ANC secretary-general in 1991, he led the ANC in the negotiations 

that paved the way for the 1994 democratic breakthrough.

The height of his popularity in the ANC was in 1997 when he got the top 

number of votes for a place on the national executive committee. When he 

left politics for business, the word was he had been pushed, and 

speculation was that he would aim for a comeback.

Ramaphosa turns 60 on November 17. If he accepts nomination as deputy 

president, and his bid is not derailed, he would be well placed to step 

into top spot come 2017, with a shot at becoming South Africa’s president 

in 2019.”

 

 

*(iii)       The Marikana massacre of 16 August 2012 *

 

The media reported that the Marikana miner strike

 in Rustenburg , South Africa 

resulted in the deaths of at least 34 mine workers and two police officers. 

The violence on the 16th of August 2012, was the single most lethal use of 

force by South African security forces against civilians since the end of 

the apartheid era . 

 

*The Crown  used South African Military to protect their mining assets*

In full view of the public on national television, the South African police 

opened fire as striking miners charge, killing and wounding workers. 

2  

 

*The reason for the strike was economic*

The reason for the Marikana strike was for economic reasons as the miners 

asked for a liveable minimum wage of R12 500 per month (about $1560 USD).

 

 

*B.        Crown Mining disasters created economic hardship for South 

Africans*

 

Various mining disasters caused by malfunctioning equipment, inadequate 

maintenance of mining structures and collapse of land formations cost the 

health and lives of many miners and left their families destitute without 

breadwinners.

Lung diseases contracted from mine dust, loud underground noises such as 

dynamite blasts causing deafness and physical ailments such as blindness 

caused by welding became a common occurrence amongst mine workers and cut 

their natural lives short. To quote, we refer to the Rand Mine Copy on the 

‘Coalbrook Main Shaft’ entitled ‘Coalbrook mine disaster, 1960’ as follows:y, 

April 21, 2011

After 1956 my father moved around seeking the best paid contract work at 

first, but settling for easier jobs before his last years before 

retirement. He yearned for the glory years of shaft sinking and tunnel 

developing adventures of his earlier years. But his age counted against him 

and shaft sinking and high speed development tunnelling required a 

freshness and fitness rapidly passing him by. Also years of such arduous 

activities in which he spent the best of his years were counting in a dust 

load in his lungs: he died at the age of 67, on 20% breathing capacity. But 

a spirit of adventure was with him to the end and he was ready, although 

partially disabled to take on new challenges. One such an option did 

present itself, but not on a gold mine. During 1959 / 1960 he was recruited 

by the owners of Coalbrook coal mine, close to Vereeniging, to head up a 

team of shaft sinkers. An existing shaft had to be deepened and extra 

tunnels developed to improve air ventilation in the ageing mine. He had 

barely started on this new challenge when a catastrophe, the biggest in 

South African mining history took place. In the morning shift a number of 

black miners, including his own "gang" of tunnellers got bad omens from 

rumblings coming from rock formations overhanging the underground working. 

When the underground rat population started fleeing for any opening to 

fresh air to the surface the miners fled likewise, all headed for incline 

shafts of shaft stations for hoisting to the surface. However the "front 

line" management, mainly black supervisory personnel and called "boss boys" 

and "watch boys" stood in their way and chased them back to the workings. 

Messages of a strike in progress underground among the black workers were 

conveyed to the mine managers sitting comfortably in surface offices. These 

big bosses sent down teams of white supervisors who threatened the workers 

with either criminal charges for breaking their contracts, or instant 

dismissal. Alternatively, if they did not return to their work places, the 

police would be called. No sooner had they gone back into the mine when a 

methane explosion took place and entire sections collapsed blocking any 

hope of escape for those trapped in the belly of black earth, at coal faces 

and haulage ways. After more than a week of anguished operations to sink 

makeshift shafts and boreholes to ascertain where to focus rescue efforts 

and conditions in the collapsed underground workings, all efforts were 

given up.  The fatality was 439 black and five white miners, plus 40 horses 

put to work in underground haulages. My father was among the few who 

followed the fleeing rats and thought better of going down once more to 

restore operations at his own working places.

My father then returned to the mature mines with a series of jobs all in 

the Klerksdorp area: Stilfontein, Vaal Reefs, and lastly Hartebeesfontein, 

before final retirement in 1975. But the experience at Coalbrook haunted 

him for time to come and was added to the top of his list of stories told 

ad infinitum to his sons. The Coalbrook disaster ranked, in my father's 

estimation of significant events in his life, with the ill-fated storming 

of Monte Casino by the Americans during World War Two.”

 

 

*The Crown manipulated the South African economy which included changing 

the world currency from gold to silver.*

After Jan Smuts, key role player on behalf of the Crown in the political 

arena of South Africa, lost his stronghold in as President of South Africa 

in the 1922, the South African rand, backed by gold, became so strong that 

South Africa was fast developing to the point that it threatened to cut 

loose as a colony of the Crown and was calling for independence. In 1929, 

the Wall Street Stock market crashed and the Crown of England abandoned the 

gold standard in 1931 and so dropped aligning its currency to a fixed 

quantity of gold, to adopt Sterling Silver as the standard by which the 

wealth of the world would be measured. This upheaval left many South 

African businessmen bankrupt. The drought which followed soon after left 

South African farmers, who were mostly from the Boer community, in despair 

as their crops failed and livestock died. Many farmers committed suicide 

during this time period.

All Commonwealth countries followed suit to form the Sterling Area, and 

were among the first countries to emerge from the economic collapse. 

However in South Africa, the government representing the Crown of England 

clung to the gold standard until it too, after major currency losses went 

off the gold standard in 1932. This opened the way to recovery. In 1934, to 

cushion the effects of the Great Depression, the United States raised the 

official price for gold from $ US $ 20 to US $ 35 per ounce. This spurred 

profits and scale of gold mining in South Africa.

Until 1971 the price of gold was arbitrarily fixed against the US $ at $ 35 

an ounce. Then the Nixon administration closed this “gold window” by 

decoupling the price of gold from the US $ in 1974 and gold had to find its 

own level as a free commodity on the global market. Notwithstanding the 

fact that the American government sold off most of their gold reserves to 

flood the market and decrease the value of gold, and thereby weaken the 

economic strength of South Africa, this became a boom period for the gold 

mines as the price of gold had escalated from US $ 35 to almost $ US 800 by 

1980. However, the exorbitant extraction of profits “repatriated” by 

foreign investors, and enormous government expenditure on self defence and 

war armaments as the armed struggle against the Union of South Africa 

intensified its operations, the majority of the South African nation was 

left in a worse economic position than before the Union was established.    

 

 

*C.        The Crown funded conflict in South Africa which created tangible 

and            intangible economic losses*

Members of the Crown, including the Oppenheimer family, funded violent 

protest movements against the White South African government. This included 

funding the Black Consciousness movement activist Chris Hani through the 

Rockefeller Foundation as discussed in Attachment 9 - Objections to the 

formation of the Union of South Africa.

 

Such movements created unrests in the townships, amongst school children 

and in the work force. Homes of South Africans were damaged, schools were 

damaged, and various work stations as well as transport vehicles for work 

have been damaged in South Africa due to these protests which caused South 

Africans economic losses, both tangible and intangible. Besides having to 

replace or fix their broken property, the potential of the youth to attain 

a good education to better their chances for future survival through 

gainful employment was destroyed. 

 

 

*(i)         The Crown funded White monopoly in South Africa*

Members of the Crown funded organizations in South Africa which gave the 

White population power over the other races in South Africa which led to 

polarization between Whites and Blacks, and ultimate hatred. These 

organizations made profits in South Africa and funnelled such profits back 

to the Crown.

To point, billionaire Anton Rupert, who was an Afrikaner businessman and 

media mogul, owed his fortune to the Crown of England. Rupert had a direct 

partnership with Rothschild in Rupert & Rothschild Vignerons. As a frontman 

for Rothschild, Rupert was a founding member of the World Wildlife Fund 

(WWF), instituted to create trans-frontier parks worldwide; and he founded 

the 1001 Club to fund the venture.

 

 

*(ii)        The British Crown is the white monopoly in South Africa*

 

Members of the British Crown control the South African economy. To point, 

the Oppenheimer family has been controlling the Johannesburg Stock 

Exchange, even though his company paid minimum taxes to the state.

Following a trend from 1980, by 1990 just four mega- corporations, mainly 

mining companies, controlled 82% of the Johannesburg Stock Exchange (JSE), 

which represented almost the entire GNP of the country: Oppenheimer's 

Anglo-American (including De Beers) by itself, controlled over 52% of the 

JSE, however the gold mining companies paid a mere 2.9% of the taxes. 3   

 

 

*(iii)       The Crown used wealth taken from other African countries to 

damage            the South African economy through protests against the 

        Apartheid government*

Funds generated by companies owned by the Crown in African countries were 

used to create the ‘people’s war’ in South Africa. To point, funds from the 

Anglo AngloGold Ashanti conglomerate was used to topple South Africa's 

White so-called 'apartheid regime' on 'moral' grounds. 4  

 *AngloGold Ashanti*

AngloGold Ashanti is part of the international mining conglomerate Anglo 

American which belongs to members of the Crown of England including the 

Oppenheimer family. AngloGold Ashanti won the mining rights to the vast 

gold concession in Mongbwalu, DRC in 1996. Prevented by ongoing war, (until 

a peace agreement was signed and a transitional government was established 

in Kinshasa), from gaining access to its claims, the company forged links 

with the armed group, Nationalist and Integrationist Front (FNI), which 

retained control of the gold-rich mining site in the north-eastern Ituri 

district.

Human Rights Watch researchers documented meetings between the company and 

the armed group leaders. FNI president, Floribert Njabu, told Human Rights 

Watch, "The [Central] government is never going to come to Mongbwalu. I am 

the one who gave Ashanti permission to come. I am the boss of Mongbwalu. If 

I want to chase them away, I will." 

 

The mineral-rich Northeastern Congo has been one of the worst hit areas 

during Congo's devastating seven-year war. Competing armed groups carried 

out ethnic massacres, rape and torture. According to United Nations 

estimates, a local conflict between Hema and Lendu ethnic groups, allied 

with national rebel groups and foreign backers, including Uganda and 

Rwanda, claimed over 60,000 lives between 1999 and 2005. These losses are 

just a portion of an estimated four million civilians dead throughout the 

Congo, during the same time period, yet artisinal goldmining continued 

throughout the conflict.

 

Millions of dollars worth of gold is smuggled out of the Congo each year, 

some of it destined for Switzerland. One starving miner told Human Rights 

Watch: "We are cursed because of our gold. All we do is suffer. There is no 

benefit to us," while a Congolese government official lamented: "We just 

watch our country's resources drain away with no benefit to the Congolese 

people." 

 

*D.        The Crown chased the South African KhoiSan communities off their 

  land to take the minerals out of their land*

The San and the Khoi, collectively known as the Bushmen or KhoiSan, are the 

aborigines of southern Africa. After the arrival of the VOC representatives 

of the Crown at the Cape harbour, south of Africa, the KhoiSan were hunted 

as slaves. 

To the left of them was the sea. Those who fled to the right were attacked 

by other migrating African tribes. Most KhoiSan fled northwards to the 

territory which later became known as Southwest Africa, and thereafter was 

renamed Namibia.

 

 

*(i)         The diamond fields of Namibia*

 

Namibian Mines and Energy Minister Erkki Nghimtina, and Nicky Oppenheimer - 

 member of the Crown and Chairman of the De Beers Group, signed an 

agreement creating the Namibia Diamond Trading Company. Since then, the 

KhoiSan have been chased off their land without economic reparations for 

the loss of their land, nor the minerals taken from it.

 

*(ii)        The corrupt practices of De Beers in Namibia*

Namibia was illegally occupied by Apartheid South Africa throughout the 

1970’s and 1980’s.  The United Nations passed a special decree forbidding 

mining companies from extracting minerals unless they had specific 

permission.  De Beers and its sister company, Anglo-American, defied this 

decree and made secret arrangements to overmine the diamonds ahead of 

Namibian independence.  As the technical assistant to the mine manager, 

Gordon Brown felt it was his simple duty to blow the whistle and came 

forward to give hard evidence of this illegal behaviour to a judicial 

enquiry.  Since then he has been targeted by members of De Beers' security 

and their colleagues in the Police Diamond Branch.

  

In addition to the United Nations initiative, action is being taken to 

bring the De Beers diamond cartel to account for its human rights abuses, 

illegal diamond mining operations in Namibia and a raft of other human 

rights abuses including conspiracy to pervert the course of justice, 

malicious prosecution, suborning and interfering with witnesses.  Brown 

wants the directors and officials who conspired to destroy his reputation 

and his business activities in Southern Africa brought to book and punished 

for their crimes.

 

For decades De Beers worked hand in glove with the apartheid government and 

the Namibian and South African diamond police to protect its monopoly and 

hobble its critics and business rivals. 5  

 

 

*References:*

 

*1 *Proclamation 14 August 1872 was a decree by British Cape Colony 

officials to pacify the Kimberly diggers and control black labour. It 

stated that “servant” could be black or white but that all blacks must 

carry a pass with them all times to cross the Kimberly pass point. These 

could be day passes to find employment or work passes (labour 

contracts). The labour contract would be signed by the “master” and had to 

show the black worker's name, wage and length of employment. These 

contracts had to be carried on their persons at all times or they could 

face imprisonment, fines or a flogging. Colonial officials did excuse some 

blacks from this requirement if they deemed them “civilised”.

 2 *The Washington Post*. Associated Press. 16 August 2012. Retrieved 16 

August 2012.)

3 The Star, 2nd May, 1990

4 http://www.hrw.org/english/docs/2005/06/02/congo11041.htm

5 ‘Namibia: Exposing The Corrupt Practices Of The De Beers Diamond Cartel’ b

y Laurie Flynn Wednesday, June 11, 2008

 

 

*Attachment 24**:        War in Africa to rape her wealth by corrupt 

leaders.*

 

Before the Romans came to Africa, the continent now known as Africa was 

called Kemet or Al-kebulan. There may have been other names as well since 

this is the birthplace of mankind.

We believe that the wealth of Africa should benefit Africans first and 

foremost, irrespective of the colour of their skin, the language they 

speak, or their preferred religion. All people born in Africa, and who have 

ancestry in Africa, are Africans. 

 

Warfare in Africa for possession of minerals in her ground has been ongoing 

for centuries. We do not want this war in South Africa, nor do we want 

South Africa to be a participant in this war against Africa.

 

The continent of Africa is endowed with mineral wealth, but what is special 

about South Africa is that our mineral wealth has been confirmed by 

economics from Citibank, among others, to be worth 2,5 trillion US dollars, 

that is extractable and can be processed. This is unequalled because it has 

been verified.1

 

 

*A.        Blood diamonds for sale in Africa to create war in Africa*

 

On the 1st of December 2011, British politician Claudia Dalgleish reported 

that Blood Diamonds were to be sold on auction, of which the proceeds would 

go towards a war to force a regime change in South Africa, when she made 

the following statement:

“On Friday De Beers and Botswana Government will be auctioning Blood 

Diamonds. The proceeds of this sale will help fund Malema and other 

dissidents living in Botswana to attempt a regime change in South Africa. 

If anyone is interested in demonstrating against the sale of polished and 

unpolished Blood Diamonds please get in touch with me. The Article 1174 of 

UN Council for Angola is a precedent to stop these diamonds being sold to 

fund civil wars.”

Her claim for the sale of these diamonds were confirmed in an article in 

the Guardian dated the 1st of December 2011, titled “Zimbabwe diamond 

auction to go ahead despite human rights fears”, which stated:

“Diamonds worth hundreds of millions of dollars are due to be put on sale 

on Friday by a joint Chinese-Zimbabwean company with strong military 

ties. The auction follows last month's decision by the industry watchdog, 

the Kimberley Process (KP), to lift a ban on sales from Zimbabwe's Marange 

diamond fields despite objections from human rights groups, writes David 

Smith.” 2  

 

It is reports of war in Africa which draw attention to the politics being 

played out in Africa, where at the expense of the majority of indigenous 

people, the few elite wallow in luxury. 

The interference of countries outside of Africa on the political and 

economical playing fields of Africa cannot be ignored.

 

*B.        Genocide in Africa*

Genocide of the people in Africa has been caused by greed. We take 

information from the documentary called ‘All diamonds are blood diamonds’ 

written by the African People’s Solidarity Committee, 2a in which the 

suffering of Africans is discussed. From this document, we point out the 

following past and present strife in Africa:

*Colton in the Congo *

Our cell phones and computers require the mineral coltan from the Congo, 

where 5 million people have been slaughtered since 1998 in U.S.-backed 

coltan wars.

*Plans to strip Africa of its wealth*

In 1875, despite the ravages of the slave trade, 90 percent of Africa was 

still controlled by African people. 

Ten years later the colonial era was officially consolidated. In 1884-5, 

without a single African present, the heads of European governments sat in 

a conference in Berlin for the sole purpose of carving up every inch of the 

African continent. The objective of this gathering was to parcel out all of 

Africa to Europeans to exploit all possible resources-human beings, gold, 

land, animals, rubber, iron, ivory, tourism, fishing, farming and of 

course, diamonds. 

The conference was a move on the part of the European powers to attempt to 

reduce conflict within Europe and inside European countries themselves by 

sharing the vast stolen loot of Africa. 

Even the Catholic pope, the moral authority of Europe, gave his tacit 

blessing to the Berlin Conference and the plans to colonize all of Africa. 

All the imperialists had to do now was defeat the powerful African 

resistance and then slaughter, subdue and enslave the Africans who 

survived. Imperialist diamond magnate Cecil Rhodes was passionate about 

colonialism as a solution for the English masses. Rhodes once wrote, “I was 

in the East End of London yesterday and attended a meeting of the 

unemployed. I listened to the wild speeches, which were just a cry for 

‘bread, bread!’ and on my way home I pondered over the scene and I became 

more than ever convinced of the importance of imperialism…My cherished idea 

is a solution for the social problem, i.e., in order to save the 40 million 

inhabitants of the United Kingdom from a bloody civil war, we colonial 

statesmen must acquire new lands to settle the surplus population, to 

provide new markets for the goods produced in the factories and mines. The 

empire, as I have always said, is a bread and butter question. If you want 

to avoid civil war, you must become imperialists.” 

*British war in Zimbabwe for gold*

Ambitious to consolidate British imperialism in Southern Africa, Rhodes set 

out for Zimbabwe in 1886 where gold was thought to have been discovered. 

The Shona and Matabele people launched a fierce resistance to defend their 

lands from Rhodes’ invasion. 

Rhodes recruited hundreds of British men into his army that he organized to 

defeat the Matabele and Shona. With the use of just four Maxim machine 

guns, Rhodes’s army slaughtered more than 5,000 African people in one 

engagement alone. As payment, each of Rhodes’ 672 soldiers were given 6,000 

acres of land in what would be known as the colony of Rhodesia for the next 

hundred years. 

*Belgium war on the Congo for rubber*

Today there are diamond mines in the Congo that are highly profitable for 

imperialism, but Belgium’s King Leopold did not know that in the 1890’s 

when he was colonizing African people there. Leopold was interested in 

rubber, an increasingly significant commodity at the dawn of the automobile 

age. 

Africans in Congo resisted the Belgian invasion fiercely. The Chokwe 

people, for instance, fought for 20 years, inflicting heavy casualties on 

the Belgians. 

In order to force the Africans to harvest the rubber, the Belgians killed 

ten million people in the Congo. Women were rounded up, raped and held as 

hostages as an attempt to force men to work. Villages were burned. Children 

were kidnapped into concentration camps to be trained as soldiers for the 

Belgians. Men were chained at the neck and used as beasts of burden until 

they dropped dead. 

The signature mark of Belgian conquest in the Congo was the massive cutting 

off of the people’s hands to force them to kneel down to the colonial 

power. Men, women and children were mutilated in this way, and huge mounds 

of hands piled up throughout the land. 

One Belgian soldier wrote home that he had “killed 150 men, cut off 60 

hands, crucified women and children, and hung the remains of mutilated men 

on the village fence.” 

The Anglo-Belgian India Rubber and Exploration Company reaped a profit of 

more than 700 percent as bicycles and automobiles in Europe and America 

were outfitted with rubber tires. 

*German war on Namibia or land *

In Namibia today alluvial diamonds are gathered from ships off the coast by 

Africans forced into near slave-like conditions. Alluvial means that the 

diamonds do not have to be mined, they can simply be picked up off the 

ground or from the water. 

When the Germans colonized the land they called South West Africa at the 

turn of the twentieth century they knew nothing of the diamonds. They made 

money from fishing, hunting and farmland and saw their African colonies as 

their “place in the sun,” hoping to eventually rival Britain’s empire upon 

which “the sun never set.” 

The Herero and Nama peoples rose up in 1904 and ‘07 to fight courageously 

against the German colonizers. With the backing of Deutsche Bank, Germany 

sent in General von Trotha with orders to exterminate the Africans. 

Von Trotha declared: “Any Herero found within the German borders [sic] with 

or without a gun, with or without cattle, will be shot. I shall no longer 

receive any women or children; I will drive them back to their people. I 

will shoot them. This is my decision for the Herero people.” 

Von Trotha was true to his word, even as the Herero were careful in their 

resistance to spare German women, children and missionaries. 

The Germans machined-gunned the Herero people of all ages, poisoned their 

wells, killed their cattle, ran human experiments on them and rounded them 

up in the Kalahari Desert to die a slow, torturous death without food, 

water or shelter. Eighty percent of the Herero were killed and half of the 

Nama. 

Namibia today has only 1.8 million people in an area bigger than Texas, one 

of the smallest populations in the world. 

The survivors of the Herero people have filed a $4 billion lawsuit against 

the German government and corporations as reparations for the genocide. The 

Germans have paid over $100 billion to the Israeli government and Jewish 

people as reparations, while they scoff at the just demand from the Herero 

people. 

*De Beers have created the campaigns against buying “blood” diamonds to 

protect their monopoly *

In recent years, as a result of U.S. backed wars in Western Africa there 

have been popular campaigns against buying “conflict” or “blood” diamonds. 

Rap songs, movie stars and articles in cyberspace warn us against these 

tainted stones. No conscious, progressive American would buy such a 

diamond. 

These campaigns insist that anyone buying diamond jewellery must be careful 

to select only those diamonds certified by the accepted, legal Kimberley 

Process Certification Scheme (KPCS). This scheme supposedly protects Africa 

from diamonds mined by the perpetrators of the deadly wars in West Africa 

characterized by rape, mutilations, displacement and outright slaughter 

carried out over the past 15 years or so. 

The fact is though, it was the powerful DeBeers diamond cartel itself that 

created the concept of “blood” diamonds, fearful that diamonds coming out 

of the war-torn areas of West Africa would flood the market and undermine 

their long standing worldwide control of the price of the stones. The 

Kimberley process scheme is just that—their scheme to maintain control of 

the world’s diamond supply. 

Today the DeBeers cartel still controls at least 80 percent of the world 

diamond trade. As we see, the other 20 percent are the ones they call the 

“blood” diamonds. 

*All diamonds are gained through conflict and spilt blood. *

The legacy of the diamond is steeped in the slavery, colonialism, genocide 

and terror that built and maintains the Western capitalist system. Those 

who benefit from the sales of diamonds are the beneficiaries of this 

genocidal system.  

Today, diamonds from African soil are worth billions of dollars, wealth 

that is concentrated mostly in the U.S., Europe, Israel and with those who 

control South Africa. African people on their own land, labouring in the 

mines under slave-like conditions for pennies a day, have no control over 

the diamond trade whatsoever and see no benefits from its profits. 

The DeBeers diamond cartel has always done what the U.S.-backed rebels of 

Sierra Leone, Liberia and Congo have done to African people, and even 

worse. DeBeers simply had the power to hide it from the view of the world, 

for whom the fate of African people has never been a concern in any case. 

This is the context for the definition of “blood” or “conflict” diamonds. 

It’s not just a particular atrocity that comes to our attention at any 

given moment. It’s a centuries-long institutionalized process of ripping 

the humanity, the beauty, the resources, land and independence out of the 

soul of Africa. 

*De Beers inflated the value of diamonds*

To bolster a sagging diamond economy in the 1940’s, the cartel hired a 

public relations firm that launched DeBeers’ now-famous slogan, “a diamond 

is forever,” convincing every American woman that she must have a diamond 

ring to get engaged or married. 

The DeBeers cartel was built on their fabrication that diamonds are a rare 

commodity. Diamonds appear anywhere in the world that there is carbon—and 

that is almost everywhere. They also are easily manufactured. DeBeers has 

used its own private armies and other forms of intimidation to manufacture 

diamond scarcity by forcing countries to keep them off the market. 

Unlike other precious gems and metals, the price of diamonds is always 

going up but the resale value is very low, no matter how much one pays for 

them in the first place. 

In the third century BC, diamonds were found and used in India for 

religious and artistic purposes. In China, because of their hardness, 

diamonds were mounted on the tip of an iron tool as an engraving 

instrument. Traditionally diamonds were considered by many cultures to have 

healing properties. When diamonds were found in Africa all that changed. 

*The DeBeers Diamond Cartel—an empire inside of imperialism *

Cecil Rhodes named his Kimberley diamond mines DeBeers, after the farmer 

who had previously colonized the land. In 1888 he formed the DeBeers 

Consolidated Mines, a diamond cartel. This means that he sought to control 

the entire world market for diamonds. He bought up all other diamond mines 

in southern Africa, restricted supply and raised prices. 

When Rhodes was alive the diamonds at Kimberley were still alluvial, easily 

picked up from the ground. Africans, enslaved on their own land, had tin 

cans tied around their necks. They were lined up and forced at gunpoint to 

get down on their hands and knees to pick up the diamonds and put them into 

the cans. 

After the death of Rhodes, the German Jew Ernest Oppenheimer took over the 

ownership of DeBeers in the 1920’s and it has remained in the control of 

his family ever since. 

Today DeBeers is a multi-billion dollar operation that acts like a state 

power with armies of its own. 

DeBeers and the Oppenheimer family are the real reigning power behind South 

Africa. DeBeers was the driving force behind the setting up of apartheid 

and the system that violently forced African people off their land in order 

to create the workforce for the mines in highly profitable slave-like 

conditions. 

DeBeers pushed for multiple taxes to be imposed on the people to drive them 

into the mines to earn money to pay the taxes. DeBeers backed the pass laws 

and the concentration camp-like conditions for the mine workers who were 

virtually imprisoned for months working at least 60 hours a week, forced to 

sleep out in the open with no protection from the weather. 

For every 10-hour shift Africans were given a crust of bread and a flask of 

cold tea. They were housed in bunkers with 20 men to a room and forced to 

eat out of aluminum buckets. If an African worker somehow managed to scrape 

together the means to buy a car or house he was arrested on suspicion of 

stealing diamonds. 

*Africa still under colonial conditions *

Life for African diamond workers today has changed very little. 

*South Africa -* In the past few years DeBeers has slashed the wages of 

South African mineworkers. They now live in the shanty towns that have 

burgeoned in South Africa since the fall of the apartheid system and the 

rise of neocolonialism. 

African men are still stuffed into compounds and ramshackle huts near the 

mines, while African women who work as cleaners must stay in the women’s 

barracks. If a husband and wife are found sleeping together they are fired. 

*Namibia -* In Namibia the unionized diamond workers live in abject poverty 

in hovels without running water, electricity, health care or education for 

their children. The men live in compounds separated from their families. 

They are given bunk beds without mattresses to sleep in and are exposed to 

radiation and other health hazards. 

*Congo - *In the past century since the genocidal Belgian colonialism in 

Congo, African people have been subjected to ongoing war, bloodshed and 

powerlessness. The poverty is so severe that most African people have 

nothing to eat for days at a time. Yet Congo alone holds immeasurable 

wealth from diamonds, coltan and a wide variety of other valuable minerals 

essential to the daily functioning of the capitalist world. By all rights, 

every single resident of the Congo should enjoy the highest standard of 

living in the world. Every child should grow up in a prosperous family with 

a lovely house, with access to the highest quality education and the best 

possible health care. 

In the past 10 years proxy wars financed and backed by the U.S., other 

imperialist powers, including DeBeers, have ravaged the Congo to get or 

maintain control of those bountiful resources whose benefits never reach 

the average African person. 

Five million people in the Congo have been slaughtered in those wars so 

that life in the white world can go on in peaceful, prosperous, hi-tech 

tranquility. No one in America protests this new generation of genocide in 

the Congo. No one even talks about it. 

*West Africa* - Most of Africa is blessed with this profuse wealth of 

natural resources. Yet half the people in diamond rich West Africa live on 

less than a dollar a day. It has the lowest life expectancy at birth in the 

world—in 10 countries in Africa the life expectancy is 46 years. Sierra 

Leone has the highest infant mortality rate in the world with 284 deaths 

per every thousand live births. 

*DeBeers and the U.S.-backed defeat of African liberation *

*Ghana -* In the late 1950’s, Kwame Nkrumah became the first elected 

president of Ghana. With the supposed ousting of British colonial control, 

Nkrumah pursued his ideals of attempting to eliminate all the 

imperialist-imposed borders and creating one continental African nation 

working for the benefit of each and every African. 

In Ghana, as in most of colonial Africa, centuries of expropriation by 

colonial powers left the nominally independent nations without an 

industrial infrastructure to process those resources. Nkrumah began to talk 

about nationalizing Ghana’s resources and beginning to build its own 

production capabilities. In the few short years of his power he made 

enormous strides in this direction. 

In the early sixties Nkrumah decided to begin to market Ghana’s diamonds 

independently, rather than through the process demanded by the DeBeers 

cartel. Profits from diamond sales could help develop the country. Nkrumah 

also did not want to sell diamonds to the company behind the apartheid 

regime of South Africa. Not long after Nkrumah began taking steps towards 

this end the U.S. attempted a failed coup against him. In 1966 the U.S. was 

finally successful in ousting Nkrumah and he died in exile. 

A major player immediately involved in the coup attempts against Nkrumah 

was CIA operative and DeBeers emissary Maurice Tempelsman (who was 

romantically linked with Jacqueline Kennedy Onassis until her death and is 

today linked with the former Secretary of State Madeline Albright). 

*Congo -* Following the first unsuccessful coup attempt against Nkrumah, 

the popular young anti-colonial leader Patrice Lumumba was elected prime 

minister in Congo. Like Nkrumah, Lumumba was committed to his promise that 

the resources of Congo would benefit the workers and peasants. 

During this period Congo was very important to DeBeers, because a third of 

the world’s known diamond supply was located there. This was during the 

Cold War and the U.S. was stockpiling industrial diamonds needed for 

airplanes and armaments. 

The U.S. could not deal directly with DeBeers because they had indicted the 

diamond cartel during the Second World War for violating U.S. anti-trust 

laws. Maurice Tempelsman became the middleman for DeBeers, supplying 

millions of dollars worth of diamonds to the U.S. from Congolese mines on 

the behalf of DeBeers. 

As soon as Lumumba took office in 1960, he made it clear that Congo’s 

resources were for African people. 

Tempelsman immediately began working under the Kennedy administration to 

plot the U.S. and Belgian assassination of Lumumba which took place in 

January 1961, just months after his election. 

After the murder of Patrice Lumumba, Tempelsman secured a diamond deal with 

Congo that was extremely lucrative for both the U.S. and DeBeers. It also 

allowed him to end up with control of several profitable mines while giving 

some of the biggest, most valuable diamonds in the world to Joseph Mobutu, 

the pliable new puppet who would brutally do the bidding of U.S. 

imperialism in Congo for the next 30 years. 

Despite the fact that Lumumba was only in power three months, his 

leadership had sparked the enthusiasm of the masses of the people and the 

confidence that they could begin to control their own destiny as African 

people on their own land. 

For many years following the assassination of Lumumba, Congo (known as 

Zaire under Mobutu) was in a state of mass rebellion. Well-organized 

resistance fighters held liberated territory in some areas, prompting Che 

Guevara to take a brigade of Cuban revolutionaries to join the struggle 

there. 

It took all of Mobutu’s military force and a reign of terror to subdue the 

peoples’ resistance. Mobutu’s forces were trained, armed and paid by the 

U.S., with the CIA operating both openly and covertly throughout the 

country, often with its own mercenary forces. 

As a U.S. puppet, Mobutu was vicious to those who challenged him. He was 

known to gouge out the eyes of opposition leaders or cut off their limbs 

while they were still alive. He tortured and locked up hundreds of 

thousands of African working people and students. 

Mobutu was paid well for his terror, raiding the coffers of the country and 

amassing nearly $5 billion, which he stashed in Swiss banks, while the 

African masses starved and suffered. 

*Diamonds wars of Sierra Leone *

A British colony since the late 18th century, Sierra Leone is rich in 

coffee, bauxite and diamonds, which were found there in 1930. By 1937 one 

million carats had been extracted and exported to Europe. 

According to a recent study by the Canadian government, between 1937 and 

1996 $15 billion worth of diamonds have been exported and sold from Sierra 

Leone. Yet the people of Sierra Leone live on about 30 cents a day. 

The DeBeers group of diamond companies have controlled the diamond 

interests of Sierra Leone since 1935. Sierra Leone was granted nominal 

independence in 1961. Ten years later Sierra Leone nationalized the diamond 

mines—again nominally. Since DeBeers controls the world diamond market, the 

national diamond industry of Sierra Leone still had to sell its diamonds 

through DeBeers. 

Since the 1970’s rebel armies, most of them backed by the U.S. or other 

European powers, have fought for control of Sierra Leone. Since the 1990s 

the rebel armies have inflicted terroristic violence against the people of 

Sierra Leone, cutting off limbs, raping women, killing and displacing 

thousands and forcing tens of thousands of young children to fight as 

soldiers. 

During this period the Revolutionary United Front (RUF) took over some of 

the diamond mines and used smuggled diamonds to fund their violence. 

Although the actions of the RUF are no different than the hundred year 

legacy of DeBeers’ violence against African people, DeBeers calls these the 

“blood” diamonds—i.e., diamonds they can’t control. 

The U.S. benefitted from purchasing smuggled diamonds from the RUF. It 

enabled them to flood the diamond market and to poke holes in the 

long-standing diamond monopoly held by DeBeers, which even the U.S. had 

never successfully controlled. Fooding the diamond market destabilized the 

entire West Africa region, making it difficult for any genuinely 

progressive force to rise up in the interest of the people. The diamond 

wars left West Africa wide open for another long orgy of Western 

expropriation of all of Africa’s vast resources. 

*India -* The former British colony of India, on the other hand, has more 

than a half million diamond workers, but the working people do not profit 

from it. Seventy percent of the world’s diamonds set in jewellery are cut 

and polished in India, a $3.3 billion industry. 

Most of the Indian workforce is comprised of farm boys who earn tiny wages 

at small diamond-cutting sweatshops in the most impoverished sections of 

Mumbai, Surat and Ahmadabad. Almost 30 percent of this jewellery is 

imported to the U.S., which then turns them over for $11 billion annual 

profit. 

*De Beers sub-firms*

The Oppenheimers are a Jewish family and most of the worldwide tentacles of 

the DeBeers cartel, including the cutting, polishing and retail fronts of 

the diamond industry are controlled by Jewish sub-firms of DeBeers. In 

Europe everything pertaining to gems and diamonds has been in the hands of 

Jews since the middle ages. Diamond dealers the world over, regardless of 

religion, are called by the Hebrew term Yahalom Manin (Yahalom means 

diamond in Hebrew). 

*Antwerp and Israel -* Rough diamonds are shipped from the mines to the 

Jewish areas of Antwerp or to Israel to be cut and polished. 

*New York -* n New York the billion dollar diamond trade is centred around 

47th Street where 25,000 mostly Hasidic Jews are selling, cutting, 

polishing and marketing diamonds—from the most expensive to the cheapest 

mail order jewellery. Many of these diamond workers live in the Hasidic 

community of Crown Heights, Brooklyn, where they work with the police to 

gentrify the area at the expense of the African community. 

Despite the fact that the diamond trade is supposedly based on Jewish 

brotherhood, it remains a cutthroat process with no loyalty to other Jewish 

people when it comes to making money. During the Second World War the 

Oppenheimers sold industrial diamonds, needed for planes and armaments, to 

both sides—Nazi Germany and the U.S. government. 

*Israel -* Today, the Israeli diamond industry, built after Israel seized 

Palestine as a colonial power, is doing everything it can to put the Jewish 

diamond traders in Belgium out of business. 

*Israel’s bloody West African diamond trade *

Diamonds are Israel’s second largest industry bringing in at least $13 

billion. Israel buys half of the world’s rough diamonds, two-thirds of 

which then go to the U.S. 

Control of the trade in African diamonds may have played an underlying role 

in the recent deadly Israeli war against the people of Lebanon as well. 

*Israel deals in the Congo*

Before the 2001 assassination of Congolese neocolonial leader Laurent 

Kabila, Israeli diamond traders had brokered an exclusive deal with Congo 

for their diamonds. It was similar to the deal Tempelsman had made with 

Mobutu 40 years earlier. 

The deal was worth $600 million worth of diamonds for the Israelis in 

return for arming and military training for Kabila’s troops. Even without 

this monopoly, certain firms in Israel still control 50 percent of Congo’s 

diamonds exports, or a billion dollars worth. 

 

*Lebanon deals in the Congo, Sierra Leone*

Lebanon also is said to have its fingers in the diamond trade, importing 

rough diamonds from Congo. More than 100,000 Lebanese live in Sierra Leone, 

and according to reports, are the “market dominant minority” in the 

alluvial diamond trade of that country. 

In Sierra Leone, Lebanese traders control the majority of diamond buying 

shops, allegedly also smuggling diamonds out of the country off the books. 

According to an article by J. Peter Pham of World Defense Review, profits 

from some of these smuggled diamonds go to the Hezbollah resistance forces. 

We don’t know if that is true or simply allegations of U.S. and Israeli 

backed journalists to justify Israel’s deadly attacks. 

*Africans want to uplift their lives*

Africans are calling for their land and culture, and their sovereignty to 

determine their own lives and destinies back. They are also calling for 

reparations for centuries of stolen labour and for the crimes of genocide 

and terrorism against them. They want U.S. and Western imperialism out. 

They want the U.S. military, the CIA, proxy armies and neocolonial puppets 

out of their land and out of their lives. They want peace without the 

interference of any thieving, ravaging force. This has become a matter of 

life and death. There will be no peace ever on this planet until the 

oppressed peoples win their liberation from the grip of imperialist power. 

*The resistance in Palestine, Lebanon and Iraq represent the future. *

The longevity of Fidel and the Cuban revolution despite ongoing U.S. 

attacks represent the future. The swagger and confidence of Hugo Chavez who 

identifies himself as African and indigenous in Venezuela represents the 

future. The power and determination of Omali Yeshitela as he organizes 

African people around the world to unite their homeland and come back for 

what is theirs represents the future. 

  

*C.        BRICS*

 

Along with South Africa’s entry into BRICS - an alternative banking system 

to the International Monetary Fund - comes a more intense relationship 

between South Africa and non-African countries which have a deep interest 

in the minerals of Africa. 

 

The combined interest of China, Russia, India and Brazil for inviting and 

allowing a comparatively new economic country such as South Africa into 

their private circle of game players in forming an alternative to the 

International Monetary Fund by creating BRICS is strategic as South Africa 

has an established economic and political set up to influence other 

countries in Africa.

 

 

*The origin of BRICS*

 

Back at the beginning, Brics was just a Bric – and rather than originally 

being an initiative of any of its eventual member nations, it was actually 

the inspired marketing ploy of someone in the investment banking firm, 

Goldman Sachs. This acronym was first imagined by Jim O’Neill in his 2001 

paper, “Building Better Global Economic Brics”, as a way of describing a 

historic shift in global economic power – but also as a way of focusing 

attention on one of Goldman Sachs’s key businesses – selling investment 

opportunities in a collection of quickly growing emerging market economies. 

His clever acronym stuck and that, in turn, gave an impetus to some 

thinking among the national political leadership of those four countries – 

Brazil, Russia, India and China – as they sensed a geopolitical opening to 

help drive more global attention – and respect ­– towards their growing 

international impact.

Then, several years later, after some serious lobbying and importuning by 

South Africa to be allowed to play with the big boys, and with strategic 

support inside the grouping from China, South Africa was invited to join 

the party, and the letter “S” was added to BRIC to represent South Africa. 

This was despite the lack of parity in population terms on the part of 

South Africa, as well as a major imbalance in the size of its economy, 

relative to that of the other players. 

 

 

*The official purpose for BRICS*

 

Officially, the purpose of BRICS is for leaders from Brazil, Russia, India, 

China and South Africa to find ways to counterbalance Western influence in 

the global economy, in part by swapping their currencies more efficiently 

and establishing a development bank to extend their influence in emerging 

markets... But these countries are still trading far more with developed 

nations and with their neighbours than with each other, according to 

Unctad’s report. ‘For the time being these countries are not major 

investors in each other’s economies,’ said James Zhan, director of Unctad’s 

investment and enterprise division and an author of the report.”

Thus, what pressures would lead China to reverse course in a major way? In 

fact, in Xi Jinping’s first Africa stop on the way to Durban, the newly 

confirmed president of China promised to invest more heavily in Africa’s 

development, although some complain China is just trying to exploit the 

region’s oil and coal to strengthen further its industrial might. 

 

 

*BRICS and Africa*

 

Following their acceptance to BRICS, South Africa had a turn to host the 

meeting of the heads of government from the group’s member states in early 

2013. Taking the initiative that comes with being host and chair, South 

Africa decided it would also invite the various multilateral economic clubs 

in Africa like The Economic Community of West African States (Ecowas) and 

the Southern African Development Community (SADC), as well as over a dozen 

presidents from Africa. This is in order to provide a way of helping 

convince the other nations on the continent that South Africa is in Brics 

on behalf of the whole continent – not just for its own benefit.

 

The finance theme was a kind of code for how best to gain a larger share of 

the global financial services sector, improve financing for SMEs, and, 

concurrently, channel more investment flows into Africa through South 

Africa, under the summit’s theme, “Brics and Africa: Partnership for 

Development, Integration and Industrialisation”. In support of that theme, 

South Africa exercised the prerogative of the chair and invited 

representatives of the various regional economic groupings on the continent 

such as Ecowas and SADC, as well as some 15 African heads of state, 

including leaders like Egypt’s Mohamamed Morsi.

 

 

*Financing BRICS is still calculated in US Dollars*

 

Although one of the ostensible purposes of the BRICS bank is to facilitate 

the use of other currencies from BRICS nations in place of the dollar, it 

is interesting to note that all calculations for the bank have still been 

made in that same dollar. Apparently, the marketing strategy of the 

investment banking firm, Goldman Sachs, was very successful. 

 

There is concern that even raising the initial start-up capital to invest 

in an alternative banking system such as BRICS, would be a huge strain on a 

small nation like South Africa and it could well divert scarce state funds 

from other more urgent national priorities. 3   

While no one expects its initial capitalisation to be $50 billion/nation 

any more, even the more modest target of $10 billion could be a bridge too 

far for Pretoria. 

 

 

*D.        War in Central African Republic.*

 

Ongoing strife has prevailed in the politically unstable country of Central 

African Republic (CAR) which is rich in minerals. 

In 2003, Francois Bozize led a successful coup against President Patasse of 

CAR. This led to a civilian uprising, which culminated in coalition of 

several groups such as the Union of Democratic Forces for Unity (UFDR), the 

Convention of Patriots for Justice and Peace (CPJP) and the Wa Kodro Salute 

Patriotic Convention (CPSK), which has joined fighters coming from Chad and 

Darfur. This coalition, called the Seleka, which means alliance in the 

national language Sango, came from the northeast of the Central African 

Republic and reached the doorstep of the capital city, Bangui, at the end 

of December 2012.

On Friday, 22 March 2013, heavy battle broke out between the Seleka rebel 

alliance and South African paratroopers in Bangui, who were said to have 

been sent there to train CAR soldiers and protect President Bozizé, but had 

still been stationed in Bangui even after Bozizé had fled to Cameroon. Many 

CAR soldiers joined the rebel forces, and turned against the South African 

soldiers. During battle, it was discovered that many of the rebels were 

children as young as 14, and not trained as soldiers, storming the South 

African troops in groups rather than fighting in formation. South African 

troops ran out of ammunition and had no back-up from any country, including 

South Africa. 13 troopers were killed in battle and a further 27 were 

heavily injured. 

On Sunday, 24 March 2013, the Seleka rebel alliance in Central African 

Republic took the capital, Bangui. South African soldiers were allowed to 

leave the area in peace and critically injured soldiers were airlifted. 

President Zuma prepared to send re-enforcement soldiers to Bangui, but came 

under heavy criticism, and reluctantly withdrew the South African army.

 

The heterogeneous structure of the rebellion made it very fragile and the 

Seleka leadership had difficulty controlling all its troops, as 

demonstrated by the looting that happened in Bangui. At the request of the 

Seleka, the French army and the MICOPAX were already patrolling the streets 

of the capital, which illustrates that the first challenge was to enforce 

law and order.

 

On Monday, 25 March 2013, Seleka leader Michel Djotodia suspended the 

constitution, announced the dissolution of the National Assembly and said 

he intends to rule by decree.

Djotodia announced that presidential elections would be held in 2016 in 

accord with the Libreville agreement. In order to avoid a dangerous power 

vacuum, Djotodia had no choice but to quickly form a government. The 

composition of the government will be a first indicator of the Seleka 

governance. 

The Seleka leadership maintained Nicolas Tiangaye as a Prime Minister, and 

mentioned the possibility to include dignitaries of the previous regime in 

the new government.

*(Di)      What led to the rebellion was the failure of the Bozizé regime 

to carry   out the agreements it had reached with the Seleka leaders in the 

peace    agreement signed on 11 January 2013 in Libreville.*

 

This peace agreement was in consideration that tolerance and dialogue 

constitute the underpinning of national peace and unity, and was in 

accordance with the relevant provisions of the Charter of the United 

Nations, of the African Union, of the CEN-SAD (the Community of 

Sahel-Saharan States), of the CEMAC (the Economic and Monetary Community of 

Central Africa), and of the national Resolutions in relation to the 

peaceful settlement of conflicts, in particular the Strong Recommendations 

from the National Dialogue and the Code of Good Conduct; In view of the 

Constitution of the Central African Republic from 27 December, 2004.

 

According to the peace agreement, a political transition process would be 

started by the creation of a transitional government on 3 February 2013, 

which included the Seleka leaders. The rebels’ takeover of the capital city 

and this reversal of situation are due to four factors:

·         The common feeling in the Central African political class that 

President Bozizé would not respect the Libreville commitments and that he 

would block the transition. For instance, he celebrated the tenth 

anniversary of his own putsch on 15 March 2013 by organizing a public 

meeting in Bangui and urging young people to “resist Seleka”. In addition, 

he had imposed some of his relatives in the transitional government, 

rearmed (buying helicopters) and delayed releasing political prisoners.

·         The discontent of the military commanders of the Seleka towards 

the Libreville agreement. Some Seleka military commanders blamed Michel 

Djotodia for signing the agreement too fast and for taking into 

consideration his own interest and not that of the fighters. This generated 

serious tensions within Seleka.

·         The end of Bozizé’s regional support. At the meeting in 

Libreville, former President Bozize’s regional peers forced him to accept 

several concessions and blamed him for closing down political space and 

dialogue with the opposition. The fact that the MICOPAX (the Economic 

Community of Central African States’ peacekeeping mission in CAR) did not 

intervene when the rebels moved towards Bangui can be interpreted as the 

end of Bozizé’s regional support.

·         The unavoidable collapse of the Central African army. It had 

already been unable to stop the Seleka fighters in December 2012 and former 

President Bozizé had dismissed his son, who was Minister of Defence at the 

time and the army chief of staff. Under-equipped and unmotivated, the army 

was no longer able to fight and the rebels quickly realised it.

 

 

 

 

*(Dii)     Reaction from the international community on the rebellion 

against      Bozizé*

 

Although former President Bozizé had gained his position as president 

through an illegal coup in the first place, and stood in breach of the 

Libreville peace agreement, which was drawn up was in accordance with the 

relevant provisions of the Charter of the United Nations, the African 

Union, the Community of Sahel-Saharan States, and the Economic and Monetary 

Community of Central Africa, they did not criticize Bozizé. The seizure of 

the power by the rebels led to a robust reaction from the African Union 

which condemned what they referred to, as the “unconstitutional” change of 

regime. The African Union also decided to suspend the participation of the 

Central African Republic in the activities of the African Union, and to 

impose focused sanctions, such as travel bans and asset freezes, against 

the main leaders of the Seleka, including Michel Djotodia. The African 

Union called on other international organizations to adopt the same 

approach.

The United States strongly condemned “the illegitimate seizure of power by 

the Seleka rebel alliance” and said it would review its roughly $2 million 

in non-humanitarian aid to the Central African Republic.

 

 

*(Diii)    Reaction of South Africa* *on the rebellion against Bozizé*

 

Several foreign forces are deployed in Central African Republic but they 

are not all involved in this crisis and above all they position themselves 

differently when it comes to the recent events. After stopping the Seleka 

in December 2012, the leaders of the region seem to have accepted the fall 

of Bozize. MICOPAX did not try to block the rebels when they moved to 

Bangui and was implicitly supported by the leaders of the region, including 

Chad. 

The French military deployed in CAR is mandated to support MICOPAX; it is 

following the policy of armed neutrality and is presently securing the 

airport and the French nationals.

 

Ugandan troops and their American military advisors are located in the 

southeast of the Central African Republic in order to fight against the 

Lord’s Resistance Army. The Chadian and Sudanese troops are based in Birao 

in order to secure the Vakaga region, in the northeast of the Central 

African Republic.

South African troops were the only soldiers deployed to maintain possession 

of the presidential offices in Bangui. Foreign political leaders clearly 

did not share the same perspective on the manner in which to handle the CAR 

crisis with President Zuma.4

During this crisis, South Africa sided with former president Bozize.

 

President Zuma took a harsh stand against those who rebelled against 

Bozizé, to the extent that he engaged the South African National Defence 

Force in the civil war of another country, despite advice from the South 

African Minister of Defence, and without following the correct protocol 

procedures.

 

*(Diiia) President Zuma uses the South African National Defence Force 

without         following the correct procedure, and is in breach of the 

Constitution*

 

The Constitution of South Africa requires from the president to advise 

parliament as soon as possible when the army is deployed. Even in an 

emergency, the president is required to advise the defence committee and 

parliament within seven days that he has deployed the army.

On the 23rd of January 2012, Beeld newspaper reported in an article titled 

“JZ swyg oor weermag” (JZ remains silent about army) of three times in 

December 2012, that President Zuma ignored the correct procedure in his 

deployment of the South African National Defence Force. On each of these 

three occasions, Zuma advised parliament by letter three to six weeks after 

the deployments, which included twice to the Durban area during festive 

season and during the COP17 meeting, to assist the police, and a two week 

deployment in the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC).

 

Zuma’s actions are also not in accord with the Defense Act of 2002. 

According to Art. 18 (4) of this law, any expenses for the deployment of 

the South African Army has to be declared to the United Nations up front. 

In the case of the deployment to 

in opposition to the DRC, this was not met.

Mr. David Maynier, DA parliamentarian, told Beeld that parliament has to 

approve the deployment of the South African Army. He stated that, “This 

rule is there for a good reason, it is there to prevent wars in the 

exterior, whereby the South African Army may only be deployed with the 

approval of a small handful of officials with authority from the department 

of the exterior. A person does not want to wake up suddenly and hear that 

the army are standing in from of the Luanda gates and that no one knew 

thereof.” 

 

In his commentary with regards to the deployments, Prof. Pierre de Vos, 

from the university of Cape Town and expert advisor on the Constitution, 

said that it was dangerous to “deploy heavily armed soldiers who are not 

trained (for crowd control) into areas where members of the public are 

present.” He further asked:

“What would happen if soldiers shot at the public and many people died? 

Because if the practice of using soldiers to prevent crime to intimidate 

protestors, continues, such a shooting will happen at one time or another.”

 

During 2012, Zuma’s actions were also questioned when he only advised the 

United Nations nine months after a deployment to the Golf of Gunea.

 

 

 

*(Diiib) President Zuma used the South African National Defence Force to 

      protect business interests in the Central African Republic*

 South African troops were engaged in armed combat in the Central African 

Republic (CAR), without international mandate, and with deadly 

consequences. Dishonesty in this deployment is grounds for impeaching the 

president.

 

*(Diiic) Zuma did not want to withdraw the South African troops from CAR*

 

South African soldiers that were deployed in Bangui in December 2012 came 

under fire on Friday, 23 March 2013, in which at least 13 were shot to 

death, and a further 27 were injured. By Monday, 26 March 2013, calls 

mounted for South Africa to pull its forces out of the Central African 

Republic (CAR).

However, the defence force said that the decision to withdraw troops was 

with the politicians. 

President Jacob Zuma told reporters at his Pretoria residence the 

government had no reason to order a withdrawal, stating that, “There has 

been no reason for us to leave. What we’ve been looking at is how do we 

reinforce our forces, how do we ensure that there are no further 

casualties,” adding that, “There is no reason for us to issue a command for 

withdrawal.” 5 Furthermore, it was reported that South Africa was 

co-operating with the African Union on the matter. 

The deployment of South African soldiers in CAR was against the advice of 

Defence Minister Nosiviwe Mapisa-Nqakula and the military command.

Congress of SA Trade Unions general secretary Zwelinzima Vavi said the 

South African troops had not been deployed in terms of an AU mandate as 

reported earlier, but under a bilateral agreement. Had they been deployed 

under an AU mandate, there would have been a deployment of 3/8 by the AU 

along with a 1/8 deployment of South African troops. He added that, “We see 

no reason for them to stay there. They were sent there to protect a 

president who has fled.”6

FFPlus spokesman Pieter Groenewald stated that the South African government 

needed to take full responsibility for the deaths of these soldiers n Car, 

stating that, “It appears as if President Jacob Zuma had, without careful 

consideration, decided to deploy defence force members in the CAR without 

proper logistical and air support for such operations.” He added that 

without this kind of support, South African troops could not take on peace 

operations, stating that, “It is therefore not surprising that the tragedy 

took place and it could be repeated if the government does not drastically 

intervene.” 6

The SA National Defence Union (Sandu) also called for the government to 

make a decision to bring the troops home. 6

 

 

*(Diiid) South African troops engaged in battle in two different areas,     

Checkpoint PK12, 2km from Bangui, as well as Boali, 70km from the city*

 

The SANDF indicates that most of its casualties occurred at Checkpoint 

PK12, 12 km from Bangui and 2 km from its barracks. It does not explain 

what it was doing at Boali 70 km from the city.

Defence reporter Helmoed-Romer Heitman for South Africa, stated "That 

series of running battles claimed 13 soldiers and 27 others were wounded, 

but the force retained its cohesion and was able to fall back from two 

separate engagement areas to its base and to hold it until their attackers 

gave up trying to overrun them and proposed a ceasefire and disengagement." 

The deeply embedded Helmoed-Romer Heitman further reported that the 200 

Parabats expended 12 000 rounds of 12,7 mm machinegun ammunition, 288 

rockets from 107 mm rocket launchers, 800 bombs from 81 mm mortars and 

thousands of rounds from 7, 62 mm machineguns and 5,56 mm rifles. 

What has not been said is that the 180 man force was split into two and 

that the battle started far (70 km) from the point that needed protection. 

Seleka's General Arda Hakouma reported that, “"It was at Boali, about 70 km 

from Bangui, that the fighting was hardest against the South Africans. I 

lost six men, the South Africans 35". 

General Hakouma maybe wrong that all 35 SANDF casualties were fatalities, 

but his figure of 35 tallies very closely with the SANDF's casualty figure 

of 40, especially when it seems that the SANDF split its force into two, 

the Damara and Bossombélé contingents, as well as that it conducted some 

anti-looting tasks in Bangui itself. 

 

*(Diiie) Mercenaries amongst the South African troops*

 

In January 2013, the very week Zuma announced he was sending 200 soldiers 

to beef up President François Bozizé’s forces, reports quoted the Seleka 

rebel alliance referring to the South African troops as “mercenaries”.

Clearly the rebels were hostile to the SANDF presence in their country and 

the president must have been aware that the soldiers’ lives were therefore 

in danger. But this seemed not to trouble him as he disregarded the 

recommendation of Defence and Military Veterans Minister Nosiviwe 

Mapisa-Nqakula that the troops in the CAR be withdrawn as well as a warning 

by senior army officers that the mission was “suicidal”.

 

Times Live reported on Friday, 30 March 2013, that General Hassan Ahmat, 

commander of the 558-strong Brigade Rouge claimed that he and his men had 

killed at least 36 South African soldiers and captured 46, releasing them 

soon afterwards.

"We were coming down from Bossangoa in 19 vehicles and we found the South 

African troops at PK12," he said. "Afterwards, I saw 36 bodies of South 

African soldiers myself lying near here," he said, pointing to the road 

into Bangui. "More could have died afterwards from their wounds."

The general also claimed he had received reports that ousted president 

Francois Bozize who at the time was guarded by SA troops was “doling out 

cash to South African soldiers”, although this could not be verified 

independently. "That's why I have no respect for them," he said. "Bozize 

lied that South Africa was here to train Central African Republic's troops. 

But they were mercenaries; that is why he gave them money."7    

 

 

*a)         EliteSaSecurity     *

On the 7th of April 2013, it was reported8 that the last SANDF commander of 

the CAR program, General Johan Hougaard, is now in private contract with 

the former president, Boussie, as special advisor. Taken from his own 

website, 9 we read as follows:

General Johan Hougaard (Ret) is the Chairman of the Board of Directors of 

Elite SA Security Solutions. He served the South African Defence Force for 

36 years and concluded his service at the end of 2010 as Chief of Staff of 

Joint Military Operations. Aside from extensive military operational 

experience he also planned and executed peacekeeping operations during the 

past 10 years in Ivory Coast, Comoros, DRC, Burundi and the Central African 

Republic. During his military career, he received the Honoris Crux Medal 

for bravery, whilst serving as an officer in 32 Battalion. He did various 

senior operational and management courses such as the Army Staff Course, 

the Joint Staff qualification, United Nations Senior Mission Commander 

Course and Counter Terrorism course at the US Naval Post Graduate School in 

California. He also received his Senior Management Certificate from the 

Stellenbosch Management School. At present, he is still acting as the 

military advisor for the President of the Central African Republic and is 

also a co-director of other various companies. 

 South Africa has not been told if ‘defence contractors’ or real 

mercenaries, were deployed in CAR, not part of the official SANDF 

contingent. If the SANDF associated itself with a mercenary force such as 

EliteSaSecurity, it is possible that observers could not tell the 

difference. 

*ai)        General Johan Hougaard*

General Johan Hougaard has been involved with corruption scandals. He also 

works under pseudonyms, including Matthew Peter John Wilke, Hugh O'l Phart, 

et al. 

Johan Hougaard has worked as a consultant for the Department of Defence, 

signing a 3 year contract at the end of 2011, in which he duties included 

to assist in writing the next Defence Review, and assist in charting what 

new weapons the SANDF will need in the coming decades. 

Johan Hougaard is said to have taken money from the German arms consortium 

‘Thyssen Rheinstall Technik’, which was connected with the 'ARMS DEAL' 

scandal. 

Hougaard also did consulting work for the late Joe Modise; one of the key 

architects of the 'ARMS DEAL'. 

 

 

*(Diiif)  President Zuma led South Africa into a war which it had nothing 

to do             with*

 

On 27 March 2013, the Daily Maverick ran a report titled “SAS role in the 

battle of Bangui – the blood in Zuma’s hands”.10 This report laid the facts 

clear that President Zuma led South Africa into a war in which she had no 

place. We quote the following from this report:

 

*After the weekend’s slaughter, Zuma did not bother explaining his reasons 

for ordering the deployment without United Nations or African Union 

approval. He also did not bother to explain the precise role of South 

Africa’s troops in the CAR, why rebel fighters were attacking a South 

African military base or why he ignored the warnings to withdraw the 

soldiers.*

*Zuma simply paid his respects and left it to the chief of the army to deal 

with “operational matters”. But it was Zuma who authorised the mission, 

against the advice of the minister and the military command, and therefore 

only he can provide answers as to why he did so.*

*This situation is extremely serious: if our army has been a player in a 

civil war in another country, in violation of international law, Zuma could 

be impeached.*

*Constitutional law expert Pierre de Vos spells out the constitutional and 

legal procedures required to authorise the deployment of the military and 

render foreign interventions legitimate. It is clear now that Parliament 

was used to rubber-stamp this mission and did not have the opportunity to 

interrogate it.*

*Zuma’s explanation to Parliament was that the troops were there to assist 

with “capacity building of the CAR defence force” and to assist with the 

“implementation of the disarmament, demobilisation and re-integration 

process”.*

*But Bozizé was in South Africa last week to meet with Zuma and would have 

surely told him that he was under siege. Assuming the reasons given to 

Parliament were true, Zuma would have realised then that there was no point 

to continuing the South African mission as there would definitely not be 

any “capacity building”, “demobilisation” and “disarmament” going on when a 

coup was on the cards.*

*He would also have realised that the troops were ill-equipped to protect 

themselves in armed combat between that country’s military and the rebels 

and should have taken extraordinary precautions to make sure the soldiers 

were safe. And if they were to remain there in a combat situation, surely 

this changed their mandate, a change which placed Zuma under obligation to 

inform Parliament that the SANDF was now involved in a war.*

 

*But let us consider an alternative explanation: that Zuma had some deal 

with Bozizé that entailed providing him with back-up protection from the 

rebels in exchange for something else. Why else would Zuma go out on such a 

limb and Bozizé run here on the eve of being deposed? And what else could 

have provoked the rebels to the kind of hostility that resulted in a 

nine-hour battle?*

*This would mean that Zuma misled Parliament and also interfered in the 

internal affairs of a sovereign nation. If this is what happened, the 

president obviously did not gamble on the rebels defeating the CAR military 

and SANDF troops, and he clearly did not think his friend Bozizé would get 

toppled.*

*If the alternative explanation is proven accurate, Zuma would be open to 

impeachment by Parliament at least two grounds: violation of the 

Constitution or law; and/or misconduct. *

 

*But Zuma is bound to adopt his usual methods of fending off 

interrogation:  dodging questions, hiding behind the ANC’s parliamentary 

majority to avoid scrutiny and pretending all is well and his intentions 

noble. *

*This situation, however, goes beyond the pale and has the potential to 

bring the South African government into serious international disrepute. It 

is not just another case of blowing taxpayers’ money, ridiculous behaviour 

by a member of Cabinet, barely believable incompetence or corruption.*

 

*The president’s actions, for whatever reason – noble or illicit – led to 

South Africa becoming involved in a war it should have had nothing to do 

with. It is not in our region, there are no economic interests (for the 

state, at least) that we know of and there is no international mandate for 

us to participate in this war. What’s more is that the president’s actions 

led to soldiers, South African citizens, dying in combat. The matter cannot 

be dismissed, like every other crisis plaguing the Zuma administration. The 

president needs to account to the nation for the deaths in the CAR. *

*And, most urgently, Zuma needs to explain why South African troops are 

still in Bangui, the capital, which is now under the control of the rebels. 

Why are they not being withdrawn? Clearly the people who killed 13 South 

African soldiers also see the remaining troops as the enemy. If they are to 

remain there, their role would obviously not be “capacity building” for the 

illegitimate new rulers but to intervene, somehow, to defeat the rebels.*

*So, what is it now?*

*Is South Africa prepared to continue participating in this war in the CAR 

it did not know it was in? If not, then stop it. Hold the president to 

account, bring the troops home and protect South Africa’s Constitution and 

the rule of law.*

*The blood of the 13 SANDF soldiers and that of the CAR citizens who died 

in the fire fight is on Zuma’s hands. The blood of any more people who die 

as a result of South Africa’s presence in the CAR is on ours. *

 

Whatever the outcome of this debacle, it is clear that South Africa’s role 

in the Battle of Bangui, has left blood on President Zuma’s hands, which, 

constitutionally, should lead to his impeachment. The reasons are further 

detailed in Footnote 1 - SA’s role in the Battle of Bangui: The blood on 

Zuma’s hands.

 

*(Diiig) Deployment of additional troops to CAR by Zuma cost SA more than   

R370 million*

 

On the 5th of April 2013, News24 reported that the additional flights of 

the South African National Defence Force ordered by President Zuma to 

bolster troops stationed in CAR after the battle in Bangui on the weekend 

of 24 March 2013, cost in excess of R370 million.11   

 

 

*(Diiih) Motive for South African troops in CAR was not for peace keeping*

 

A Daily Maverick source, who was able to breach security, heard from 

wounded South African soldiers, who were being treated at the 1 Military 

Hospital in Pretoria, that they believed South African troops were being 

used to further ulterior motives in the Central African Republic (CAR).

Soldiers say that since January 2013, South African troops were not 

involved in any military training – the original aim of the South African 

military presence in the country. Soldiers were clearly instructed that 

they were there to protect other South Africans, their assets and 

equipment, as well as the SANDF equipment deployed in the CAR.12    

 

 

*a)         Business interests of President Zuma in CAR*

 

Sources in the Central African Republic government and security sector told 

RFI's Cyril Ben Simon that the South African Soldiers are fighting to 

protect mining and oil contracts signed by South African companies with CAR 

president François Bozize. 

Several sources said the South African soldiers fought so hard because they 

were being paid extra by François Bozize. 

 

*b)        Dig Oil*

 

A CAR minister told RFI that a South African company called Dig Oil, which 

is prospecting for oil in the area, is "a cashcow for the ANC, and 

President Zuma's nephew is a shareholder."

Khulubuse Zuma bought oil blocks in the northeastern Democratic Republic of 

Congo under the company names Foxwhelp and Capricat. News articles linked 

Caprikat and Foxwhelp to a nephew of President Jacob Zuma, as in a 

Bloomberg article of 25 June 2010 (“Oil Firms of South Africa Leader Nephew 

to Start Congo Exploration in 2012”), which said the companies were owned 

by Khulubuse Zuma, who made extensive use of his address book to cut the 

deal.

 

 

*E.        Links between agents representing the Crown in Africa and 

warfare in            Africa*

 

The LaRouche mining consortium in Africa, along with the Mormon mafia, is 

tasked to buy up South Africa and take over the rest of Southern Africa 

through running terrorist groups out of the Democratic Republic of the 

Congo. On their list is Kenya and other nations. 

Their method of operation is to finance themselves with blood diamonds, 

sent through agents to Tel Aviv, money to be handled by Bain 

Capital/Romney, then to China where arms are purchased and shipped to 

terrorists in Africa, Al Qaeda, Boko Harum and UNITA. The details of the 

deal were set up in October 2012. See Footnote 2 - BAIN and AFRICAN TERROR 

- Blood Diamonds

 *1.         The LaRouche mining consortium*

 

*The Tiny Rowland factor in politics for a neo-imperialist Africa*

 

Roland Walter Fuhrhop, the British business man also known as Tiny Rowland, 

was born on the 27th of November 1917 in India.  He was not a prominent 

factor in the business sector of Africa until 1961, when he became involved 

with the London and Rhodesia Mining and Land Corporation Ltd. (Lonrho). 

The Lonrho group, based in London, indentified Rowland as the man who would 

be instrumental in developing their business interests throughout Africa 

and the Middle East according to a neo-imperialist system.

Rowland built the multi-national Lonrho Company to ‘rule’ all the mineral 

land of Africa. Within three decades, it gained a hold on most economies in 

Africa and through this process became one of the largest companies in 

Britain.

Through the years, Lonrho worked in alliance with the British Intelligence 

Service Mi6, which at times was the channel used to provide secret funding 

to terrorist organizations such as Frelimo, Swapo and the ANC. At times 

Lonrho served as an extension for the British Crown to promote friendly 

relations with Black leaders from Africa.

 

Such a neo-imperialist development was also instrumental on the policies 

the Afro-Asia Block, the United Kingdom and some other countries took 

against the policy of the South African government for separate 

development. The bridge between the two systems of development was seen to 

be the détente system.

 

The association between Tiny Rowland and the South African Cabinet is 

notable since 1973. At that time, the South African government had opened a 

criminal case of fraud against Rowland. 

Dr. Hendrik Lutting, Ambassador to South Africa in London, convinced the 

South African Minister of the Exterior, Dr. Hilgard Muller, to have the 

charges dropped. Thereafter, the Attorney-General of South Africa ruled 

that there was ‘insufficient evidence’ to continue the matter against 

Rowland. It was against this background that Rowland made the assurance of 

a détente in 1973 between the South African government and other African 

statesmen.

 

The relationship of Rowland with the South African government before 1994, 

is discussed further in Attachment 10 - South Africa is bound as a 

possession by the Crown, Sub-section f. The Crown destroyed the governments 

of South Africa’s neighbouring countries to keep possession of South 

Africa, through which they planned to bring the rest of Southern Africa 

into alignment of their goal towards a United Africa

 

 

*2.         The George Soros factor in politics for a neo-imperialist 

Africa*

 

George Soros got into the business of manipulating African governments in 

the 1990’s, when he was already heavily invested in British imperial 

African plantations and mining. 

 

 

*Soros invests in competitor to Lonmin before strike violence on Lonmin 

breaks out*

 

George Soros is very active in South Africa via the Soros Open Society, and 

prior to the Marikana strikes at the Lonmin mine of South Africa on the 16thof August 2012, purchased 15.5 million shares in Platinum Group Metals Ltd. 

- competitors to Lonmin.

 

 

 

*Soros Open Society Institute*

The Soros Open Society Institute's southern Africa operations are, in 

effect, directly co-owned by the U.S. government-based National Endowment 

for Democracy (NED), and the NED's London partner organization, the U.K. 

government-funded Westminster Foundation.

 

The director of Soros's Open Society Initiative on Southern Africa (OSISA) 

is Godfrey Kanyanze. Kanyanze has long served as the director of the 

Zimbabwe Congress of Trade Unions (ZCTU), which is funded by the U.S. 

National Endowment for Democracy. George Soros is discussed further in See 

Attachment 10 – Attachment 10 South Africa is bound as a possession by the 

Crown, Section B) The Crown kept possession of South Africa within the 

economic structures of the country when the African National Congress came 

into power through illegal smuggling, Sub-section (v) Manipulation of the 

Stock exchange and Employment Market

 

Soros's Johannesburg-based Open Society Initiative for Southern Africa 

operates in ten countries. Throughout the recent agitation against the 

Zimbabwe regime, Reginald Matchaba-Hove has been the chairman of that Open 

Society Initiative for Southern Africa; he was, simultaneously, the 

chairman of the Zimbabwe Election Support Network (ZESN)--an 

anti-government "non-partisan, independent group of 38 non-governmental 

organisations.''13   

 *3.         Romney relationships which affect Africa*

*(i)         Russian and Cuban intelligence set Romney up with a mistress 

who is           also his handler.*

 

Romney’s relationship with Cuba extends to repeat personal audiences with 

Castro during his constant trips in and out of Cuba.

 

In Cuba, Russian and Cuban intelligence set Romney up with a mistress, 

“Maria,” who was also his “handler.” For more information on “Maria”, see 

Footnote 2a - Romney’s handler shared the same name as the member of the 

American government who was not in public office, but was on the highest 

decision making levels of the GOP.

Cuban mafia support for Mitt Romney can be seen on the following video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2fxNFK-cwJU

 

 

*(ii)        Romney is a compulsive gambler *

 

From his profile with CIA and FBI agents, “Romney is a compulsive gambler…”

 

*(iii)       Romney helped run narcotics trafficking*

 

According to the FBI, top level counter-narcotics, Romney helped run 

narcotics trafficking through Mexico into the United States.  He also 

continued to work directly with Cuban and Russian intelligence, a 

relationship they say is “ongoing.”

 

 

*(iv)      Bain Capital*

 

Bain Capital was established to protect the former front company, Bain & 

Company.

Operations would be managed from Panama, banking from Switzerland and the 

Caymans but client meetings would be held in Cuba, wherein Romney is a key 

role player.

 

George Romney, the “poor kid” who claims to have nearly starved during the 

depression, went from “rags to riches” in months during the 1930’s, from 

grocery clerk to running an auto company to eventually, during World War 

II, managing the entire auto industry.

 

Along with drug dealers, gangsters, El Salvador, Mexico, Panama, and 

Columbia, George Romney funded Bain. He became the President of American 

Motors, Governor of Michigan, and Secretary of Health and Human Services 

while running a vast multi-national criminal empire.

The investigator on the influence of the Romney family on the world who put 

together the information of this article wrote that, “When we tried to 

explain this, the web of hedge funds, of ‘limited partnerships,’ of 

railroads, shipping companies, even the largest retail chain in the world, 

how they were involved, how Mitt Romney is the largest casino operator in 

the world, all done through layers of partnerships, no one wanted to take 

on anything this powerful.”

The list of major American corporations, many “giants” was endless. He 

added that, 

“One of the keys is the Texas Pacific Group, funding 254 companies. Another 

is GE Capital, originating as a Mexican bank that laundered drug profits, 

grown into one of the largest companies in America by ‘Jack Welch’ and then 

destroyed through a ‘pump and dump’ costing American investors billions, 

crushing many pension funds and impoverishing tens of thousands or more.”

 

Those listed as representing organized crime make up groups responsible for 

50% of political donations in the United States and this doesn’t count the 

estimated $4 billion in drug profits brought in through phony front 

corporations or the money collected during overseas campaign funding 

drives, trips to Israel and Britain. The drug industry connected with the 

American government is further discussed in Footnote 3 – NAFTA was a Romney 

document negotiated by President Bush

 

 

*(v)       George Romney represents the Crown*

 

Romney represents organized crime and the European banking consortium which 

belongs to members of the Crown. His purpose is to unravel the roadblocks 

put in place by Obama, few and weak as they are due to the flawed system of 

“bought” government adopted by America. This means a world war, more 

prisons, looted banks, all wealth shipped overseas and the eventual descent 

of America into third world status, depopulated, de-industrialized and 

enslaved to the masters of the New World Order, as discussed in Attachment 

3 – The Crown, Footnote 3, sub-section The Bilderberg Group: Planning on a 

New World Order.

 

On the Israeli end, Romney, while travelling there with Las Vegas casino 

boss, Sheldon Adelson, met with diamond traders at what was supposed to be 

a fundraiser. However, it turned out to be a conspiracy of linking together 

diamonds, terrorism, money, and the narcotics trade which, working through 

Bain, the Bush family, Mormon groups in the CIA and the Mossad, meant to 

take over all of Africa. 

 

 

*(vi)      The Romney family history is tied to the Mormon history in 

America*

 

The Romney family history, and their rise in the financial world, is tied 

to the Mormon history in America. 

Mormon history is largely secret, two wars against the United States, wars 

over polygamy, over the “Kingdom of Deseret” and its withdrawal from the 

United States.

The Romney family were citizens of that “kingdom” and had their US 

citizenship formally withdrawn in 1872 by the Edmunds Act

.

They became federal fugitives*,* fled America and stayed out of the country 

for 26 years, citizens of Mexico. No “returning” Romney family member was 

repatriated as an American citizen, all remained Mexican citizens, some 

returning to Mexico.

During their time there, they formed alliances with ruling families, with 

bandits, with forces opposed to the United States and its seizure of 

American land. Mormons who fled to Mexico had become a “5th column” when 

they returned and remained tied to Mexico.

Carlos Salinas, the former Mexican President, who attended Harvard with 

Mitt Romney and became his lifelong companion, ran their drug cartels. 

Briefing didn’t run immediately to Carlos Salinas, but to the father of 

Mitt Romney, George Romney.

 

 

*(vii)     The Mormon mafia*

 

The direct link between the Mormon mafia in South Africa and the American 

government is anchored by the Romney family.

 

The interest in the mineral wealth of Africa, which extends to blood 

diamonds, by American presidential candidates who are Russian agents has 

been exposed in 2010 to news and government agencies. On the 1st of 

November 2012, an article called “Romney Leaks: Drugs, Blood Diamonds and a 

Cuban Mistress” with the sub-heading “FBI, CIA and Foreign Intelligence 

Agencies “Leak” Romney Files” reveals information gathered from  years of 

investigation, including two years undercover, inside of one of Mexico’s 

biggest drug cartels.  Files include wire taps, documents, photographs, 

including documents from Cuban intelligence which include photos and 

recordings, secured at extreme risk.

“George Romney, 14 spying for Cuba and Russia’, “Romney running terrorism 

in Africa”, this is what the FBI, CIA and the files state. Documents 

outline several meetings between Romney and Castro.  

FBI officials indicate that Romney’s travels were done under diplomatic 

passport supplied by the KGB.

Notes in the “Romney File” indicate the following:  

*Based on the number of trips to Cuba and reports from our intelligence 

sources there, Romney was considered a top intelligence asset for Cuban and 

Soviet/Russian intelligence. *

*His psychopathic and narcissistic personality disorders tied to gambling 

addiction and obsession with physical security (physical cowardice) made 

him, not only easy to manage but highly motivated to use his strong ties in 

Washington to access whatever intelligence his handlers desired.  Romney’s 

“world view” is that he sees himself as a molder of world history, above 

“ordinary people” and obsessed with power and personal safety.*

 

There is a systematic effort to destabilize all of Africa and return it to 

colonialism by big role players such as America – also working for Russia, 

China, Saudi Arabia, Israel and North Korea. 

George Romney is the second consecutive GOP candidate with a dossier that 

accuses them of working for Russia.  

 

 

*a)         The Mormon mafia connection with the American government*

 

Presently, terrorism is spreading across the African continent, while 

Mormon Mafia  run the CIA and FBI. 

 

Intelligence services in South Africa said that those financing terrorism 

with blood diamonds, those buying everything in sight, are all Mormon, with 

support of the Heritage Foundation and key Washington law firms.

 

 

 

*b)        Mormon mafia purchase mining properties in South Africa*

 

A CIA agent named “Tony,” working South Africa, part of a team of agents 

there, all Mormons, contacted an intelligence agency director.

“Tony” as he called himself was working with a US law firm and was tasked 

with investing $120 billion in drug profits, maybe from Afghanistan, in 

South Africa.  He told our representatives he was looking for mining 

properties worth more than $200 million each.

 

 

*c)         UNITA is hired by the Mormon mafia to supply blood diamonds 

which             are sold for weapons to take over southern Africa by 

running terrorist           groups from the Democratic Republic of the 

Congo*

 

“Tony” the CIA agent, met with dozens of other groups in South 

Africa. Tony’s group works with UNITA , 

a terrorist organization, sometimes supported by North Korea, Israel, the 

US and China.  The former Angolan revolutionary organization is now “for 

hire,” and “terrorism on demand” with a reach that covers a dozen nations.

Their task, as South African intelligence indicates, is to buy up South 

Africa and take over the rest of Southern Africa through running terrorist 

groups out of the Democratic Republic of the Congo.  On their list is Kenya 

and other nations. 

Their method of operation is to finance themselves with blood diamonds, 

sent through agents to Tel Aviv, money to be handled by Bain 

Capital/Romney, then to China where arms are purchased and shipped to 

terrorists in Africa, “Al Qaeda, Boko Harum and UNITA.

The details of the deal were set up in October 2012. UNITA had difficulty 

coming up with their end, the $1.2 billion a year in diamonds they promised.

 

 

*4.         Interference by members of the United Nations in African wars*

 

*(i)         RWANDA*

 

In 1990, the Rwandan Civil War began. It was fought between the Rwandan 

Patriotic Front - a rebel group composed mostly of Tutsi refugees, with 

support from Uganda (in an attempt to defeat the Hutu-led government); and 

the Hutu regime, which was supported by the Francophone Africa and France. 

 

*a)         South African interest in Francophone Africa*

The interest in the mineral rich area of Africa commonly known as 

Francophone, which includes the DRC and CAR, by the African National 

Congress in government of South Africa, can be associated with the 

involvement of African National Congress presidents with the French 

government. Both the previous South African president, Thabo Mbeki, and the 

present president Jacob Zuma, come from the South African Communist Party 

alliance with the African National Congress. Both presidents played an 

integral part in transferring governance of South Africa from the previous 

National Party regime, to the African National Congress, as discussed in 

Attachment 10 - South Africa is bound as a possession by the Crown, with 

Mbeki leading the negotiations on behalf of the African National Congress, 

and Zuma being in control of the military intelligence services for the 

African national Congress. Both were spies for the National Party during 

the Apartheid struggle. Pik Botha, who led the delegation on behalf of the 

National Party, was in control of the military intelligence of South Africa 

at the time of these negotiations. Pik Botha was also a double agent, 

providing France, Britain and American members of the Crown with 

information regarding intelligence matters of South Africa. 

During negotiations, the demands of the Crown, represented mainly by the 

Oppenheimer syndicate, was met by all leaders of the National Party and the 

African National Congress. 

Thabo Mbeki supplied the French government with full access to all 

intelligence services of South Africa during his position as President of 

South Africa, as discussed in Attachment 10, wherein mention is also made 

of state secret information with regard to investigating economic ventures 

being made available to the MI6 of Britain, through CIEX, of which the 

managing director was Michael Oatley, who was second in charge of the MI6 

in Britain. 15

 

 

*(ii)        Standard Bank in the South African political arena*

 

In May 1980, Pik Botha in his capacity as Minister of Defence recruited 

thirteen members from the most important business sectors as military 

advisors for the State Security Council. They were Gavin Relly from Anglo 

American; Mike Rosholt from Barlows; Basil Hersov from Anglo-Vaal; Wim De 

Villiers from General Mining; Frans Cronje from SAB-Nedsual; Richard Goss 

from SAB; Chris Sauders from Tongaat; Ian MacKenzie from Standard Bank; 

Richard Lurie from JSE; Johannes Van Den Horst from Old Mutual; Fredi Du 

Plessis from Sanlam; Johannes Hurter from Volkskas and Jaap Wilkens from 

SALU. 

These businessmen were tasked to advise P.W.Botha and General Magnus Malan 

(head of the Defence Force), as well as serve as guard dogs among the money 

powers and weapon industries.16    

 

 

*(iii)       Standard Bank interests in Francophone Africa*

 

On the 3rd of April 2013, immediately before the media announced that 

President Zuma was sending South African soldiers into the DRC to declare 

war on the ‘rebels’ who are mostly members of the Rwandan Patriotic Front, Ebenezer 

Essoka, General Manager of Standard Chartered bank in Southern Africa, said 

that local partnerships are important in Francophone Africa.17   Francophone 

Africa is discussed further in Footnote 4 - Francophone Africa*. *

Today, it is no secret that the South African National Defence Force is 

interfering in the domestic politics of Francophone Africa, and acts in 

accordance to the desires of the United Nations as watchdog in CAR and the 

DRC.

 

 

*b)        The United Nations destabilized peace in Rwanda which led to the 

      genocide of the Tutsies*

 

In 1993, the Hutu-led government of Juvénal Habyarimana called for a 

cease-fire and anchored peace in the region by the proposed Arusha Accords, 

which afforded power sharing between the various political and ethical 

groups prevalent in his country.18 The United States enlisted prominent 

role players to assassinate Habyarimana, knowing full well that this would 

destabilize all peace negotiations. Not only did members of the United 

Nations fund radio and press releases to increase hatred towards the 

Tutsies, but they also supplied the Hutus with machetes to slaughter the 

Tutsies, and also pro-peace Hutus, who were portrayed as "traitors" and 

"collaborators". 

 

 

*(bi)      Key Role Players in the assassination of President Juvénal 

Habyarimana      were placed in position by the United Nations*

 When investigating who was behind the assassination of President Juvénal 

Habyarimana, two key role players - President Paul Kagame and Colonel Rose 

Kabuye – who orchestrated his murder, were directly linked to the United 

Nations. See Footnote 5 - Colonel Rose Kabuye and President Paul Kagame

 

It is important to note that the United Nations used Tutsi member Rose 

Kabuye to infiltrate the Rwandan Patriotic Front to destabilize the Hutu 

government in Francophone Africa, while at the same time, the United 

Nations incited and armed the Hutus to murder Tutsies. 

Today, the United States based Rwanda Global Education Fund describes the 

role of Rose Kabuye in the Rwandan massacre as a hero, stating that, “Rose 

Kabuye became part of the Tutsi-led liberation army that ousted the Hutu 

militia and ended the genocide...” 

 

 

*(bii)     United Nations surveillance in Rwanda before the genocide*

 

United Nations peacekeepers were deployed to “patrol ceasefire and assist 

in demilitarization and demobilization”. A March 1993 report found that 

10,000 Tutsi had been detained and 2,000 murdered since the Rwandan 

Patriotic Front's 1990 invasion. In August 1993, Lieutenant General Roméo 

Dallaire , commander of 

the United Nations forces, made a reconnaissance trip to evaluate the 

situation and requested 5,000 troops; he was given 2,548 military personnel 

and 60 civilian police.19 He at first saw the situation as a standard 

peacekeeping mission.

 

 

*(biii)    Preparations for the genocide*

 

Even after the 1993 peace agreement signed in Arusha, businessmen close to 

General Habyarimana imported 581,000 machetes from China20 for Hutu use in 

killing Tutsi, because machetes were obviously cheaper than guns. 21 

In a 2000 news story, *The Guardian* reported, "The former 

Secretary-General of the United Nations, Boutros Boutros-Ghali, 

played a leading role in supplying weapons to the Hutu regime which carried 

out a campaign of genocide against the Tutsis in Rwanda in 1994. As 

Minister of Foreign Affairs in Egypt, Boutros-Ghali facilitated an arms 

deal in 1990, which was to result in $26 million (£18m) of mortar bombs, 

rocket launchers, grenades and ammunition being flown from Cairo to Rwanda. 

The arms were used by Hutus in attacks which led to up to a million deaths."22

 

Further conspirators to the genocide of the Tutsies were drawn from members 

of the Hutu power group known as the Akazu, many of whom occupied positions 

at top levels of (the United Nations approved) national government. The 

genocide was supported and coordinated by the national government as well 

as by local military and civil officials and mass media. Alongside the 

military, primary responsibility for the killings themselves, rests with 

two Hutu militias that had been organized for this purpose by political 

parties: the *Interahamwe* and 

*Impuzamugambi* , although once 

the genocide was underway a great 

number of Hutu civilians took part in the murders. This genocide marked the 

end of the peace agreement on which President Juvénal Habyarimana had set 

out on in 1993. The Tutsi Rwandan Patriotic Front restarted their 

offensive, defeating the army and seizing control of the country.

 

*c)         The Rwandan Genocide *

The message to the world, as also depicted by Wikipaedia, describes the 

Rwandan Genocide as follows:

A mass slaughter of the Tutsis by the Hutus that took place in 1994 in the 

East African state of Rwanda. Over the course of approximately 100 days 

(from the assassination of Juvénal Habyarimana and Cyprien Ntaryamira on 

April 6 through mid-July) over 500,000 people were killed, according to a Human 

Rights Watch estimate. Estimates 

of the death toll have ranged 

from 500,000–1,000,000, or as much as 20% of the country's total population.

The Rwandan military (known as the Rwandan Defence Forces (RDF)), 

Hutu rebel groups such as the Army for the Liberation of Rwanda, 

and Hutu militia groups, notably the *Interahamwe*, systematically set out 

to murder all the Tutsis they could reach, regardless of age or sex, as 

well as the political moderates among the Hutu.23

 They incited Hutu civilians to participate in the killings or be shot in 

turn, using radio broadcasts to tell them to kill their Tutsi neighbours. 

See Footnote 6 – Radio messages used as a tool to incite genocide in Rwanda.

 

 

*(ci)*      *Radio Télévision Libre des Mille Collines*

 

Audio-visual media of Tutsi hate speech was led by Radio Television Libre 

des Mille Collines, Societe Anonyme (RTLM SA) takes the lead. It was 

established as a joint-founded company with 50 shareholders, and officially 

registered on 8th July 1993. The official contract between the government 

and the radio station was later signed on 30th September by the minister of 

information Faustin Rucogoza and Felicien Kabuga - financial adviser to 

President Habyarimana, served from the very beginning as president of the 

Board of Directors.

Felicien Kabuga was an in-law to the president - his daughter Bernadet was 

married to Jean Pierre Habyarimana, the president’s son. 

Jean Pierre Habyarimana, a civil engineer, was the president of MRND for 

the city of Kigali.24   

Funding of Radio Television Libre des Mille Collines should be 

investigated, as the radio reports incited hatred towards the Tutsis which 

led to genocide.

 

 

*(cii)     France was the instigator of the Rwanda genocide*

 

The role France played in controlling Francophone Africa before and after 

the Rwanda genocide is once again prominent now that South Africa is 

entering the war in CAR and DRC. In Footnote 7 -      The role France 

played in the Rwandan genocide, greater detail is provided for the role of 

the French government in Francophone Africa, from which we take the 

following pointers:

·         A military assistance agreement was signed in 1975 between 

President Juvénal Habyarimana (Rwanda) and President Valéry Giscard 

d’Estaing (France) in what France calls the “*pré-carré*” (her reserved 

corner or backyard in Africa).

·         In 1983, Jean Pierre Habyarimana (one of the sons of the late 

President of Rwanda) agreed to allow President Jean Christophe Mitterrand 

(son of late President François Mitterrand) to head the African Cell in the 

Elysée (the Office of the President of the French Republic) - the most 

powerful institution as far as the French African policy is concerned. 

In her African foreign policy, France cannot accept a change of power in 

her backyard (“pré-carré”) without her active involvement or blessing. 

France, foreign affairs and defense matters are the undisputed 

constitutional preserve of the President of the Republic.

·         The propaganda war which France launched against the Tutsis led 

to their genocide. 

·         From 1990 to 1994, the military situation in Rwanda became a 

personal affair of President Mitterrand who appointed General Jean Pierre 

Huchon to closely follow the matter, and report directly to him.

·         France maintained her troops in Rwanda, which actively fought 

alongside the Rwandan Armed Forces (FAR) against the Rwandan Patriotic Army 

(RPA), the armed wing of the RPF. The French troops were especially in 

command responsibilities, and they manned heavy artillery and helicopters 

gunship. 

France’s involvement in the Rwandan civil strife was not a secret as 

evidenced by the appointment, in 1992, by late President Habyarimana, of 

French Lieutenant-Colonel Chollet as the overall planner and commander of 

all military operations of the Rwandan Armed Forces (FAR). Apart from this 

military engagement on frontlines, French soldiers manned roadblocks at 

which Rwandans carrying identity cards marked “Tutsis” were either arrested 

and made to disappear, or else simply killed on the spot.

During the whole period from 1990 to 1994, French troops participated in 

the training not only of the regular armed forces of Rwanda, but also the 

Interahamwe militia, which later spearheaded the execution of genocide of 

Tutsis and the massacre of dissident Hutus. This training was not only 

military but also political and ideological. During all this period the 

Armed Forces of Rwanda (FAR) and the Interahamwe militia which were trained 

and equipped by France committed numerous genocidal massacres against 

Tutsis in different parts of Rwanda, such as in Mutara (1990), in 

Ruhengeri-Gisenyi (the massacres of Bagogwe-Tutsis in 1991, 1992,1993), in 

Bugesera (1992), without any reaction from France.

·         The international community missed an opportunity to prevent 

genocide because of the complicity of France.

·         France encouraged the creation of an extremist party called 

‘’CDR’’ (“Coalition for the Defense of the Republic”), which later on 

spearheaded the execution of genocide.

·         The French government refused to save Tutsis who had been looking 

after their pets in Rwanda, during which French troops airlifted the pets 

in evacuation missions.

·         France delivered huge quantities of arms to be used to commit 

genocide during evacuation missions and via the D.R.Congo, then Zaïre.

·         Using her prominent position in the UN Security Council, France 

was able to hoodwink 10 out of the 15 members of the UN Security Council 

into believing that she was sending a bona fide “Humanitarian mission”, and 

they voted for UNSC Resolution nº 929 authorizing French troops to be 

deployed in Rwanda under the code name of ‘Operation Turquoise’’.

·         The French troops of the “Operation Turquoise’’ finally resolved 

to organize the evacuation of the defeated genocidal forces into Zaire were 

they attempted to re-organize, re-train and re-arm them with the hope that 

they could re-capture power in Rwanda.

·         French authorities refused to acknowledge the 1994 genocide 

against the Tutsis. 

French intelligence services have sponsored books by Péan, Onana, Ruzibiza, 

Debre, etc., which are now being used by Judge Bruguière, as main sources 

of information for their so-called investigation of genocide.

 

·         France has turned into a safe haven for the 1994 genocide 

suspects, where they are shielded against judicial prosecution.

·         The Embassy of France in Rwanda has been solely devoted to the 

mobilization of internal opposition, to the extent of encouraging 

government officials to flee the country, so as to weaken the Rwandan 

government of National Unity until the time it was ordered to be closed 

down.

·         France has been boycotting the Rwandan government economically

·         France has used its position of trust within the UN Security 

Council to baselessly accused Rwanda of committing human rights violations 

in DRC, looting DRC resources, violating UN arms embargo in DRC, and 

fueling conflict in that country, etc.

·         France has used her privileged position in the UN Security 

Council to prevent the use of forceful means to disarm and demobilize the 

forces which committed genocide in Rwanda, while at the same time pleading 

with the UN Security Council to impose an arms embargo against Rwanda. The 

objective pursued by France is therefore glaring: to weaken the Rwandan 

government so as to facilitate its overthrow by these genocidal forces.

·         France was allowed the position to investigate the Rwandan 

genocide. However it uses a French Judge who only bases his investigation 

on testimonies from enemies of the genocide victims.

 

 

 

5.         *African France colonies*

 

Just before France conceded to African demands for independence in the 

1960’s, it carefully organised its 14 former colonies (CFA countries) into 

a system of "compulsory solidarity". This system included the following:

·         The African states had to put 65% of their foreign currency 

reserves into the French Treasury, plus another 20% for financial 

liabilities. This means these 14 African countries only ever have access to 

15% of their own money. If they need more they have to borrow their own 

money from the French at commercial rates; 

·         France has the first right to buy or reject any natural resources 

found in the land of the Francophone countries. So even if the African 

countries can get better prices elsewhere, they can't sell to anybody until 

France says it doesn't need the resources;

·         In the award of government contracts, French companies must be 

considered     first; only after that can these countries look elsewhere. 

It doesn’t matter if the        CFA countries can obtain better value for 

money elsewhere;

            CFA zones are solicited to provide private funding to French 

politicians during    elections in France.

Thus, these African states are French taxpayers - taxed at a staggering 

rate - yet the citizens of these countries aren't French and don't have 

access to the public goods and services their money helps pay for.

Presidents of CFA countries that have tried to leave the CFA zone have had 

political and financial pressure put on them by successive French 

presidents. See Footnote 8 - THE COLONIAL PACT

 

 

*6.         Loans to African governments*

The Guardian report dated 22 July 2012 titled ‘Africa wealth devoured by 

tyrants and vultures’25  explains the channelling of wealth from African 

nations to the international bankers of the Crown and their money lending 

syndicate, from which we take the following information:

‘Repayment' of loans made to corrupt leaders in Africa has proved an 

important means of draining the continent’s wealth.

Successive governments have used foreign loans as a means of financing 

their activities – including building palaces in the jungle and stealing 

from state coffers. Repayment of such loans falls on the shoulders of the 

citizens of countries where corrupt governments have indebted those to 

loans for things the citizens will never reap the benefits of. When 

repayments of such loans are not forthcoming, stringent action is taken 

against the nation of the erring government, creating a potential income 

stream to the lender reaching into the far future.

 

 

*F.         The Democratic Republic of Congo*

 

The Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) has vast mineral wealth including 

diamonds, copper, oil and gas; one estimate puts the value of these 

resources at $24 trillion. However, it is pretty much the poorest country 

in the world. The reason is centuries of plunder and corruption, at its 

worst involving the buying, selling and brutalisation of millions of 

people. 

DR Congo's east, which borders Rwanda and Uganda, was the cradle of 

back-to-back wars that drew in much of the region from 1996 to 2003. They 

were fought largely over its vast wealth of gold, coltan and cassiterite, 

key components in electronic goods.

In 2008, the vulture fund, FG Hemisphere, bought "secondhand" debt made by 

Congolese dictator Mobutu Sese Seko for $3m, on which it hoped to claim 

back $100m.

The debt bought up by FG Hemisphere was part of a vast pile that fuelled 

the rule of Mobutu, who pillaged his country for more than 30 years. 

Mobutu's lenders knew he was as corrupt; a report by an IMF mission in 1982 

reported there was "no, I repeat no, chance on the horizon for Zaire's 

[DRC's] numerous creditors to get their money back". Yet, money lending to 

Mobutu continued to rise sharply. 

In 2012, FG Hemisphere tried to grab the assets of Congo's state-owned 

mining company, Gécamines, through a joint venture in which it is invested 

on Jersey. However, the privy council - the final court of appeal for 

Jersey, overturned previous judgments, saying Gécamines assets could not be 

taken as state assets.

This raises the question of why wealth derived from mining in the DRC was 

being fought over in faraway Jersey in the first place.

"Repayment" of this money, long after Mobutu was ousted, has proved the 

first important means of draining the DRC of wealth. The country was judged 

eligible for debt cancellation on the basis of its poverty, but this 

involved jumping through so many hoops it took eight years to complete. By 

then, more than $2bn had left the country repaying Mobutu's debts and 

numerous new loans were needed.

 

Although the DRC has been a poor reporter of data, it has been estimated 

that, between 1970 and 2008, more than $6bn left the country illicitly. 

This is equivalent to about 1% of the economy every year – more than enough 

to cover its total outstanding debts. The figures suggest that an average 

of $170m has left the DRC every year, almost two-thirds of the average 

$300m it has to make in debt service payments. DRC debt is expected to 

reach $7.5bn by 2015.

 

 

*7.         The South African government interest beyond her borders in 

Africa*

 

*a)         The Grand Inga hydroelectric project*

The Eskom Corporation of South Africa supplies its nation with 95% of its 

electricity, and supplies 65% of electricity consumed in the rest of 

Africa. 

The South African government has recently entered an agreement to invest at 

least R200 billion – at the expense of the South African tax payer – in the 

war torn Congo, a country with a very bad credit history, in the hope of 

receiving 6% of the electricity required by South Africans by the year 

2030. This makes no sense, because the South African infrastructure is 

collapsing, where an amount of R200 billion could be far better spent on 

job creation by increasing the output of electricity in South Africa 

itself. 

 

On 24 March 2013, *bdlive* reported in an article titled ‘Concern over SA’s 

billions in DRC Inga project’26 that the South African government is 

entering a joint venture with the World Bank to rehabilitate the two Inga 

hydroelectric plants on the Congo River, about 300km from Kinshasa. In 

February 2013, Finance Minister Pravin Gordhan set aside R200bn for the 

40,000MW Grand Inga hydroelectric project, and both the South African and 

government of the Congo entered into a written agreement. Once complete, 

Grand Inga will generate almost double the power coming from the Three 

Gorges Dam in China, which now holds bragging rights as the world’s largest 

hydropower complex with 22,500MW capacity. This is only a fraction of the 

DRC’s total hydropower resources, which the World Bank estimates at 

100,000MW. 

“Those are the riches of the DRC,” said Ms Peters. “They can help extend 

the tentacles of energy access in Africa.”

She said Grand Inga would satisfy the African Union’s search for catalytic 

projects, as it had benefits for agriculture, mining and other sectors in 

the Southern African Development Community (Sadc) region. Five other 

African countries outside the region will be connected to the grid.

World Bank estimates suggest the complex could supply energy to as many as 

500-million households across the continent.

 

*b)        War *

 

On the 7th of April 2013, New war looms for SA troops, City Press reported 

that ‘New war looms for SA troops’. This article reported on the war in the 

Democratic Republic of Congo to which President Zuma is sending the South 

African National Defence Force. The rebel group which President Zuma is 

calling upon South Africans to make war, accuses Zuma of sending South 

African troops to the DRC to protect his nephew Khulubuse’s oil interests. 

The article reads as follows:

*Johannesburg - On Saturday, SA buried 12 of the 13 soldiers killed in 

battle with rebels in Central Africa. On Sunday, the country was preparing 

to send more than 1 000 troops to a perilous new war in the DRC. *

*“We don’t want to kill our brothers from South Africa,” was the thinly 

veiled threat by Congolese rebel leader Bertrand Bisimwa as the bruised SA 

National Defence Force (SANDF) prepares to do battle again.*

*This time, the front is the eastern part of the Democratic Republic of 

Congo (DRC), and the new enemy is Bisimwa and his M23 rebel group.*

*The SANDF is part of a multilateral regional force, which includes the 

armies of Mozambique, Malawi and Tanzania, and has the blessing of the UN 

Security Council.*

*Tons of weaponry were this week being flown in huge Russian cargo planes 

from Bloemfontein, Pretoria and Makhado airports to Entebbe in Uganda, 

close to the Congolese border, where South African forces are expected to 

be based.*

*Bisimwa and M23 have warned South Africa that they are in a different 

league to the Seleka rebels in the Central African Republic (CAR) who 

killed 13 South African soldiers.*

*Grave mistake*

*“We say welcome (President Jacob) Zuma. M23 is not Seleka,” the group 

wrote on their official Twitter account on Thursday. On Friday, M23 

tweeted: “If SA special Force attacks us; it will be catastrophic & 

apocalyptic.”*

 

*The rebel group accuses Zuma of sending South African troops to the DRC to 

protect his nephew Khulubuse’s oil interests.*

*Bisimwa spoke to City Press’ sister newspaper, Rapport, from the DRC on 

Saturday. He said it would be a grave mistake for the SANDF to attack them.*

*“My message is we are fighting for peace and for good governance in our 

country. There is a letter I wrote to Parliament and the people of South 

Africa to ask them not to come and kill their brothers here because we are 

all fighting for good governance in Africa.*

*“We don’t want to kill our brothers from South Africa. We are asking them 

to support peace in Congo, not to come to fight,” said Bisimwa.*

 

*Asked how he would react if South African troops were to attack M23, he 

said: “We will defend ourselves and our positions.*

*But we will not attack them if they don’t attack us.*

*Negotiate*

*“We have time to negotiate in Kampala (negotiations started in 

January)?.?.?.?We understand the DRC will also be there.*

*“Our people in Congo don’t like war in their country, just like in South 

Africa.”*

*M23 are regarded as new-generation rebels and are active on social media 

platforms.*

*They are the region’s most feared group and, according to experts, have 

rocket launchers, 37mm anti-aircraft weapons and other “dangerous armoury”.*

*They top the list of rebel groups being targeted by the UN Security 

Council, which authorised an “intervention brigade” on 28 March to 

“neutralise” armed forces in the eastern DRC.*

*This was a dramatic change from the UN’s peace mandate in the past, which 

only allowed soldiers to shoot back when they were being shot at.*

*End of April*

*In expectation of South Africa’s deployment to the DRC, which could happen 

as soon as the end of April, masses of military equipment, including 

helicopters, were transported to Entebbe this week. *

*One defence source said “special forces” were taken to Uganda, but this 

was disputed by other reports. *

*A Congo expert with close ties to the rebel leaders told City Press that 

South Africa underestimated M23.*

*“If they (the South Africans) think they will go out into the hills and 

annihilate these guys, they’re fucking crazy.*

*“If an army goes in, which does not know the terrain or the politics, is 

overconfident and is itself not combat equipped for these kind of 

operations, they’re going to be kicked. If South African special forces 

could not keep Seleka at bay – not nearly as coherent a target as M23 – how 

are they going to defeat M23, which are in their own back yard?”*

 

*Doomed to fail*

*With the absence of a plan for what will happen after the attack, the 

mission is doomed to fail, “just like many similarly structured American 

missions in Iraq and Afghanistan”.*

 

*Sultani Makenga, M23’s commander, is well-trained and has helped to 

overthrow two governments in the area – the Rwandan government in 1994 and 

the regime of Mobutu Sese Seko, in the then Zaire, in 1996.*

*Defence analyst Helmut Heitman added: “What worries me is that M23 have 

some rocket launchers and they captured twin-barrel 37mm anti-aircraft 

weapons from the Congolese army. They have dangerous weapons.*

*But if we have a good commander, we will do a good job.*

*“We need to make sure we have good intelligence before we go somewhere. 

Our troops should be better armed and equipped. After that (CAR fight), no 

rebel troops will want to fight South Africa.” 27*

 

*bi)       Khulubuse Zuma*

 

Khulubuse Zuma is the nephew of President Jacob Zuma. He is also the 

director of Aurora Empowerment Systems (AES). The managing director of AES 

is Zondwa Mandela, the grandson of Nelson Mandela; and the director is 

President Zuma’s legal adviser, Michael Hulley.

 

AES acquired mining rights through fraud and corruption, drained working 

mines of their wealth and assets, and refused to pay the miners, some of 

whom have since committed suicide.

 

 

*Liquidation of the South African company Pamodzi Gold*

 

The liquidation of the South African company Pamodzi Gold Limited led to 

the awarding of rights to the Orkney and Grootvlei gold mines to Aurora 

Empowerment Systems (AES) in 2009. 

 

 

*Multi-million bid to acquire mining rights*

 

AES acquired the rights to operate Pamodzi’s Grootvlei and Orkney gold 

mines after putting in a bid of R215 million (US$26.8 million) in October 

2009. At the time, AES promised a R600 million (US$75 million) investment 

in the mine, job security for the workers, and bursaries for the miners’ 

children. 28

 

 

*AES committed fraud to appear financially stable*

 

In its bid to take over two mines of the liquidated Pamodzi group, Aurora 

Empowerment Systems falsely claimed to have acquired a controlling interest 

of 71 percent share in the Johannesburg Stock Exchange-listed investment 

holding company Cenmag Limited, and to have purchased the largest wood mill 

in the southern hemisphere, Zambia’s Redwood Timber Merchants, which 

propelled Aurora to the forefront of global timber supplies with the core 

focus being the Gulf and Far Eastern markets.” 29

The affidavit of joint liquidator, Johan Engelbrecht, states that Aurora 

director Khulubuse Zuma confirmed in evidence that Solly and Fazel Bhana 

had become involved in Aurora as consultants and “were in that capacity 

directly involved in negotiating what he referred to as the deal with 

Senmag and Redwood Timber”.

The Bhanas and the three directors lied in their 2009 bid by saying that 

Aurora had secured R690-million in funding needed to buy the mines from a 

Malaysian consortium acting through AM-Equity Limited.

 

 

*Miners not paid for years*

 

AES took over the Grootvlei and Orkney mines in August 2009. Six months 

later, EAS stopped paying workers’ wages, plunging more than 5,000 workers 

and 40,000 dependents into abysmal poverty.

As of the end of August 2012, all the miners had not been paid since 

February 2010. Some miners had not been paid for four years. The unpaid 

mineworkers - who are owed approximately R20 million (US$2.5 million) in 

unpaid wages - were relying on emergency food aid provided by an Islamic 

charity organisation, *Gift **of the Givers*.

The affected miners are from South Africa, Mozambique, Lesotho and 

Swaziland. According to newspaper reports, five miners are known to have 

committed suicide since the mines stopped operating. “Children have stopped 

going to school, women are leaving their husbands, people have nothing to 

eat,” stated a mineworker.

 

 

*Zuma donated R1 million to the ANC while refusing to pay his workers*

 

In April 2011, Zuma donated R1 million (US$125,000) to the ANC, which the 

ANC accepted without flinching. In March 2012, Aurora flouted a court order 

to pay out R4.3 million (US$537,500) to workers at the mines.

 

 

*Mine assets plundered*

 

Zuma and Mandela, with the connivance of Aurora’s financial advisors Faizal 

and Suleman Bhana, plundered the mining operations they acquired. 

Between 2009 and 2012, AES stripped the mines’ assets and effectively 

destroyed their productive capacity. Hundreds of millions of rand obtained 

from the theft of assets and gold were funnelled to Zuma, Mandela and 

several others

 

AES was placed in liquidation in October 2011. As of March 2012, the 

company only had R2,000 (US$250) left in its bank account. However, during 

its period of tenure, Aurora paid out R260 million (US$32.5 million) to 

itself and its creditors from 10 bank accounts.

 

The liquidators stated that there is no evidence that the company ever paid 

the required percentage of the workers’ wages to the Unemployment Insurance Fund, 

or that it ever paid any Value Added Tax on its gold transactions.

Evidence of the large-scale stripping of the assets of the mines continues 

to come to light. Liquidators reported that several shafts had been reduced 

to skeletons, with all the headgear, winding machinery, pipes and water 

pumps removed by management. It is estimated that R1.8 billion (US$225 

million) worth of the mines’ assets has been looted, effectively destroying 

them. The asset stripping continued up until at least March 2012, some six 

months after AES had been liquidated.

The liquidators reported that approximately R240 million (US$30 million) in 

gold earnings was unaccounted for. They stated that AES directors and 

managers sold R122 million (US$15.3 million) worth of gold from the mines 

and paid themselves and their families instead of paying workers, 

operational costs and creditors, and that AES concealed gold and failed to 

properly record gold transactions.

While the assets of the mines were being looted and workers were going 

without wages, Khulubuse Zuma and Zondwa Mandela enjoyed the lifestyle of 

the fantastically wealthy. Zuma, it is reported, owns 19 vehicles, 

including a R2.5 million (US$312,500) gull-wing Mercedes and is known to 

spend between R3,000 (US$375) and R15,000 (US$1,875) at a time on his 

twice-weekly visits to an upmarket Durban restaurant. When asked about his 

lavish lifestyle, he responded, “I don’t know about lavish. The only thing 

I know is that I’m living my life to the fullest every day, because I 

worked for it.”

 

 

*Cheques for Labat shares by AES were stopped*

 

The attorney for AES claimed that the Labat shares had been acquired, 

informing the JSE Securities Regulation Panel that Aurora had paid R5.3 

million (US$662,500) into Labat’s trust account. Two years later, he 

admitted that the cheques signed by Mandela had been stopped and that the 

shares in question had never been acquired.

 

 

*AES destroyed the ecosystem*

 

Recent investigations have shown that AES failed to pump acid mine water 

from mine shafts, causing the destruction of sensitive wetland ecosystems 

in the area.

 

 

*AM-Equity Limited.*

 

AM-Equity Limited was an empty shell created for AES to defraud the 

Pamodzi’s liquidators

 

 

*Motala lied to the Pamodzi liquidators on behalf of AES*

 

In November 2011, Motala was charged with perjury for lying under oath.

Motala was party to the fraudulent letter that enabled AES to present 

itself as having the financial backing to purchase the shares necessary to 

obtain ownership of the Orkney and Grootvlei mines. 

Callie Smit, a former legal adviser to Aurora, testified that Faizal Bhana, 

one of Aurora’s financial advisers, called him to Motala’s Johannesburg 

offices in February 2010. He was instructed to write a letter to Pamodzi’s 

liquidators on behalf of the Malaysian company, AM Equity, stating that the 

company had deposited R20 million into a trust account to enable Aurora to 

purchase the rights to the Pamodzi mines.

She continued, “It appears that what commended Aurora to Motala was the 

fact that a nephew of President Zuma and a grandson of President Mandela 

were among its directors and that it was effectively run by two friends of 

Motala, Messrs Faizel and Solly Bhana”....

 

*8.         Standard Bank was asked to verify the credentials of AM Equity 

in Kuala        Lumpur*

 

In 2010, Motala, in a presentation to parliament’s minerals and energy 

committee, maintained that Standard Bank had verified the credentials of AM 

Equity. Later on, this was denied by the director of Standard Bank’s 

mergers and acquisitions division. The director further noted that during 

the closed May 2011 liquidation inquiry, the bank visited the listed 

address of AM Equity in Kuala Lumpur and was unable to determine whether 

the offices were indeed those of AM Equity, as they were vacant and used as 

general rental offices. Standard Bank was thus unable to verify the AM 

Equity credentials. AM Equity was an empty shell created for the purpose of 

defrauding the Pamodzi liquidators.

 

 

*In 2010, Motala lent Aurora R3 million through his company, SBT Trust, 

which was repaid with 100% interest*

 

It has also been revealed that in 2010, Motala, through his company, SBT 

Trust, lent Aurora R3 million. The Bhanas raised money from family members 

when it became clear that Aurora was in dire financial straits. The loans 

were promptly repaid with 100 percent interest. 

 

*Motala was supported by prominent ANC ministers in government *

 

In January 2012, Motala submitted an application for a presidential pardon 

for fraud and theft. He has sought the support of prominent African 

National Congress (ANC) members—Winnie Madikizela-Mandela, party security 

boss Tito Maleka and Philip Masekwa, the private secretary to Minister Jeff 

Radebe.

His application has various letters of endorsement attached to it, 

including that of Tito Maleka. The letter from Maleka is on an ANC head of 

security letterhead, directly addressing, “Dear Comrade President.”

It commends Motala’s integrity and concludes, “The application for pardon 

by Comrade Motala is supported by this office.”

 

 

 *Criminal charges are pending against the Aurora management team*

 

The Pamodzi joint provisional liquidators cancelled the deal with Aurora in 

May 2011. In October 2011, Aurora was finally liquidated when the North 

Gauteng High Court ratified the liquidation application of Copper Eagle, 

one of the company’s creditors. The liquidators of Pamodzi Gold mines will 

submit a claim against Aurora’s four directors—Zondwa Mandela, Khulubuse 

Zuma, Thulani Ngubane (its commercial director) and Michael Hulley 

(President Zuma’s attorney)—once the liquidation inquiry is complete. 

Hulley has since then been appointed as President Zuma’s legal advisor on a 

part-time basis.

The joint provisional liquidators have laid criminal charges against 

Mandela and Ahmed Amod, the company’s attorney. This will be followed by an 

application to the court that will allow them to sue Mandela, Zuma, Ngubane 

and the Bhanas in their personal capacity in an attempt to recover the 

stolen billions. Paperwork is being prepared for Michael Hulley (President 

Zuma’s advisor) who was responsible for overseeing corporate governance at 

the time that he was employed by Aurora.

The destruction of the Orkney and Grootvlei mines along with 5,300 jobs is 

a reflection of the criminal character and mode of accumulation of South 

Africa’s new financial elite. Pitted against workers and flanked by the 

official trade unions, this elite enjoys not only the support but also a 

symbiotic relationship with the upper echelons of the South African state.

 

 

*Zuma connections with the new owners of the Orkney mine*

 

South African’s *Mail & Guardian* has revealed that close associates of 

Jacob Zuma are involved as the new owners of the Orkney mine. In addition, 

the Orkney managing contractors have expressed grave concerns that 

Khulubuse Zuma and Michael Hulley might be involved in the deal.

SSC Mandarin, a Chinese partner in the consortium bidding for the Orkney 

mine, met with President Zuma in the same week that it submitted its 

proposal for the Orkney mine.

The consortium Chinese African Precious Metals (CAPM)—comprising Elias 

Khumalo’s BEK Resources, former PetroSA boss Sipho Mkize (who was fired 

from PetroSA for mismanagement and corruption), Free State businesswoman 

Hettie Fourie and SSC Mandarin—was approved by the liquidators, subject to 

conditions. 

 

*Elias Khumalo,* a former trade union bureaucrat, 30 has been a close 

confidante of President Zuma since the 1990’s. In 2007, the *Star* described 

him as a “person with a direct line to Zuma, consulting and advising him on 

issues of a personal nature.”

 

 

*Zuma connections with state industries*

 

Since Zuma’s ascent to the presidency, his family and associates have 

amassed fantastic levels of wealth. A *Mail & Guardian* report in 2010 

revealed that the combined business interests of Zuma and 15 adult members 

of his family accounted for 134 company directorships or members of closed 

corporations. Of these, 83 were registered after Zuma’s election to head of 

the ANC, and are linked to industries in which the state plays a central 

role, such as telecommunications and mining.

 *G.        Jacob Zuma, the Billion Rand President*

 

Exactly how much Jacob Zuma costs the taxpayer, is impossible to calculate, 

as the Presidency has done everything in its power to shield the 

information. Working on conservative figures, the following has been 

calculated: Zuma's package from the South African tax payer is just under 

R103 million per year, laid out as follows: 

The Zuma Balance Sheet

1. Annual Salary: [R2 275 802.00 to R2 753 689.00]

2. Medical Aid: [At least R1 300 000 per year]

3. Pension Payout on Retirement: [Approximately R2 753 689.00]

4. Spousal Support: [At least R15 517 500.00 per year]

5. Private Vehicle: [70% of salary - R1 835 792.00, for two vehicles]

6. Flights – VIP Squadron: [An approximate average of: R46 838 476.00 per 

year]

7. Flights – Additional: [R6 331 174.67 plus additional cost of two planes]

8. Flights – VIP Protection Services: [Unknown]

9. Flights – Helicopters: [At least R14 400 000.00 per year]

10. Overseas Allowances – President: [An average of R25 400.00 per year]

11. Accommodation – Hotels: [An average of R420 000.00 per year]

12. Accommodation – Official Residences: [An average of R5 300 000.00 per 

year]

13. Accommodation – Private Residences: [R6 400 000.00]

14.VIP Protection [An average of at least R12 000 000.00 per year]

AVERAGE ANNUAL TOTAL: R102 829 072.00

  

*President Jacob Zuma defrauds South Africa, and will defraud other 

countries as well*

 

As we investigate the donors to his trusts and foundations, we find 

corruption which exceeds billions of rands.

 

 

  

*South Africa has become* *The Zuma kingdom. *

 

The auditor-general has just reported that only 22% of all government 

institutions achieved clean audits in the past financial year — that is 117 

out of 536 state institutions.

The amounts involved are staggering. Unauthorised expenditure amounted to 

R2.97bn, irregular expenditure to R1.79bn, and fruitless and wasteful 

expenditure to a whopping R28.38bn. That amounts to R33.16bn down the drain.

Zuma himself seems to know nothing about what happened to this money — nor 

about the R250m spent on his private residence at Nkandla. But as former US 

president Harry Truman once famously observed, when things go wrong in a 

democracy, "the buck stops here". On the president’s desk.

The buck stops there in cases of poor service delivery, too, because that 

is caused by poor cadre deployment — the placing of buddies and loyalists 

in key public service jobs regardless of whether they have the right 

capabilities and experience.

 

 

*1.         The Zuma family are linked to labour broking*

 

*Links to the Zuma family provides contract labour to the platinum sector 

and other mines. *

JIC Mining Services lists President Jacob Zuma’s son Duduzane, along with 

RK (Rajesh) Gupta as non-executive directors. 

The JIC Mining Services is majority-owned by Oakbay Investments, the family 

investment vehicle of the Guptas. 

 

 

*a)         JIC **Mining Services provides contract workers to Impala 

Platinum*

According to the company website, the JIC Mining Service provides contract 

workers to major industry players, including Impala Platinum where, earlier 

this year, four miners were killed. To note, JIC is in competition with 

Lonmin. 

Several trade journals also describe JIC as one of the biggest suppliers of 

contract labour. 

Independent labour analyst Terry Bell said 30 to 40 percent of mining 

sector workers were hired through labour brokers. 

“This is happening even as Cosatu is organising against labour brokers,” 

Bell said. 

NUM general-secretary Frans Baleni, who acknowledged labour broking was 

rife in the mining sector, also confirmed that the union had a full 

agreement with JIC. 

 

 

 

*b)        George Soros bought shares in **Platinum Group Metals Ltd*

 

Prior to the Marikana strikes, George Soros purchased 15.5 million shares 

in the competition company to the Marikana Lonmin group, namely the 

Platinum Group Metals Ltd.31     

 

 

*c)         The Guptas are linked to the* *JIC **Mining Services*

 

Duduzane Zuma, who is linked to the Guptas through directorships in various 

companies, confirmed he was a non-executive director at JIC, but said he 

would not comment. 32     

 

 

*Sahara Computers and The New Age newspaper*

 

Amongst other business concerns, the Gupta family own Sahara Computers and 

the New Age newspaper. 

 

 

*The Gupta house*

 

Numerous reports have emerged over the past four years of high-ranking 

government individuals being invited to the Gupta house to be offered money 

and paraded before others to demonstrate the Guptas' influence.

 

 

*The Guptas influence the South African government*

 

The Guptas are extremely close to President Jacob Zuma. A number of his 

children and one of his wives are closely linked to the Guptas. If it is a 

national or parastatal matter, the Guptas can get one of Zuma's children, 

or one of his wives, to contact the president on their behalf.

 

Appointments to boards and executive positions in our parastatals - even 

cabinet positions - are made with the Guptas' full participation.

 

Report s abound of cabinet ministers being summoned to speak at the Gupta 

New Age breakfasts. Ministers are supposedly contacted, in the presence of 

sponsors and the lackeys of sponsors, and told that they must attend a 

breakfast.

One minister discharged himself from a hospital, in a sweaty and feverish 

state, to avoid letting the Guptas down. This man is an ANC veteran.

 

 

*a)         Minister of Sports, Fikile Mbalula*

 

In 2011, the then deputy minister of police, Fikile Mbalula, broke down in 

an ANC national executive committee meeting, and recounted that he first 

heard of his promotion to sports minister from the Gupta family.

 

 

*b)        South African Airways chief executive, Vuyisile Kona*

 

The Sunday Times reported on 17 March 2013 that one member of the Gupta 

family invited the South African Airways chief executive officer and 

chairman, Vuyisile Kona, - soon after his appointment last year - to their 

home in Saxonwold, Johannesburg, and offered him R500000.

President Jacob Zuma's son, Duduzane, and the son of Free State Premier Ace 

Magashule, Tshepiso, were said to be present.

To note, Kona has since been fired as chairman, and his position of chief 

executive officer has been suspended. 

 

 

*c)         The DA leader, Helen Zille *

 

The Democratic Alliance (DA) as official opposition to the African national 

Congress, has Helen Zille as their party leader. Zille visited the Gupta 

family compound and left with a cheque for R400 000.

 

 

*The Guptas benefit from the South African government*

 

*a)         Transnet funds the Gupta’s New Age breakfasts*

 

Both the chairman and the chief executive of Transnet, a major funder of 

the Guptas' infamous New Age breakfasts, have visited the Gupta house and 

admit to their links to the family.

 

 

*b)        The Free State government sponsors the Guptas' media business*

 

One of the main sponsors of the Guptas' media business is the Free State 

government. In a Timeslive article dated 18 March 2013, titled “Has ANC 

been stolen?” it is noted that the Guptas have young Magashule in their 

compound.

 

 

  

*2.         The Zuma family do not declare their money operations*

 

*a)         Masibambisane*

 

The Government Communication and Information System describes Jacob Zuma as 

chairperson of Masibambisane, despite the fact that all these structures 

are wholly independent of the state.

In 2011, the *Mail & Guardian* revealed that Masibambisane is driving a 

R2-billion initiative to build South Africa's newest town just 2km from the 

president's personal compound in Nkandla.

The *M&G* also revealed that the department of agriculture, forestry and 

fisheries allocated a staggering R800-million to support Masibambisane. 

Agriculture Minister Tina Joemat-Pettersson announced the donation at a 

government function in Qumanco in the Eastern Cape in 2011.

A department official told the *M&G* that the minister had in effect 

diverted the R100-million budget for the department's Zero Hunger programme 

to Zuma's project. The programme is a government initiative set up to 

buttress smallholder farmers and food security in rural areas.

*Masibambisane Rural Development Initiative*

Launched in 2010 in Nkandla and registered as a non-profit organisation in 

December, Masibambisane has rolled out agricultural projects in 

KwaZulu-Natal, the Eastern Cape and Mpumalanga, and North West is likely to 

be next in line.

Deebo Mzobe  oversees the day-to-day running of the initiative.

Mzobe said it was resurrected after Zuma became president with the close 

co-operation of traditional leaders in a number of provinces. So far, 175 

amakhosi had bought into the concept – 120 from Zuma's home province of 

KwaZulu-Natal, more than 15 in the Eastern Cape and more than 40 in 

Mpumalanga.

Mzobe said the initiative "doesn't have the capacity to roll out projects", 

but facilitates public-private partnerships, for example in the 

Umlalazi-Nkandla Smart Growth Centre.

Mzobe said that 10 of the tractors handed over in the Eastern Cape in May 

this year came from the private sector and 14 from the government. However, 

according to Eastern Cape agriculture department spokesperson Ayabulela 

Ngoqo, all the tractors belonged to his department and ultimately came from 

the national department of agriculture.

Last year the national department and the Agricultural Research Council 

awarded nine tenders worth R360-million for nearly 700 tractors for all the 

provinces. It appears that the ones handed out by Masibambisane were among 

them.

Masibambisane is also the driving force behind development in Zuma's 

hometown of Nkandla. It has not yet produced an annual report.

Mzobe is from near Eshowe and is reportedly a distant relative of Zuma and 

a business partner of Durban businessperson Thoshan Panday, who is facing 

fraud and corruption charges in connection with an alleged R60-million 

police accommodation tender scam during the 2010 Soccer World Cup.

Mzobe denied in The Times that he was in business with Panday, despite 

company records indicating otherwise. The companies in which they share 

directorships include Dynamo-Duck Trading and Projects, Shining Future 

Trading and Projects, and White All Trading and Projects.

In November 2011, the Mpumalanga human settlement department awarded Mzobe 

a R33-million tender to build 599 houses, part of a R331-million housing 

initiative in Nelspruit. Zuma, according to City Press, attended the 

handover ceremony.

The tender process was deemed irregular by the Mpumalanga human settlement 

department's chief financial officer, Cyril Dlamini, and supply chain 

manager Lucky Monareng. The two officials were subsequently fired or 

suspended by the head of department, David Dube, an ANC provincial 

executive committee member.

 

 

*i)          Nkandla*

 

It is estimated that R250million will be used to upgrade the home of 

President Zuma, known as the Nkandla Compound, to which he is said to be 

paying R10 million towards. The funding of the freeway set to run through 

Nkandla following the development of the president's luxury compound, 

amounts to an estimated R1.5 billion. Mybroadband's amateur, volunteer, 

investigative journalists discovered the following corruption with regard 

to the Nkandla freeway:

 

*Korong Capital Partners*

Korong Capital Partners*, *whose only director is Moeti Mpuru, is a private 

company used for constructing the freeway.

Korong Capital Partners appears to have been a dormant shell company since 

1999, and have no history of this sort of work, or any other work 

whatsoever, which means they certainly couldn't have secured revenue of 

around R37bn to place them in a position to fund this internally. They 

couldn't have raised this finance in the capital markets either, because no 

financial institution would originate and secure a bond for a company with 

zero balance sheet strength and zero cash flow.

An angel investor is funding the entire project at no cost to government 

whatsoever.

 

The claim is that the cash originated from the USA, through an attorney who 

is set to make $100,000.00 for simply arranging the transfer of the cash.

Apparently Mpuru, after being turned down for a R1m loan to fund a small 

portion of the project, managed in just a few months to secure R1.5bn in 

funding for a project that will see absolutely no return on investment. It 

is a straight R1.5bn loss to whoever funds this project.

 

Korong Capital Partners has its registered offices at the following address:

UNIT 2 CHIANTI ESTATE

39 LEEUWKOP ROAD

SUNNINGHILL

2196

 

This company that apparently has R1.5bn spare, or will be managing R1.5bn 

worth of angel investor cash, is situated at unit 2, Chianti Estate in 

Sunninghill, a residential complex that does not have business rights for 

its units. This is a tiny, 60sqm residential complex - not an office park, 

or the premises you'd expect for a company with R1.5bn to spend and manage. 

Yet Public Works feel happy for this company to complete this project on 

their behalf. 

 

*Chianti Estates*

Unit #2 at Chianti Estates is owned by Mbanjwa Nqobile Zinhle (Zinhle 

Mbanjwa). 

 

 

*Zinhle Mbanjwa*

Zinhle Mbanjwa is the manager of the Housing Development Agency of South 

Africa. This is the governmental department that oversees investments in 

housing related infrastructure on behalf of the Human Settlements 

Department. 

They also manage inter-departmental projects. 

 

Korong Capital Partners' premises is at the HDA manager's personal premises 

because he owned the shelf CC from the outset. This means that the CC used 

to move the money around to pay for the Zuma freeway is in fact located at 

the HDA manager's house, and directed by the man who supposedly secured the 

funding. 

This makes no sense in terms of the government's official statements that 

this is a private entity funding the project through angel investment. 

What this actually means is that the HDA used the CC owned by their manager 

to move Human Settlements money to Korong Capital Partners to fund the Zuma 

Freeway. 

If this was angel investment, the investor would ensure that he had board 

representation to ensure he had oversight over the use of his funds.

 

 

*HDA, Public Works and Human Settlements are funding the Nkandla compound 

freeway*

The real corruption is worth in the region of about R1.5bn, as it indicates 

that the HDA facilitated government cash to be moved to Korong Capital 

Partners to fund the Zuma Freeway, and the government knowingly lied to the 

public about how the project was being funded. 

It indicates that behind the scenes, HDA, Public Works and Human 

Settlements arranged a secretive transaction to spoof legitimate business 

operations, when in fact they were simply trying to hide their money-trail 

of corruption, knowing that using public money would cause outrage among 

South African citizens.

Public Works and Human Settlements found cash to fund this project. In 

order to hide this from the public, they engaged with the manager of the 

Housing Development Agency, who is the middle-man for inter-governmental 

transactions. Together with a lawyer in the US, they siphoned cash out of 

the country to make it appear as if the cash was from an angel investor, 

and would not be subject to disclosure to the public.

They then moved the money to a CC owned by the HDA manager called Korong 

Capital Partners who are now officially funding the Zuma Freeway.

 

Public Works is currently involved in hundreds of projects around the 

country, with their mandate being to spend on infrastructure and social 

development. With this in mind, their average allocation for each project 

will be somewhere between 0.1% and 0.2% of budget (this is a very high 

estimate in my opinion - they're probably spending less across more 

projects). 

Zuma's non-revenue-generating, unnecessary development that has nothing to 

do with infrastructure, nor social development, equates to a 0.32% 

allocation of the national public works budget. This means that they've 

spent up to 224% more on Zuma's compound than on their average spend on 

actual deliverable projects that meet their mandate.

 

If we include the freeway project, which I'm quite sure is just a dodgy 

vehicle to protect Zuma from recourse, the figure jumps to 2172% more than 

their average national infrastructure spend. So instead of money going to 

the Gauteng Freeway Improvement Project, to mitigate the impact on the 

country, Public Works chose instead to over-spend on Zuma's home by up to 

2000-odd percent. What is clear is that Public Works consider Zuma's house 

to be at least 224% more important than investment in infrastructure, which 

is their actual mandate.

 

*b)        The Jacob Zuma RDP Education Trust*

The RDP Education Trust is Zuma's oldest established funding vehicle, 

conceived in 1995 when he was the KwaZulu-Natal minister for economics and 

tourism. 

Each provincial minister was given a discretionary fund of R500 000 and, 

according to the trust's website, Zuma immediately funnelled this into 

education.

However, it only became a registered trust in 2000-2001 when Absa Bank was 

brought on board.

Shortly after the formation of the trust it absorbed another post-democracy 

NPO with political aims, the Peace and Reconciliation Foundation. According 

to one former member, it was used to reward communities that abstained from 

factional conflict, particularly between the Inkatha Freedom Party and the 

ANC in KwaZulu-Natal.

The Peace and Reconciliation Foundation's chairperson, Frank Mdlalose, a 

former IFP strongman and KwaZulu-Natal's first premier, then became the 

chairperson of the Jacob Zuma Trust in 2002-2003. Since then Zuma has taken 

over Mdlalose’s position of chairman.

 

Until the 2009 election, the trust had raised about R11-million, according 

to its annual report. But the same report said it almost doubled that in 

the 2009-2010 financial year – the first year of Zuma's presidency – 

raising a further R10-million.

The website of Texas Southern University, where Zuma received an honorary 

doctorate in September 2011, stated that the trust had budgeted R25-million 

for tuition and accommodation for the beneficiaries of the trust for that 

year.

The article, which marked the conferring of the honorary doctorate on Zuma, 

said the trust had raised a total of R45-million for the education of 

disadvantaged youth and supported 1200 beneficiaries.

 *c)         The Jacob Zuma Trust*

 

The Friends of Jacob Zuma Trust was registered with the master of the 

Supreme Court on 13 July 2005. The members of the board of trustees are Don 

Mkhwanazi, a businessperson and founder of the Black Management Forum, 

unionist Fikile "Slovo" Majola and Sizwe Shezi, former president of the 

National Youth Council.

How much money it contains, how much it has spent on what and the identity 

of its funders cannot be established.

‘The Friends of Jacob Zuma Trust’ was initially set up to cover his legal 

fees when he was facing fraud and corruption charges relating to the arms 

deal before Zuma became president. This Trust fund still remains active, 

and even though he is now president of South Africa, Jacob Zuma remains the 

beneficiary of this trust. 

The trust raised funds to defend Zuma both in his rape case, in which he 

was acquitted, and when he was charged with fraud and corruption in 

relation to the arms deal. The latter charges were controversially dropped.

The Jacob Zuma Foundation is chaired by Dudu Myeni, who is said to be close 

to Zuma and, according to the foundation's memorandum of association, runs 

the foundation from her private house in Richard's Bay. It also has an 

office in Rosebank, Johannesburg.

The M&G reported in May this year that Myeni was removed as chairperson of 

one of KwaZulu-Natal's biggest water providers, the Mhlathuze Water Board, 

after failing a probity test – but was allegedly reinstated to the position 

after making direct re-presentations to the president.

The foundation is a more opaque organisation than the education trust. It 

has not released an annual report since its launch in 2008 and its mandate 

is somewhat vague.

According to its website, it builds houses, hosts the annual Msholozi 

Soccer Tournament and makes donations to the Jacob Zuma RDP Education Trust.

 

 

*d)        President Zuma’s family have become involved in business deals 

run             through foundations. *

 

Zuma's wives, Bongi Ngema-Zuma, Thobeka Madiba-Zuma and Nompumelelo 

Ntuli-Zuma, and his lover, Sonolo Khoza, daughter of soccer boss Irvin 

Khoza, have all set up their own foundations since Zuma rose to power. 

 

 

*i)*          *The Thobeka Madiba-Zuma Foundation*

 This foundation's founder is Zuma's fifth wife, Thobeka Madiba-Zuma. Its 

board includes John Volmink, a former education department official and 

founder of the company that evolved into EduSolutions, as well as health 

professionals and academics.

The foundation was registered as a section 21 company on the 2nd of 

February 2 2010.

 

 

*ii)         The MaNtuli Foundation*

 The patron of this foundation is Nompumelelo Ntuli-Zuma, Zuma's fourth 

wife. It was officially registered with the department of social 

development on the 19th of January 2010, despite media reports that it was 

launched in 2008.

MaNtuli has been embroiled in controversy in connection with another NPO. 

In April this year, Sunday World claimed that MaNtuli, as treasurer of 

Intsika Yembokodo Development, whose board members include Cosatu general 

secretary Zwelinzima Vavi's wife, Noluthando, had drained the 

organisation's finances. She was alleged to have kept its bank card.

The presidential spousal office denied the allegation, saying: "MaNtuli did 

claim some amount of money from the NGO to recover her money that she had 

used to fund the NGO's function, which was held in Durban. That this could 

be labelled embezzlement is rather unfortunate."

 

 

*iii)        The Bongi Ngema-Zuma Foundation*

 Ngema-Zuma is Zuma's sixth wife and the website describes her foundation 

as "the living embodiment of First Lady of the Republic of South Africa".

Established in August 2010, it was registered with the Gauteng department 

of social development in November 2010. No annual report has been filed 

with the department.

In November 2011, it hosted a 5km fun walk in Sasolburg in the Free State 

to mark World Diabetes Day. The foundation has also partnered with the 

Thebe Investment Corporation in a water and sanitation project in northern 

KwaZulu-Natal.

 

 

*(iv)      The Zodwa Khoza Foundation*

 This foundation was founded by Sonono Khoza, daughter of Orlando Pirates 

chairperson Irvin Khoza and mother of a child by Zuma. On its LinkedIn 

page, it says that it was formed in January 2010. However, it has not been 

formally registered with the social development department.

 

 

*e)         Zuma foundations do not disclose their business deals*

None of the Zuma foundations or trusts, with the exception of the Jacob 

Zuma Education RDP Trust, has lodged an annual report with the department 

of social development, which means the sources of their funding and the way 

they use their money are hidden. To note, when non-profit organisations 

(NPOs) are registered, they are required by the Nonprofit Organisations Act 

to submit annual reports to the social development department within nine 

months of the end of the financial year.

 Little is known about how the Zuma family NPOs operate: their websites 

typically offer superficial information and they seldom open up to the 

media.

 

 

  

*f)          Companies enter business with Zuma and his family by donating 

to their       foundations and trusts*

Known donors to this expanding Zuma-linked network include such major 

companies as Patrice Motsepe's African Rainbow Minerals, De Beers and 

Harmony Gold.

Other known donors include major beneficiaries of government business such 

as EduSolutions, the company at the heart of the Limpopo textbooks row, and 

major antiretroviral drugs supplier Cipla. 

 

 

*(i)         The Motsepe Foundation, African Rainbow Minerals, Harmony Gold*

 

Patrice Motsepe is among the largest backers of Zuma Inc's non-profit 

endeavours. He reportedly made a R10-million donation to the Jacob Zuma 

Foundation in October 2010, and was present at the launch of Masibambisane 

in early 2011 in Nkandla.

Motsepe donates either through the Motsepe Foundation, African Rainbow 

Minerals or companies in which it has a stake, such as Harmony Gold.33    

In May 2012, African Rainbow Minerals financed the construction of a 

Salvation Army church in Nkandla at the request of Zuma's oldest wife, 

Sizakele Khumalo, better known as MaKhumalo.

  

*(ii)        EduSolutions*

 

EduSolutions also procures and distributes textbooks in Mpumalanga, 

Limpopo, KwaZulu-Natal and Gauteng at an estimated cost to the state of 

R1-billion a year.

Coetzee worked for EduSolutions as a security consultant and has made a 

host of revelations. 

According to him:

» He saw books being hidden instead of sent to schools;

» He personally introduced EduSolutions founder Shaun Battlemann to 

President Jacob Zuma;

» Battlemann’s business relationship with a former education department 

director guaranteed lucrative government contracts; and

» EduSolutions had powerful influence over education officials in various 

provinces. 

EduSolutions has contracts to purchase and deliver textbooks to schools in 

Limpopo, Gauteng, KwaZulu-Natal and Mpumalanga.

Anis Karodia, the former Limpopo ­education department administrator, 

claimed he was pressured by Basic ­Education Minister Angie Motshekga to 

keep using this company despite serious contractual irregularities.

Coetzee’s key claims have been ­independently confirmed by five other 

sources, including business associates, former employees and others with 

direct knowledge of EduSolutions’ affairs.

Coetzee was exposed in 1989 as the commander of a security police unit. 

He left the country and joined the ANC in exile, returning in 1993 to work 

for the National Intelligence Service. 

Convicted of murder, he received ­amnesty from the Truth and Reconciliation 

Commission. 

This week Coetzee recalled finding “tens of thousands” of textbooks hidden 

in a Gauteng warehouse four years ago. 

He said he was tipped off by an EduSolutions employee. The warehouse was 

close to the company’s official warehouse in Northriding, Johannesburg.

“Twelve truck and trailer loads of ­undelivered books were dumped in this 

warehouse. And when I talk about trucks, I mean 30-ton vehicles.”

 Three other EduSolutions sources confirm that the delivery systems were a 

mess and that government was ­routinely provided with false reports of 100% 

delivery. 

Coetzee said he introduced Battlemann to Zuma. 

Zuma ­“handled” Coetzee after he left the ­country and changed sides. 

Coetzee said Battlemann flew him and other EduSolutions officials to 

France’s 2007 Rugby World Cup.

“We were standing outside the ­stadium drinking beer before one of the 

first matches when someone shouted my name. It was Zuma. I introduced him 

to Battlemann.”

Coetzee said Battlemann got to know Zuma “much better” and flew in his 

helicopter to the president’s rural estate at Nkandla. 

Battlemann “champions” the Jacob Zuma Education RDP Trust.

Coetzee met Battlemann through the education department’s Salama Hendricks, 

who had worked with him.

Hendricks is linked to another big ­education controversy, as co-founder of 

Lebone Group Holdings.

Last year, ­reports said Lebone’s sister firm, Lebone Litho Printers, won 

school workbook tenders worth R250 million. 

The printers claimed to have no link with Hendricks.

National Education Department ­director-general Bobby Soobrayan was at the 

time engaged to be married to Hendricks’ daughter.

Coetzee said he met Hendricks while she was director of Early Childhood 

Development and Schools. 

She left to work with Battlemann and was a director of Edu-Logistical 

Solutions.

Coetzee said: “She was central in ­helping Battlemann to get textbook 

contracts. She has very high contacts in government.

http://www.citypress.co.za/SouthAfrica/News/Textbooks-Vlakplaas-man-speaks-20120707

 

 

*(iii)       Telkom*

 

On July 2011, at a Women's Day celebration at the upmarket Westcliff Hotel 

in Johannesburg, Telkom handed over a R1-million cheque to the Jacob Zuma 

foundation for what its spokesperson, Pynee Chetty, said was part of a 

"branding exercise" for the group because the donation would be televised 

on the SABC2 show Motswako.

 *(iv)      Sekunjalo Holdings and its subsidiary Premier Fishing*

Another super-rich donor with an interest in large state contracts is Iqbal 

Survé, chief executive of Sekunjalo Holdings.

In January 2012, Sekunjalo subsidiary Premier Fishing won an R800-million 

tender from the department of agriculture fisheries and forestry for the 

policing of South Africa's coastal waters. It later backed out of the deal 

after hitting major flak over a perceived conflict of interests.

"We withdrew because we believed the tender benefited or was tailor-made 

for another bidder even though we won," Survé told the Mail &Guardian33 at 

the time.

In November 2011, Sekunjalo Holdings reportedly paid for 24-hour armed 

security for the private household of International Relations Minister 

Maite Nkoana-Mashabane for 12 months at a cost of R100 000. To note, this 

minister failed to declare the benefit to Parliament.33

  

*(v)       The South African government department of public service and 

         administration*

One of the current fundraising initiatives of President Zuma’s trust 

foundations is the annual Presidential Address Golf Challenge, organised by 

the South African government department of public service and 

administration. This initiative offers a breakfast or dinner "opportunity" 

with the president, auctioned for at least R1.2-million if one makes a 

contribution to the trust.

The golf day traditionally coincides with the State of the Nation address 

and the "partner package" is offered on its website. The "partner" is 

expected to "commit a minimum of R1.2-million from its annual corporate 

social investment budget over three years with an annual escalation of 10%".

The partnership includes the adoption of a school, whose representatives 

are invited to the meal with Zuma. The partner is also required to mentor 

the top pupils and provide an opportunity for internships and possible 

employment.

Combined donations to the trust from the 2011 and 2012 golf days amounted 

to about R10-million. This excluded the sponsorship packages taken up in 

both tournaments.

  

*(vi)      Timothy Tebeila Foundation*

 

One of the donors at the golf challenge in 2011 - held at the De Zalze Golf 

Estate in Stellenbosch - was mining baron Timothy Tebeila, whose Timothy 

Tebeila Foundation donated R4-million to secure a four-hour lunch with 

Zuma. Tebeila said he would bring 16 other people to the lunch, each of 

whom was expected to donate R500 000 to Jacob Zuma’s TrustFoundations.33

 

*(vii)     Edison Power*

Durban billionaire Vivian Reddy publicly donated R1-million at the 

foundation's launch when he bought a shirt belonging to the president. 

Reddy has made further donations through his Edison Power Group.

According to an M&G report in February 2009, Reddy has won massive 

KwaZulu-Natal government contracts, including ones related to the 

R7-billion Dube Trade Port, uShaka Marine World and Durban's Moses Mabhida 

Stadium.

 

  

*(viii)    Cipla*

 

South African pharmaceutical giant Cipla Medpro South Africa Limited 

announced in September 2010 that it had donated R1.5-million to the Zuma 

RDP Education Trust over a three-year period, primarily to assist 

post-matric studies in engineering, medicine and pharmaceutical fields.

The donation was made a month before the official unveiling of a 

R329-million upgrade of the company's manufacturing plant in October 2010, 

which Zuma opened.

According to a newsletter released in November 2010, the Durban facility's 

annual capacity is two billion tablets and capsules, 19.4-million blister 

strips, 20.7-million foil strips, 200 000kg of powered medications and 

15-million sachets.

The same circular said that, should Cipla "secure a good portion of the 

tender for antiretroviral [ARV] production, the cost implications would be 

hugely beneficial in increasing access to the drugs".

Cipla is one South Africa's largest suppliers of ARV drugs and a major 

beneficiary of state tenders. In December 2010 it was awarded a health 

department contract valued at R633-million, 15% of the overall national 

tender, to provide ARVs between January 2011 and December this year.

It also contributed to the 2011 RDP Education Trust Christmas party, held 

annually in Nkandla, and handed out bicycles, backpacks and soccer balls. 

 

 

*(ix)      **De Beers and Harmony Gold*

 

De Beers confirmed that it had donated R400 000 in 2010 to the Zuma RDP 

Education Trust, and Harmony Gold is understood to have made a similar 

donation

 

*(x)       Camac International, with reference to a Congolese warlord*

A foreign donor to Zuma's RDP Education Trust is Nigerian-American 

businessperson Kase Lawal, chief executive of Camac International, an 

energy company involved in the exploration, development and operation of 

oil properties in Africa and South America.

Lawal's Camac International has also signed a partnership with the trust to 

provide for a R1-million donation every year for five years, to cover the 

costs of three students to attend university from 2012 to study 

international business and petroleum engineering.

Lawal has been linked to at least two controversial business deals in 

Africa. In 2003, the Mail & Guardian revealed that he allegedly benefited 

from an oil deal that appeared to defraud the South African and Nigerian 

public with the backing of former president Thabo Mbeki. 

In 2012, the United Nations pointed a finger at an allegedly illegal gold 

transaction between him and a wanted Congolese warlord.33

  

*3.         Whistle blowers of corrupt transactions by Zuma family members 

are victimized.*

 

Political figures such as the strongest contestants to the ANC presidential 

seat within their party, as well as prominent government officials, 

including Mr Vavi, who leads the Cosatu Workers Union, are removed from 

their positions by the Jacob Zuma team. 

 

 

*a)         Assasination attempt made on Adv. Breytenbach who investigated 

SA            president Jacob Zuma's son Duduzane and the brothers Gupta.*

 

In a news article by the Beeld on 30 April 2012, titled “Skote op aanklaer 

geskiet” (shots were fired at prosecutor), it was revealed that Advocate 

Glynnis Breytenbach, the head of the National Prosecution Authority in 

Gauteng, showed up at her office and found she'd been suspended.

Advocate Breytenbach was suspended after she had refused to drop the 

corruption case against SAPS crime-intelligence chief Lt Gen Richard 

Mdluli. Her refusal to drop the investigation was seen as an abuse of power 

by the acting head of the NPA adv Nomgcobo Jiba.

 

Amongst other high-profile cases, she was investigating fraud and 

corruption charges cases against Jacob Zuma's son; and against fired ANC 

youth league president Julius Malema.

She was also investigating fraud allegations surrounding Cricket South 

Africa. 

In 2011, Breytenbach led the fraud investigation submitted by Kumba against 

ICT company into the way that Kumba managed to get ownership rights of 

South Africa's largest iron-ore company, Sishen.

The court had ruled last December that ICT did not have any ownership 

rights, and the fraud investigation concentrated on falsification of 

title-acts.

SA president Jacob Zuma's son Duduzane and the brothers Gupta, owners of 

massive steel-mill holdings worldwide, were also being investigated.

 

 

  

*References:*

 

1 Another BRICS in the wall: Interview with Maite Nkoana-Mashabane, 

reported by Ryland Fisher on 26 March 20130

http://www.dailymaverick.co.za/article/2013-03-26-another-brics-in-the-wall-interview-with-maite-nkoana-mashabane/#.UVNPyReG390

2 

http://www.globalwitness.org/library/guardian-zimbabwe-diamond-auction-go-ahead-despite-human-rights-fears

2a www.apscuhuru.org  

3 

http://www.dailymaverick.co.za/article/2013-03-27-brics-without-straw-or-the-building-blocks-of-a-new-world-order/

4 

http://reliefweb.int/report/central-african-republic/failure-has-many-fathers-coup-central-african-republic

;

5 

http://www.iol.co.za/news/africa/zuma-no-need-to-bring-troops-home-1.1491726

;

http://www.citypress.co.za/politics/we-ran-out-of-ammo/

6 

http://www.iol.co.za/news/politics/calls-to-bring-home-sa-troops-in-car-1.1491577

.

7 

http://www.news24.com/Africa/News/We-killed-36-SA-troops-CAR-rebels-say-20130405

8 

http://www.iol.co.za/sundayindependent/how-deadly-car-battle-unfolded-1.1493841#.UV7JxbJlQrw

9 http://www.elitesasecurity.co.za/about-us/leadership.html 

10 

http://www.dailymaverick.co.za/article/2013-03-27-sas-role-in-the-battle-of-bangui-the-blood-on-zumas-hands/#.UVNO1heG391

11 Extra CAR flights cost SANDF R370m

12 

http://www.dailymaverick.co.za/article/2013-03-27-car-south-african-soldiers-speak-of-bravery-and-uncertainty/#.UVNPZBeG390

13 “The Dirty Operation Against Zimbabwe: Soros, Abramoff, and British 

Africa”

by Anton Chaitkin. This article appeared in the July 11th edition of 

Executive Intelligence Review.

http://maravi.blogspot.com/2010/02/sticky-larouchepac-dirty-operation.html

14 Based on Interview with FBI sources, November 2, 2012: 

George Romney – 1968 Republican Convention

Subject:  George W. Romney, former Governor of Michigan, Secretary of 

Health and Human Services, candidate for President of the United States.

FBI sources indicate that an investigation of the background of the Romney 

family indicates they maintained relationships with criminal elements 

within Mexico after the family returned just prior to World War I. 

FBI records indicate that Bain and Company and later Bain Capital received 

the bulk of its money from inside the Romney family, from George Romney in 

particular who had direct ties to organized crime. 

The Romney family fortune and the career of George W. Romney was financed 

with funds from Mexico involving criminal enterprises including drug 

smuggling and human trafficking dating to the 1930s when the official 

family history lists George Romney as “poverty stricken.”

In fact, George Romney, flush with Mexican cash, went from “jobless” to a 

top executive position in the auto industry to their chief spokesman during 

World War II, an amazing turn around.

http://www.veteranstoday.com/2012/11/01/romney-leaks-drugs-blood-diamonds-and-a-cuban-mistress/

15 Attachment 10, see sub-section (vi) CIEX, a) CIEX was used to smuggle 

State secret information out of South Africa, CIEX was used by the South 

African Intelligence services for investigating economic ventures. 

16 See Sub-section k), titled “Business leaders who were connected to the 

Crown were recruited as military advisors for the government of South 

Africa” of Attachment 10

17 See Footnote 4 - Francophone Africa*.*

18 Tanzania (with the support of the West) brokered peace talks for the 

Arusha Accords. In August 1993, the rebels and Government of Rwanda signed 

the Arusha Accords peace treaty to end the civil war. The accords rolled 

back the authoritarian power of President Juvénal Habyarimana, 

vesting authority in the Transitional Broad Based Government. The TBBG 

would include the RPF as well as the six political parties that had formed 

the coalition government, in place since April 1992, to govern until proper 

elections could be held. The Transitional National Assembly, the 

legislative branch of the transitional government, was open to all parties, 

including the RPF.

The extremist Hutu Coalition for the Defence of the Republic, 

nominally controlled by President Habyarimana, was strongly opposed to 

sharing power with the RPF and refused to sign the accords. When at last it 

agreed to the terms, the RPF opposed the accords in turn.

19 Neuffer, Elizabeth. *The Key to My Neighbor's House*, 2002, p. 102

20 "Ex-Rwandan PM reveals genocide planning". 

BBC News. March 26, 2004

21 Diamond, Jared. "Collapse", Penguin Books, New York, NY, 2005, pp. 316

22 "UN chief helped Rwanda killers arm themselves

," *The Guardian* , September 3, 

2000.

23 "Leave None to Tell the Story: Genocide in Rwanda." Human Rights Watch. Report 

(Updated April 1, 2003)

24 Media Network Hate Radio Dossier: Rwanda

;

http://blogs.rnw.nl/medianetwork/rwanda-article-views-radio-tv-libre-des-mille-collines-hate-media

25 

https://apps.facebook.com/theguardian/world/2012/jul/22/africa-wealth-devoured-tyrants-vultures

26 

http://www.bdlive.co.za/business/energy/2013/03/24/concern-over-sas-billions-in-drc-inga-project

*27* 

http://www.news24.com/SouthAfrica/News/New-war-looms-for-SA-troops-20130407

28 http://www.wsws.org/articles/2012/sep2012/safr-s10.shtml

29 http://mg.co.za/article/2012-05-04-pamodzi-gold-trail-leads-to-bhanas

30 The COSATU-affiliated National Union of Mineworkers and the Solidarity 

trade unions have endorsed CAPM’s acquisition of the Orkney mine.

31 The director of Soros's Open Society Initiative on Southern Africa 

(OSISA) is Godfrey Kanyanze. Kanyanze has long served as the director of 

the Zimbabwe Congress of Trade Unions (ZCTU), which is funded by the U.S. 

National Endowment for Democracy.

http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/individualProfile.asp?indid=977

http://maravi.blogspot.com/2010/02/sticky-larouchepac-dirty-operation.html

32 

http://www.iol.co.za/business/business-news/zuma-link-to-labour-broking-1.1369721?utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Zuma+link+to+labour+broking+-+26+Aug+2012+-+14%3A02&utm_source=IOL&utm_term=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.iol.co.za%2Fzuma-link-to-labour-broking-1.1369721

33 Mail & Guardian article dated 10 August 2012, titled ‘The foundations on 

which Jacob Zuma’s empire is built’

 

 

  

*NOTES:*

 

*Footnote 1:  **SA’s role in the Battle of Bangui: The blood on Zuma’s 

hands*

 

To explain the onus President Zuma took on himself by ordering the South 

African Defence Force to enter war inside the Central African Republic, a 

country which held no threat to South Africa, we refer to a media article 

by Ranjeni Munusamy dated 27 March 2013, entitled “SA’s role in the Battle 

of Bangui: The blood on Zuma’s hands” as follows:

In the midst of the excitement of the Brics summit and the presence of some 

of the world’s most powerful leaders on our soil, serious issues around the 

SANDF deployment in the Central African Republic are conveniently being 

downplayed. However important the Brics summit might turn out to be, it 

does not take precedence over the fact that South African troops were 

engaged in armed combat in another country, without international mandate, 

and with deadly consequences. If there was any dishonesty in this 

deployment, there would be grounds for impeaching the president.

At a media briefing on Monday, President Jacob Zuma informed the nation 

that members of the South African National Defence Force (SANDF) had been 

killed in the Central African Republic (CAR) over the weekend. Zuma reeled 

out a few nice words about the bravery of the soldiers “who were committed 

to fighting for peace and stability in Africa” [hopefully that was their 

understanding of what they were doing], and conveyed his condolences to the 

bereaved families.

“We are truly proud of our soldiers. Just over 200 of them fought bandits 

numbering more than a 1,000 people. They fought a high-tempo battle for 

nine hours, defending the South African military base, until the bandits 

raised a white flag and asked for a ceasefire.

“Our soldiers inflicted heavy casualties among the attacking bandit forces. 

They paid the ultimate price in the service of their country and Africa. We 

honour them for their bravery and commitment to peace,” Zuma said.

So, our president has admitted that our soldiers have killed citizens of 

the CAR, in their country.

Let’s for a minute imagine a reversal of this situation. Our country has 

been through situations of strife in the past, for example, between the ANC 

and Inkatha Freedom Party. Imagine a foreign army in our country, engaged 

in armed combat which resulted in deaths of our citizens. Whatever our 

problems, would we want another country’s army here, on an unspecified 

mission, fighting alongside one or other group, killing our people?

South Africans do not have a clear explanation of what our troops were 

doing in the CAR; it is equally doubtful that the citizens of that country 

do. But there were media reports already in January, in the very week Zuma 

announced he was sending 200 soldiers to beef up President François 

Bozizé’s forces, that the Seleka rebel alliance was unhappy with the South 

African military’s presence in their country. Some of the reports quoted 

the rebels referring to the South African troops as “mercenaries”.

Clearly the rebels were hostile to the SANDF presence in their country and 

the president must have been aware that the soldiers’ lives were therefore 

in danger. But this seemed not to trouble him as he disregarded the 

recommendation of Defence and Military Veterans Minister Nosiviwe 

Mapisa-Nqakula that the troops in the CAR be withdrawn as well as a warning 

by senior army officers that the mission was “suicidal”.

After the weekend’s slaughter, Zuma did not bother explaining his reasons 

for ordering the deployment without United Nations or African Union 

approval. He also did not bother to explain the precise role of South 

Africa’s troops in the CAR, why rebel fighters were attacking a South 

African military base or why he ignored the warnings to withdraw the 

soldiers.

Zuma simply paid his respects and left it to the chief of the army to deal 

with “operational matters”. But it was Zuma who authorised the mission, 

against the advice of the minister and the military command, and therefore 

only he can provide answers as to why he did so.

This situation is extremely serious: if our army has been a player in a 

civil war in another country, in violation of international law, Zuma could 

be impeached.

Constitutional law expert Pierre de Vos spells out the constitutional and 

legal procedures required to authorise the deployment of the military and 

render foreign interventions legitimate. It is clear now that Parliament 

was used to rubber-stamp this mission and did not have the opportunity to 

interrogate it.

Zuma’s explanation to Parliament was that the troops were there to assist 

with “capacity building of the CAR defence force” and to assist with the 

“implementation of the disarmament, demobilisation and re-integration 

process”.

But Bozizé was in South Africa last week to meet with Zuma and would have 

surely told him that he was under siege. Assuming the reasons given to 

Parliament were true, Zuma would have realised then that there was no point 

to continuing the South African mission as there would definitely not be 

any “capacity building”, “demobilisation” and “disarmament” going on when a 

coup was on the cards.

He would also have realised that the troops were ill-equipped to protect 

themselves in armed combat between that country’s military and the rebels 

and should have taken extraordinary precautions to make sure the soldiers 

were safe. And if they were to remain there in a combat situation, surely 

this changed their mandate, a change which placed Zuma under obligation to 

inform Parliament that the SANDF was now involved in a war.

Even if you give Zuma the benefit of the doubt and believe his explanation 

to Parliament, he still falls short in his subsequent reaction.

But let us consider an alternative explanation: that Zuma had some deal 

with Bozizé that entailed providing him with back-up protection from the 

rebels in exchange for something else. Why else would Zuma go out on such a 

limb and Bozizé run here on the eve of being deposed? And what else could 

have provoked the rebels to the kind of hostility that resulted in a 

nine-hour battle?

This would mean that Zuma misled Parliament and also interfered in the 

internal affairs of a sovereign nation. If this is what happened, the 

president obviously did not gamble on the rebels defeating the CAR military 

and SANDF troops, and he clearly did not think his friend Bozizé would get 

toppled.

If the alternative explanation is proven accurate, Zuma would be open to 

impeachment by Parliament at least two grounds: violation of the 

Constitution or law; and/or misconduct. 

But Zuma is bound to adopt his usual methods of fending off interrogation:  

dodging questions, hiding behind the ANC’s parliamentary majority to avoid 

scrutiny and pretending all is well and his intentions noble. 

This situation, however, goes beyond the pale and has the potential to 

bring the South African government into serious international disrepute. It 

is not just another case of blowing taxpayers’ money, ridiculous behaviour 

by a member of Cabinet, barely believable incompetence or corruption.

The president’s actions, for whatever reason – noble or illicit – led to 

South Africa becoming involved in a war it should have had nothing to do 

with. It is not in our region, there are no economic interests (for the 

state, at least) that we know of and there is no international mandate for 

us to participate in this war. What’s more is that the president’s actions 

led to soldiers, South African citizens, dying in combat. The matter cannot 

be dismissed, like every other crisis plaguing the Zuma administration. The 

president needs to account to the nation for the deaths in the CAR. 

And, most urgently, Zuma needs to explain why South African troops are 

still in Bangui, the capital, which is now under the control of the rebels. 

Why are they not being withdrawn? Clearly the people who killed 13 South 

African soldiers also see the remaining troops as the enemy. If they are to 

remain there, their role would obviously not be “capacity building” for the 

illegitimate new rulers but to intervene, somehow, to defeat the rebels.

So, what is it now?

Is South Africa prepared to continue participating in this war in the CAR 

it did not know it was in? If not, then stop it. Hold the president to 

account, bring the troops home and protect South Africa’s Constitution and 

the rule of law.

The blood of the 13SANDF soldiers and that of the CAR citizens who died in 

the fire fight is on Zuma’s hands. The blood of any more people who die as 

a result of South Africa’s presence in the CAR is on ours. DM

http://www.dailymaverick.co.za/article/2013-03-27-sas-role-in-the-battle-of-bangui-the-blood-on-zumas-hands/#.UVNO1heG391

 

 

*Footnote 2: BAIN and AFRICAN TERROR - Blood Diamonds*

 

BAIN and AFRICAN TERROR - Blood Diamonds -There is an African end of this 

story. A CIA agent named “Tony,” working South Africa, part of a team of 

agents there, all Mormons, contacted professional associates of mine. South 

Africa is my “turf” also.

“Tony” as he called himself was working with a US law firm and was tasked 

with investing $120 billion in drug profits, maybe from Afghanistan, in 

South Africa. He told our representatives he was looking for mining 

properties worth more than $200 million each.

“Tony” met, not just with us, but with dozens of other groups in South 

Africa. Tony is, what we call in the spy business, “burned.” Tony’s group 

work with UNITA, a terrorist organization, sometimes supported by North 

Korea, Israel, the US and China.

Their task, as South African intelligence indicates, is to buy up South 

Africa and take over the rest of Southern Africa through running terrorist 

groups out of the DRC or Democratic Republic of the Congo. On their list is 

Kenya and other nations.

Their method of operation is to finance themselves with blood diamonds, 

sent through agents to Tel Aviv, money to be handled by Bain 

Capital/Romney, then to China where arms are purchased and shipped to 

terrorists in Africa, “Al Qaeda, Boko Harum and UNITA.

The details of the deal were set up a month ago. Currently, UNITA is having 

difficulty coming up with their end, the $1.2 billion a year in diamonds 

they promised.

On the Israeli end, Romney, while traveling there with Las Vegas casino 

boss, Sheldon Adelson, met with diamond traders at what was supposed to be 

a/an (illegal) fundraiser.

It was something else, putting together one link in the diamonds, 

terrorism, money, narcotics trade which, working with Bain, the Bush 

family, Mormon groups in the CIA and the Mossad, is meant to take over all 

of Africa.

http://www.veteranstoday.com/2012/11/01/romney-leaks-drugs-blood-diamonds-and-a-cuban-mistress/

 

 

*Footnote 2a:            Romney’s handler shared the same name as the 

member of the                         American government who was not in 

public office, but was on                         the highest decision 

making levels of the GOP.*

 

Intelligence has revealed that, “We don’t know when Romney began visiting 

Cuba but our first encounter with him there was 1999, one of two trips that 

year, one through Vera Cruz, the second through Toronto. There he met with 

Maria Perez/Andropov, a Cuban intelligence officer who is his mistress. We 

know Romney used diplomatic passports for travel and that Perez has 

travelled in the US under a very unique identity.”

Intercepts of highly classified intelligence from Cuba, confirmed at the 

highest sources, indicate that Cuban intelligence agent, Maria Perez 

Andropov, while in the US, used the name of former Massachusetts governor 

Jane Marie Swift. The terms “cloned” and “stolen identity” were used.

The same intelligence sources confirm that Perez/Andropov, travelling as 

Jane Marie Smith, accompanied Mitt Romney on more than one occasion, a 

Cuban intelligence agent, inside the US under false identity.

 

The other “Swift” became governor when Bush appointed Paul Celluci, then 

governor, as Ambassador to Canada, April 10, 2001, in an unusual political 

move to which we choose to attribute no significance.

Swift though not serving in public office, is at the highest decision 

making levels of the GOP. 

 

 

*Footnote 3: NAFTA was a Romney document negotiated by President Bush*

 

The July 30, 1995 New York Times declared that “Mexican traffickers seem to 

have embraced a vision of North American integration not unlike that with 

which NAFTA … was sold to skeptics in Washington.” A former U.S. official 

explained to the Times that “once Bush and Salinas decided to go with NAFTA 

as the No. 1 goal, then everything else had to be manageable.”

 

John P. Walters, who inherited the post of “Drug Czar” from William 

Bennett, made the point even more clearly in a subsequent interview with 

the Times. “People desperately wanted drugs not to become a complicating 

factor for NAFTA,” explained Walters. “There was a degree of illicit 

activity that was just accepted.”

This trade-off has not met with the approval of U.S. law enforcement 

personnel. Writing in the July/August 1996 issue of Freedom Review, Douglas 

Payne observed that “U.S. Customs and DEA personnel now openly refer to 

NAFTA as the ‘North American Drug Trade Agreement,’ while Texas law 

enforcement officials prefer, ‘North American Free Trafficking Agreement.’”

Fifteen years later, drug enforcement officials, fearful of having their 

names in print, fearful of not only the cartel but of their own employers, 

the US government, not only back up Grigg but indicate how much further 

things have gone:

“NAFTA wasn’t just negotiated by Bush (41) and Salinas and had nothing to 

do with trade. It was a Romney/Salinas document that was intended only to 

support drug and human trafficking, money laundering and the 

deindustrialization of the United States.” 

 

 

  

*Footnote 4:  Francophone Africa *

To understand what Francophone Africa is, we refer to an article date 3 

April 2013, called “Demystifying doing business in Francophone Africa” by 

Jaco Maritz, the full text given at the end. Form this we point to the 

following information:

Ebenezer Essoka, GM of Standard Chartered bank in Southern Africa, says 

local partnerships are important in Francophone Africa.

No longer France’s exclusive backyard: Foreign investment into Francophone 

Africa was historically dominated by French companies. This trend is, 

however, changing. Australian companies are investing in the mining sector, 

while companies from the Middle East and Asia are putting money into the 

agricultural sector. Investors from North Africa and English-speaking 

countries on the continent are also eyeing the region.

Nigeria’s Dangote Group entered the Senegalese market and has also expanded 

into Gabon and the Republic of the Congo. Indian mobile telecommunications 

company Bharti Airtel also became a major player in Francophone Africa in 

2010, when it bought the African assets of Zain Group. Bharti expanded its 

presence to include Burkina Faso, the Republic of the Congo, the DRC, 

Gabon, Madagascar, Niger and Chad.

Business culture: Like anywhere else in the world, Francophone African 

countries have their own unique business cultures. Gilles Atayi, managing 

partner at the Johannesburg-based G&A Group of Companies, said that a 

recent survey revealed some specific qualities Francophone CEOs and 

executives appreciate in their business partners.

The survey showed that “Francophone people are happy to deal with people 

who can teach and coach them in a civil manner, without arrogance, down to 

earth, and who are genuinely interested in other people’s development”.

Atayi noted that there is a “chief culture” in the region, where people 

expect the head of the organisation to have solutions for every problem. 

This is in contrast to countries such as South Africa, where there is a 

greater emphasis on team work.

He added that it is also critical for foreign companies to have a positive 

impact on the communities where they operate. “Make your deal, make your 

money, but give back to the community.”

Importance of local partnerships: Ebenezer Essoka, general manager of 

Standard Chartered bank for Southern Africa, said that it is important to 

have local partnerships on the ground. “In Francophone Africa it is 

definitely something that will motivate people to look at you more 

seriously… The partner does not necessarily have to put money [into the 

venture]… A partner can have on the ground experience or knowledge you 

don’t have.”

He, however, warned against associating with politically exposed 

individuals.

“Doing business in a foreign country comes with a host of risks that can be 

avoided if the local environment is better understood. Local partners can 

provide support and guidance in this regard and will be able to assist with 

strategic execution, risk management, relationship building and opportunity 

identification,” says Ernst & Young.

 

 

*Footnote 5: Colonel Rose Kabuye and President Paul Kagame*

 

Retired Colonel Rose Kabuye was arrested in Germany, and extradited to 

France, where she was charged with for complicity in murder in relation to 

a terrorist enterprise, 

for her alleged participation in the 1994 shooting down of Juvénal 

Habyarimana’s presidential plane, and released on bail. She is the first 

member of Rwandan President Paul Kagame’s inner circle to be charged in 

connection to what is arguably history’s least-investigated political 

assassination and terrorist attack.

Colonel Rose Kabuye was born in Uganda, the child of Rwandan expatriates, 

many of which left the country after it obtained independence, and 

following a UN-sponsored referendum abolishing 

the (Tutsi) monarchy in Rwanda. She attended primary school with many of 

the current regime’s hard-liners, and like numerous other Rwandan Tutsi 

exiles living in Uganda, Kabuye joined the Ugandan Army, where she held the 

rank of Lieutenant, and became the personal attaché of the Chief of Staff. 

During the same period, Paul Kagame, who attended the U.S. Army Command and 

Staff College (CGSC) in Ft. Leavenworth, Kansas, 

was Chief of Military Intelligence in the Ugandan Army.

On October 1st, 1990, an armed group called the Rwandan Patriotic Front, 

composed of many Ugandan officers, including Rose Kabuye and Paul Kagame, invaded 

Rwanda from Uganda, 

with Ugandan military material, and Ugandan soldiers. 

 

It is said that Rose Kabuye—who charmed foreign journalists by holding her 

baby on her knee in press conferences held after the RPF invasion of 

Rwanda– was imprisoned for several months by Kagame in 1993, for 

undisclosed reasons

.

In April 1994, she was back in Kigali, Rwanda, working in an administrative 

capacity at the RPF headquarters. French judge Jean-Louis Bruguière accuses 

her of having abetted the SAM 16 missile attack on the plane carrying 

Presidents Juvenal Habyarimana of Rwanda, and Cyprien Ntaryamira, of 

Burundi. The indictment states that it was in her office that the members 

of the “Network Commando”, the RPF cell alleged to have shot down the 

presidential plane, waited for their orders, on April 6th, 1994.

Rose Kabuye was named “Prefet” (or governor) of Kigali after the tragic 

event of 1994.

She was later designated to participate in the National Transitional 

Assembly by Kagame, but was later removed. Colonel Kabuye was subsequently 

named Chief of Protocol of President Kagame. She is the highest-ranking 

woman in the Rwandan Patriotic Army.

 

Kabuye’s arrest and extradition to France arrest comes at a curious time 

and is accompanied by circumstances that deserve closer scrutiny.

It appears that, according to both French and German government sources, 

Rose Kabuye had been warned that 

if she travelled to Germany, she would be arrested pursuant to a warrant 

launched by French anti-terrorism judge, Jean-Louis Bruguière; a claim she 

now denies, expressing instead “surprise” at her arrest. 

 

Much has been said of Colonel Kabuye’s willingness to face justice in 

France so that “the truth be known”; President Paul Kagame has ever 

referred to “lancing the boil”

.

It has been speculated that General Kagame has sent his Chief of Protocol—a 

Lieutenant herself—to attempt, first, to obtain a copy of judge Bruguière’s 

file, 

and secondly, to “reveal the weakness” of the case against himself, and 

inner circle. Indeed, Kabuye is, among those charged, the individual 

against whom the charges are least severe, and whose implication may seem 

to be less instrumental than others. This theory is 

revealing to some extent, but fails to take into account what are 

high-level diplomatic and political attempts to paradoxically, move away 

from, and not towards, the truth.

 

The shooting down of the plane carrying Presidents Habyarimana of Rwanda 

and Ntaryamira of Burundi triggered the large-scale massacres that 

followed. The role of this attack on the nightmare that unfolded is 

obvious, yet over the years, and with the exception of judge Bruguière’s 

investigation, efforts to elucidate this crime have been frustrated almost 

every step of the way. An investigation was requested on numerous occasions, 

by numerous parties; significantly, by the Security Council, almost 

immediately, whose reminders to the Secretary-General to investigate the 

circumstances of the attack were not followed; by the Rwandan Government, 

after the plane was shot down; by the African Union; and following the UN 

resolution establishing the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda, the 

Subcommission on Prevention of Discrimination and Protection of Minorities 

adopted resolution 1994/1 entitled “Situation in Rwanda”, calling the 

attention of the Commission of Experts, established by the Security 

Council, to the need to inquire into the circumstances of the shooting down 

of the plane.

In 1997, as defense counsel for Georges Rutaganda before the ICTR, I argued 

a motion requesting the Prosecutor disclose results of investigations into 

the shooting down of the Presidential plane, or be directed to undertake 

investigations, if none had been carried out. The Prosecutor’s 

representative responded :

“Our responsibility and mandate is not to investigate plane crashes. That’s 

not really our function. Therefore, I would categorically answer this 

question by saying that, first, we don’t have any such investigation. We 

have not made any such investigation and we don’t have any reports. And, 

secondly, it is not our function, it is not our mandate, to investigate 

plane crashes or presidents, vice-presidents, or whoever it is. And, 

therefore, this is really a matter not within our province.”

 

We have since learned from Michael Hourigan, Australian lawyer and one of 

former Prosecutor Louise Arbour’s lead investigators, that investigations 

had in fact been carried out (and at the material period when this fact had 

been denied), but had been shut down by Prosecutor Arbour personally once 

Hourigan informed her that he had credible evidence that a “network 

commando” of the RPF had shot down the plane.

The efforts to undermine this investigation over the years are significant, 

and the testimony of Abdul Ruzibiza, a former RPF officer who testified 

before the ICTR, 

sheds substantial light on why that may be. Ruzibiza, one of judge 

Bruguière’s witnesses, claims to have recanted the totality of his testimony in 

several telephone interviews given last week. Yet Ruzibiza wrote a book setting 

out in detail the fact that Kagame’s RPF shot down the plane with the 

knowledge that armed hostilities would resume in Rwanda, as he was 

dissatisfied with the political process undertaken after belligerent 

parties had signed the Arusha Peace Accords. In other words, knowing full 

well that chaos would descend upon Rwanda (or with incomprehensible 

recklessness), Kagame’s strategy was to seize power through the force of 

arms, and it was guaranteed that war would resume after the assassination 

of the Rwandan President—and as it happened, the Chief of Staff of the 

Rwandan Armed Forces, as well as the President of Burundi.

 

Ruzibiza testified publicly at the ICTR as a defense witness. The 

Prosecutor’s cross-examination covers 65 pages of transcripts, 

yet Ruzibiza’s version was unshaken, much less did he change his version, 

or recant then, when testifying under oath.

But Rose Kabuye’s arrest and transfer to France appears to have suddenly 

triggered Ruzibiza’s change of heart and complete recantation of his 

testimony. He now claims that Bruguière’s investigation was a French 

political machination (which does not explain his UN testimony).

 

*Diplomacy’s Pale Underbelly*

Perhaps key in understanding what has happened is the policy adopted by 

France’s Foreign Minister, Bernard Kouchner. In January 2008, and 

apparently desperate to normalize relations with Rwanda (which were 

suspended by Rwanda after Bruguière launched arrest warrants in 2006), he 

signed an op ed in Figaro, 

in which he wrote (my translation):

“I do not know who ordered the April 6th, 1994 attack against President 

Habyarimana’s plane. But I do not believe, as does the excellent judge 

Jean-Louis Bruguière, that Paul Kagame knowingly decided to spark the fire 

that roared over his country. I cannot accept this simplistic and 

slanderous vision that would have Tutsis be responsible for what happened 

to them, no more than I can stand to hear certain people claim that there 

was a double genocide, against both Hutus and Tutsis.”

Asked last week [mid-November 2008] whether Kabuye’s indictment in France 

would present an obstacle to the normalization of relations with Rwanda, he 

responded: 

“I believe the contrary.”

One can only hope that geo-political concerns will not yet again stand in 

the way of learning the truth about the circumstances in which President 

Habyarimana’s plane was shot down by two surface to air missiles in 1994, 

even if the truth to be discovered, and justice to be done as a result, 

leads us to indict those who’ve become some of the West’s strongest allies, 

and who continue, it seems, to wage a path of destruction through 

Eastern Congo, with complete immunity

.

Indeed, if the RPF shot down President Habyarimana’s plane, Kagame can no 

longer be deemed a heroic military genius who stopped a genocide and should 

be forever protected and flattered no matter how many crimes he commits. He 

becomes one of the (main) reasons the massacres unfolded: he could not have 

failed to know that the assassination of two Hutu presidents, and the Chief 

of Staff of the Rwandan Armed Forces, during a volatile political 

transition and in the course of a fragile ceasefire (violated on several 

occasions by the RPF, as it happens), would unleash violence. If the RPF 

shot down the plane, they are co-responsible, and this substantially 

changes the cartoonishly uni-dimensional narrative necessary to provide 

Kagame with total impunity, and buttress a Western foreign policy on 

intervention that helped make the NATO bombing of Yugoslavia possible 

politically.

 

While Bernard Kouchner may not want to believe the results of a careful 

investigation carried out by France’s most celebrated anti-terrorism judge, 

and while Judge Bruguière’s witness, Mr. Ruzibiza, may suddenly see fit to 

recant a testimony given under oath before a UN institution, the fact 

remains that there are many other witnesses relied upon in the French 

investigation. And this most under-investigated of political 

assassinations, one which sparked a hundred-day massacre, the latter 

justifying continued war and misery in the Democratic Republic of Congo, 

and authoritarian rule in Rwanda, must be elucidated, and not quashed yet 

again, for the sake of geopolitical interests that would impede discovery 

of truth, and delay justice beyond what can decently be tolerated. 

*Tiphaine Dickson** was lead counsel for Georges Rutaganda before the 

International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda from 1997 to 2001. She was the 

first defense lawyer to present a motion requesting disclosure of the 

Prosecution’s investigations into the shooting down of President 

Habyarimana’s plane.*

http://www.globalresearch.ca/rwanda-s-deadliest-secret-who-shot-down-president-habyarimana-s-plane/11133

 

*Footnote 6: Radio messages used as a tool to incite genocide in Rwanda*

 

Due to high rates of illiteracy at the time of the genocide, radio was an 

important way for the government to deliver messages to the public. Two 

radio stations key to inciting violence before and during the genocide were Radio 

Rwanda and *Radio Télévision 

Libre des Mille Collines*

(RTLM). 

In March 1992, Radio Rwanda was first used in directly promoting the 

killing of Tutsi in Bugesera, south of the national capital Kigali. Radio 

Rwanda repeatedly broadcast a communiqué warning that Hutu in Bugesera 

would be attacked by Tutsi, a message used by local officials to convince 

Hutu that they needed to attack first. Led by soldiers, Hutu civilians and 

the Interahamwe attacked and killed hundreds of Tutsi.

At the end of 1993, the RTLM's highly sensationalized reporting on the 

assassination of the Burundian president, a Hutu, was used to underline 

supposed Tutsi brutality. The RTLM falsely reported that the president had 

been tortured, including castration (in pre-colonial times, some Tutsi 

kings castrated defeated enemy rulers). There were 50,000 civilian deaths 

in Burundi in 1993.

From late October 1993, the RTLM repeatedly broadcast themes developed by 

the extremist written press, underlining the inherent differences between 

Hutu and Tutsi, the foreign origin of Tutsi, the disproportionate share of 

Tutsi wealth and power, and the horrors of past Tutsi rule. The RTLM also 

repeatedly stressed the need to be alert to Tutsi plots and possible 

attacks. It warned Hutu to prepare to "defend" themselves against the 

Tutsi. After April 6, 1994, authorities used RTLM and Radio Rwanda to spur 

and direct killings, specifically in areas where the killings were 

initially resisted. Both radio stations were used to incite and mobilize 

populations, followed by specific directions for carrying out the killings. 

The RTLM had used terms such as *inyenzi* (cockroach in Kinyarwandan) and 

Tutsi interchangeably with others referring to the RPF combatants. It 

warned that RPF combatants dressed in civilian clothes were mingling among 

the displaced people fleeing combat zones. These broadcasts gave the 

impression that all Tutsi were supporters of the RPF force fighting against 

the elected government. Women were targets of the anti-Tutsi propaganda 

prior to the 1994 genocide; for example, the "Hutu Ten Commandments" (1990) 

included four commandments that portrayed Tutsi women as tools of the Tutsi 

people, and as sexual weapons to weaken and ultimately destroy the Hutu 

men. Gender-based propaganda also included cartoons printed in newspapers 

depicting Tutsi women as sex objects. Examples of gender-based hate 

propaganda used to incite war rape included statements by perpetrators, 

such as "You Tutsi women think that you are too good for us", and "Let us 

see what a Tutsi woman tastes like."

 

  

*Footnote 7:  The role France played in the Rwandan genocide*

This footnote consists of two sections: 

Article 1 THE FRANCO-RWANDAN BONE OF CONTENTION AND ITS IMPACT             

ON THE BILATERAL RELATIONS BETWEEN RWANDA AND FRANCE,      AND ON THE GREAT 

LAKES REGION OF AFRICA and 

Article 2 RWANDA FRENCH CONNECTION, 

which reads as follows:

 

Article 1.         THE FRANCO-RWANDAN BONE OF CONTENTION AND ITS 

                               IMPACT ON THE BILATERAL RELATIONS BETWEEN 

RWANDA                              AND FRANCE, AND ON THE GREAT LAKES 

REGION OF AFRICA

This document presents the origin of the Franco-Rwandan bone of contention, 

which is the role of France in the 1994 genocide of Tutsis in Rwanda 

coupled with France’s refusal to acknowledge it and apologize for it. The 

document also exposes the negative attitude of the French Government 

towards the post-genocide Government of Rwanda, and the Judge Bruguière’s 

affair which is the latest front opened by France in the relentless war she 

has been waging against the Government of Rwanda in the course of the last 

12 years.

The document further reviews the actions which were undertaken by the 

Government of Rwanda in order to normalize its relations with France, all 

to no avail unfortunately.

1.   A historical background to the Franco-Rwandese bone of contention

Although Rwanda was not a French colony, Rwanda as a French-speaking 

country has enjoyed a privileged relationship with France. Rwanda was 

indeed a founding member of such France-led groupings as the “Francophonie” 

and the “France-Africa Summit”.

The relationship between France and Rwanda later on became even more 

special, and Rwanda really entered in what France calls the “*pré-carré*” 

(her reserved corner or backyard in Africa) in 1975, with the signing of a 

military assistance agreement between President Juvénal HABYARIMANA and 

President Valéry Giscard d’Estaing.

In 1983, the relations between France and Rwanda entered a new phase with 

the appointment of Jean Christophe Mitterrand, son of late President 

François Mitterrand, to head the African Cell in the Elysée (the Office of 

the President of the French Republic), which is in fact the most powerful 

institution as far as the French African policy is concerned. Jean 

Christophe Mitterrand quickly developed close friendship with Jean Pierre 

Habyarimana, one of the sons of the late President of Rwanda.

Unlike other colonial powers, France never indeed allowed full independence 

to its former colonies. Late Sékou Touré’s Guinea paid a heavy price for 

asserting her right to full independence from France in 1958. France 

maintained a strong military presence in almost all her former colonies, 

engineering most “*coups d’état*” either directly through her military 

bases, or the national armies she was training, or else via sponsored 

mercenaries like Bob Denard.

In her African foreign policy, France could never imagine, let alone accept 

a change of power in her backyard (“pré-carré”) without her active 

involvement, or at the very least her blessing. Interventionism in the 

France’s backyard or “pré-carré” in Africa has been part and parcel of the 

French African foreign policy. It is worth recalling here that in France, 

foreign affairs and defense matters are the undisputed constitutional 

preserve of the President of the Republic.

When in 1990 the Rwandese Patriotic Front (RPF) launched its armed struggle 

against the regime of late Habyarimana in Rwanda to address all its evils, 

France reckoned that the RPF had committed several “lese-majesty” crimes:

·   By launching its armed struggle from an English speaking country, i.e. 

Uganda, RPF re-ignited the Fashoda syndrome for France. France responded by 

launching a propaganda war that presented the RPF struggle as a plot by the 

Anglo-Saxon world, whose objective was to reduce France’s influence in 

Africa.

·   How could the RPF dare attempt a change of power in France’s 

“pré-carré” without France’s involvement or blessing;

It was therefore not surprising that France, arguing the defense of the 

Francophone world, and refusing to admit a change of power in her backyard 

(“pré-carré”) which was not authorized by her, came to the rescue of late 

Habyarimana’s regime through a military intervention in Rwanda code-named 

“NOROIT”.

In this military intervention, France brought along Belgium and Zaïre with 

her by misleading them into believing that Rwanda had been attacked by 

Uganda. However, Belgium and Zaïre quickly withdrew their troops when they 

realized that:

·   The conflict was a civil one and had its root in the bad governance 

which had relegated hundreds of thousands of Rwandans into exile for 

decades, and transformed millions inside Rwanda into second class citizens;

·   It was not at all an international conflict between Rwanda and Uganda.

From 1990 to 1994, the military situation in Rwanda became a personal 

affair of President Mitterrand who appointed General Jean Pierre Huchon to 

closely follow the matter, and report directly to him.

France maintained her troops in Rwanda, which actively fought alongside the 

Rwandan Armed Forces (FAR) against the Rwandan Patriotic Army (RPA), the 

armed wing of the RPF. The French troops were especially in command 

responsibilities, and they manned heavy artillery and helicopters gunship. 

France’s involvement in the Rwandan civil strife was not a secret as 

evidenced by the appointment, in 1992, by late President Habyarimana, of 

French Lieutenant-Colonel Chollet as the overall planner and commander of 

all military operations of the Rwandan Armed Forces (FAR). Apart from this 

military engagement on frontlines, French soldiers manned roadblocks at 

which Rwandans carrying identity cards marked “Tutsis” were either arrested 

and made to disappear, or else simply killed on the spot.

During the whole period from 1990 to 1994, French troops participated in 

the training not only of the regular armed forces of Rwanda, but also the 

Interahamwe militia, which later spearheaded the execution of genocide of 

Tutsis and the massacre of dissident Hutus. This training was not only 

military but also political and ideological. During all this period the 

Armed Forces of Rwanda (FAR) and the Interahamwe militia which were trained 

and equipped by France committed numerous genocidal massacres against 

Tutsis in different parts of Rwanda, such as in Mutara (1990), in 

Ruhengeri-Gisenyi (the massacres of Bagogwe-Tutsis in 1991, 1992,1993), in 

Bugesera (1992), without any reaction from France.

In January 1993, an International commission comprising several Human 

rights organizations including FIDH (“Fédération International des Droits 

de l’Homme”), Human Rights Watch, etc., documented these massacres against 

Tutsis and qualified them as acts of genocide, but France maintained the 

same policy of support to a Government that was committing genocide against 

its people. In June 1993, Mr. Adama DIENG, then UN Special Rapporteur on 

torture and extra-judicial killings visited Rwanda, and wrote a report in 

which he alarmingly drew the attention of the world on the preparations of 

genocide against Tutsis. The alarm went unheeded. Neither this UN 

Rapporteur nor the Human rights organizations were listened to, because the 

accomplice voice of France was much louder and quite efficient in covering 

up the crimes of the Rwandan regime. The international community missed an 

opportunity to prevent genocide because of the complicity of France.

France encouraged the creation of an extremist party called ‘’CDR’’ 

(“Coalition for the Defense of the Republic”),which later on spearheaded 

the execution of genocide, as evidenced by the exchange of letters between 

President Mitterrand and the CDR leadership. The picture of President 

Mitterrand was frequently displayed on CDR’s heinous publication, the 

infamous “KANGURA”, portraying him as the friend of their “Hutu cause”. 

Although this extremist party openly advocated the extermination of Tutsis, 

it received the backing, the attention and advice from French diplomats in 

Kigali. Moreover CDR leaders such as Jean Bosco BARAYAGWIZA were officially 

hosted in Paris, even when the execution of genocide was in full swing.

The former French Minister of Cooperation Marcel Debarge did not hesitate 

to openly encourage all Hutus to unite against Tutsis and the RPF. It is 

this encouragement that led to the creation of the so-called Hutu-power, a 

political coalition that was at the forefront of the perpetration of 

genocide.

In accordance with the Arusha Peace Agreement signed between the Government 

of Rwanda and the RPF, the NOROIT operation ended at the end of December 

1993, but France officially maintained 40 military instructors 

(unofficially they were actually more than 40). It is worth noting that 

during the lengthy negotiations between RPF and the Government of Rwanda, 

France maliciously supported the intransigence of the genocidal government 

of Rwanda, as they were both trying to simply obtain the capitulation of 

RPF through these negotiations, and nothing else. The appearance of seeking 

peace in Arusha, and elsewhere, was for both of them a mere hoax luring the 

attention of the international community, which knew little or nothing 

about their real agenda.

Unsurprisingly therefore, late President Habyarimana grew unhappy with the 

outcome of the negotiations, and at the peak of his dissatisfaction, he 

referred to the Arusha Peace Agreement as just another nondescript mere 

heap of sheets of paper which shall never have a chance of implementation! 

He was at the time addressing Rwandan citizenry in the northern part of the 

country, where he was born; he spoke in the national language, Kinyarwanda, 

and he was obviously arousing the basest instincts of his countrymen and 

women, bracing them for the “final hour” of those long meant to be doomed, for 

the final round, still looming ahead then, of the topmost genocide of the 

Tutsi. That final round, which was most certainly and documentedly in the 

offing, did eventually come about as no surprise in April - July 1994.

Despite the committed regional leadership’s peace-seeking efforts, the 

genocidal government of Rwanda stalled the implementation of the Arusha 

Peace Agreement, while it pursued a policy of ethnic cleansing , mass 

murders of Tutsi folks, and political assassination of Hutu opponents.

On April 6, 1994 the plane carrying late President Habyarimana from Dar Es 

Salaam, where he had just attended a Regional Summit that sought to 

convince him to allow the long overdue implementation of the Arusha Peace 

Agreement, was shot down as it was landing at the Kigali Airport. Planners 

of the Tutsi genocide quickly seized this moment to theatrically exploit 

the nightly plane crash, to enter the full gear as it were, the final full 

swing of the final round of the Tutsi genocide.

It is worth mentioning here that the Kigali international airport lies 

about 3 kilometers away from the official residence of late President 

Habyarimana, and the area was heavily guarded by the Presidential guard 

assisted by French troops. These forces prevented the UNAMIR (United 

Nations Assistance Mission to Rwanda) from getting to the crash site, to 

carry out an investigation.

What these combined forces, the FAR and the French soldiers, were hiding 

from this UN Mission has so far remained a pregnant mystery of sorts!

Following death of Habyarimana’s plane, France sent troops to Rwanda 

code-named ‘’Amaryllis’’, officially purported to evacuate their nationals, 

including the HABYARIMANA family and their relatives, leaving behind them 

extremist Hutus to perpetrate a genocide that had been planned long before. 

These French troops did not care in the least for the Tutsis operatives 

that worked for the Kigali French Embassy and the French Cultural Centre, 

while they did very lovingly care for the evacuation of the dogs and cats 

belonging to French expatriates!! Those French Embassy and Cultural Centre 

Tutsi staffers were unappealingly left behind to meet their certain doom at 

the Kigali airport. Understandably, this must certainly weigh pretty heavy 

on the conscience of quite a number of the French government officials, 

civilian and military, who were involved in deciding and executing the 

early and final rounds of the Tutsi genocide.

Under the cover of this operation France delivered huge quantities of arms 

to EX-FAR and Interahamwe as attested by some MINUAR and FAR officers. 

France continued to deliver weapons to these forces that were committing 

genocide throughout the execution of the celebrated horrendous tragedy, and 

later on via the D.R.Congo, then Zaïre.

When France realized eventually that despite her supplies of weapons, the 

genocidal forces were unable to stop the RPF forces but were rather loosing 

the war, she decided to send her troops through yet another military 

operation code-named “*Turquoise*”, to the rescue the genocidal government 

and military, and save them from total defeat and discomfiture. Using her 

prominent position in the UN Security Council, France was able to hoodwink 

10 out of the 15 members of the UN Security Council into believing that she 

was sending a bona fide “Humanitarian mission”, a dangerous hoax in 

actuality as it later turned out. The hoodwinked United Nations Security 

Council members therefore candidly voted for UNSC Resolution nº 929 authorizing 

French troops to be deployed in Rwanda under the code name of ‘Operation 

Turquoise’’.

The fact that a so-called humanitarian operation was only for by 10 out the 

15 members of the UN Security Council proves that most members of the UN 

Security Council questioned the Humanitarian character of the French 

mission, and had good cause to suspect that France was intervening, to 

indeed rescue their friendly genocidal government and military forces that 

were showing unmistakable signs of exhaustion and distress bordering on 

defeat.

The deployment of the French troops did not succeed to boost the combat 

morale of the genocidal forces, which were eventually defeated by RPF 

forces in July 1994. The French troops of the “Operation Turquoise’’ 

finally resolved to organize the evacuation of the defeated genocidal 

forces into Zaire were they attempted to re-organize, re-train and re-arm 

them with the hope that they could re-capture power in Rwanda.

It is quite worth noting at this juncture that the French troops of the 

so-called Turquoise forced the Rwandan populations to massively flee into 

Zaïre, in order to lend credence to the French government’s anti-RPF 

propaganda vociferously claiming that the RPF lacked popular support and 

legitimacy, since “the people had so to speak voted with their feet by 

following the authors of genocide, their would-be true leaders, into exile”!

Given France’s military, political, diplomatic and financial involvement on 

the side of the forces which committed genocide in Rwanda, the defeat of 

these forces was excruciatingly felt by the French government as France’s 

own defeat in the heartland of African. Defeating France constituted a 

third “lese-majesty crime” or a sacrilege committed by RPF.

2.   The French Government’s attitude vis-à-vis the Government of National 

Unity installed after the 1994 genocide.

The defeat of the genocidal forces that France had supported militarily, 

politically, diplomatically and financially was perceived by France as a 

bitter pill to swallow, especially as she tried to figure out how this 

defeat would be perceived in France’s African backyard, in their cherished 

so called “pré-carré”. It was therefore not surprising that France 

attempted by all means to re-instate the genocidal regime into power, so as 

to reverse the defeat and thus reassure other friendly regimes in her 

African backyard. Since 1994, France adopted an anti-Rwanda government 

attitude, with the evident objective of weakening it, and eventually 

creating conditions for its envisaged overthrow. This can be illustrated by 

the following few examples:

·   French authorities refused to acknowledge the 1994 genocide against the 

Tutsis. When this capital crime was clearly acknowledged by the 

international community through the creation of an International Criminal 

Tribunal for Rwanda to punish it, France developed the ‘’thesis of a double 

genocide’’ and used all means to substantiate it. Through this maneuvering, 

France was pursuing two objectives: The first objective is to show that 

there are no good nor bad guys in Rwanda, they are all the same, thus 

appearing to justify that she had to side with the genocidal regime, which 

was at least friendly to France. The second objective was that of 

criminalizing the government of Rwanda with the hope of transforming it 

into a pariah government. To this end French intelligence services have 

sponsored books by Péan, Onana, Ruzibiza, Debre, etc., which are now being 

used by Judge Bruguière, as main sources of information for their so-called 

investigation.

·   France dragged her feet in recognizing the government of National Unity 

put in place in July 1994. France only appointed her Ambassador to Rwanda 

in March 1995, because she all along hoped that the newly installed 

Government would collapse within 6 months.

·   This non-recognition of post genocide Rwandan Government was evidenced 

by the fact the Government of France refused to invite Rwanda to the France-Africa 

Summit of Biarritz in November 1994, even though Rwanda is a founder member 

of the France-Africa Summit.

·   The French authorities have given asylum and protection to major 

planners of genocide including close relatives of HABYARIMANA like Madame 

Agathe Habyarimana, and many personalities of the Hutu Power, who freely 

carry out their political activities aimed at destabilizing Rwanda. France 

has turned into a safe haven for the 1994 genocide suspects, where they are 

shielded against judicial prosecution.

·   Since her re-opening, the Embassy of France in Rwanda has been solely 

devoted to the mobilization of internal opposition. She even went to the 

extent of encouraging government officials to flee the country, so as to 

weaken the Rwandan government of National Unity.

·   French government has consistently opposed Rwanda’s development 

programs presented to international organizations such as World Bank, the 

IMF and the European Union, even though she has never used her veto against 

Rwanda within EU. France became a champion of imposing non realistic 

conditions for foreign aid to the Government of Rwanda.

·   Although France was the biggest bilateral donor to the Government of 

Rwanda before 1994, she became the least of donors after the genocide.

·   At the 2 Geneva Round Tables of Donors (1995, 1996) organized for the 

mobilization of funds for the recovery and rehabilitation of Rwanda, France 

did not contribute a penny, even though Rwanda was emergig from the worst 

tragedy ever in her history. Indeed, true friends reveal themselves in 

times of need!

·   At the United Nations, France strongly argued to limit the competence 

of the United Nations Tribunal for Rwanda to the period between 1st of 

January 1994 and 31st of December 1994 so as to exclude the period between 

1990 -1993 which would have allowed the ICTR to lay bare France’s notorious 

role in the preparation of genocide. This was not fortuitous!

·   There exist a tacit and unwritten rule at the UN Security Council which 

gives to France the sole responsibility of drafting UNSC resolutions and 

Presidential statements concerning the region of Rwanda, Burundi and the 

Democratic Republic of Congo. France has exploited this prerogative to make 

sure that all these UNSC resolutions and Presidential statements contain 

baseless accusations against, and condemnations of, Rwanda. Indeed, UN 

Security Council Draft resolutions and Presidential statements presented by 

France have more often than not baselessly accused Rwanda of committing 

human rights violations in DRC, looting DRC resources, violating UN arms 

embargo in DRC, and fueling conflict in that country, etc.

·   France has used her privileged position in the UN Security Council to 

prevent the use of forceful means to disarm and demobilize the forces which 

committed genocide in Rwanda, while at the same time pleading with the UN 

Security Council to impose an arms embargo against Rwanda. The objective 

pursued by France is therefore glaring: to weaken the Rwandan government so 

as to facilitate its overthrow by these genocidal forces.

3. Judge Bruguière’s affair and his international arrest warrants

Judge Bruguiere’s affair and his international arrest warrants is a 

continuation of this overt and covert war that France has been waging 

against the Government of Rwanda for the last 12 years. The argument of 

independence of justice behind which the government of France is hiding can 

hardly resist the analysis of the case. A quick look at what the Judge and 

the Paris Prosecutor’s office have done reveals clearly that the issuance 

of these international arrest warrants is not only politically motivated, 

but also a political attack against the Rwandan government, all wrapped up 

in a judicial cloth:

·   Indeed in France as elsewhere, it is a sacred principle that a judicial investigator 

would have to consider all evidence against and in favor of the suspect. 

However this French Judge has only based his investigation and built his 

case on the basis of testimonies from witnesses who are known either to 

have played a role in the 1994 genocide in Rwanda (French military, 

intelligence and political officers who were in involved in Rwanda before, 

during and after the 1994 genocide and sided with the genocidal forces, 

suspects of genocide incarcerated in ICTR prison in Arusha or still at 

large, etc.), or else those known to be political opponents of the 

government of Rwanda. Who is this so-called “independent” judge who would 

only seek testimonies from enemies of those he wants to incriminate!

·   This judge never came to Rwanda to visit the scene of the crime he 

claims to have investigated, to interview people leaving in the vicinity of 

the scene of the crime and may have witnessed the crime, or at least to 

appreciate if it was materially possible for his suspects to be at the 

scene of the crime, given the prevailing conditions at the time of the 

commission of the crime. No rogatory commission sent from France in the 

framework of this investigation.

·   There are no eye witnesses of the crime among the witnesses cited by 

Justice Bruguière. They are “hearsay” witnesses! What’s the value of 

“hearsays” in criminal law? Furthermore, some of the witnesses cited by the 

judge have denounced him as being just a manipulator and a liar.

·   Judge Bruguière never tried to interview the people he accuses.

·   Judge Bruguière violated the secret of investigation by allowing Mr. 

Stephen Smith, a journalist of Le Monde, to publish his so-called 

“findings” during the investigation. Knowing the close relations of these 

two gentlemen with the French intelligence servicse, it is easy to see that 

Bruguiere’s so called investigation is indeed not a judicial investigation, 

but rather a political maneuvering endeavor to destabilize the Rwandan 

government.

·   The material evidence used by the judge, notably the 2 pictures of 

supposed missiles launchers used to shoot down Habyarimana’s plane that 

were snapped by an officer of the genocidal army, had been rejected by the 

French Parliament mission of information as a manipulation attempt by the 

genocidal Rwandan army and the French intelligence services. Indeed an 

analysis of the pictures shows that the missiles had not been fired, which 

meant that these missiles were in the hand of the genocidal army before 

they were fired, if they ever were. This excludes the hypothesis of RPF 

using the pictured missiles to commit the crime it is accused of.

If the Paris prosecutor’s office were really independent, it could never 

have authorized Judge Bruguière to issue international arrest warrants on 

the basis of such a hollow and vitiated case.

Of course what mattered to Judge Bruguière and the Paris prosecutor’s 

office, alongside and those who gave orders, was rather to destroy the 

image of Rwandan leaders and not the judicial end of these international 

arrest warrants. Whether the accused are one day brought to justice or not 

is immaterial for them, in any case the harm they sought to cause is 

already done, as far as they are concerned!

4.   Efforts of the Government of Rwanda to normalize relations with France.

Despite France’s role in the planning and execution of genocide, as 

substantiated above, and her consistent negative attitude towards the 

government of Rwanda, the RPF and the Government of Rwanda did all they 

could to normalize relations with France, but to no avail. The following 

are some of the actions attempted:

·   Following the military intervention of France, Belgium and Zaire in 

Rwanda on the side of Habyarimana, RPF approached the governments of these 

countries and explained to them the root causes of its armed struggle. 

Belgium and Zaire did understand and withdrew their troops, but France 

maintained hers in Rwanda.

·   RPF continued its attempts to explain to French authorities the 

motivation of its struggle. RPF’s efforts to approach the French 

authorities went to the extent of sending H.E Paul KAGAME to Paris in 1992, 

on the invitation of French authorities. Despite having officially invited 

him, they put him in detention for a whole day!

·   Despite knowing France’s involvement in the planning and execution of 

genocide, and her continued support to genocidal forces, the Government of 

National Unity decided to invest her efforts in mending relations with 

France. A kind of extension of the internal reconciliation policy at the 

international level, as it were.

·   France was the first country to receive an Ambassador of the Government 

of National Unity after the 1994 genocide. Unfortunately France managed to 

convince this Ambassador to quit the government of Rwanda.

·   Despite the fact that in 1994 France had declined to invite Rwanda to 

the Franco-African Summit in Biarritz, Rwanda did attend the France-Africa 

Summit organized in Paris in 1998, with a delegation headed by the 

President of the Republic of Rwanda; and in February 2003, H.E Paul KAGAME 

attended personally the France-Africa Summit of Heads of State and 

government organized in Paris.

·   Leaders of Rwanda requested friends of France on the African continent 

and elsewhere to help the two countries to mend the relations. In July 

2004, the Ministers of Foreign Affairs of the two countries met in South 

Africa under the mediation of the South African Minister of Foreign Affairs.

All these contacts at the highest level (Heads of State, Prime Minister’s, 

Ministers) didn’t succeed in achieving any significant changes in the 

relations between Rwanda and France. France maintained its negative 

attitude against Rwanda. Rwandan authorities have done whatever they 

believed could contribute to the normalization of relations between the two 

countries, but nothing ever seemed to change on the part of France.

The Bruguière’s affair is only the latest front line opened by the French 

Government in its long war against the Government of Rwanda. After failing 

to re-organize the defeated genocidal forces (EX-FAR and Interahamwe) into 

a politico-military force capable of overthrowing the Government of Rwanda; 

noting that despite France’s opposition in international finance 

institutions, Rwanda continues to enjoy the support deservedly earned by 

her good governance and development policies, France has decided to try a 

judicial fight, and has to that effect concocted allegations against the 

Rwandan leadership and abusively used the legal system to try to discredit 

the Rwandan government.

The Government of Rwanda has analyzed these turbulent relations and came to 

the conclusion that it serves no useful purpose to maintain diplomatic 

relations with the Government of France, considering that it continues to 

relentlessly pursue the objective of destroying it, and Rwanda as a whole. 

The Government of Rwanda has therefore decided to order the closing of the 

Embassy of France in Rwanda, as well as other French official government 

entities in Rwanda, which could still be used to further destabilize 

Rwanda. The Government of Rwanda has correspondingly closed its Paris 

Embassy. French nationals residing in Rwanda do however have all the 

guaranties that their stay in Rwanda willl never be disturbed, unless they 

get mixed up in the politics of their country’s government antagonizing 

Rwanda.

However the Government of Rwanda shall happily resume normal and diplomatic 

relations, when France will have put an end to her belligerent attitude 

against Rwanda.

We think that it is better to have this problem clearly exposed to the 

world, so as to allow all and sundry, across the global human community, to 

help find a solution to it. We believe that this will require addressing, 

frankly and openly, the issue of France’s involvement in the 1994 genocide, 

which continues to pollute relations between the two countries. This 

continues to haunt the conscience of those in France’s leadership who 

played a role in it. They have tried to silence this conscience by waging a 

merciless war on the government of Rwanda, with the hope that this 

government will some day disappear from the face of the Earth, and, along 

with it, the accusations whose painful exhibits keep on crushing 

consciences of several persons among the French government leadership!

http://www.orwelltoday.com/rwandafrancecontention.shtml

 

 

Article 2.         RWANDA FRENCH CONNECTION

Shortly after President Habyarimana was killed in his plane

as it approached Kigali airport April 6, 1994,

Little House officials declared themselves in charge.

While some of them have said that Tutsi RPF guerrillas shot down the 

president's plane,

the RTLM radio station, which the Little House controls,

said Belgian peacekeepers fired a rocket that brought the plane down.

This article offers a rare insight into the Rwandan Genocide from the 

perspective of a journalist who was there, on the ground, a month after it 

commenced and while it was still in progress. His observations are 

important because they are made BEFORE the process of the falsification of 

the present began. *~ Jackie Jura*

Rwanda's French Connection

by Frank Smyth, May 1994

"We have 8 million people here," an aid worker told me last June in Rwanda, 

"and all you Americans care about are those damn gorillas."

I was in Rwanda investigating weapons trafficking for the Human Rights 

Watch/Arms Project, but I couldn't argue with the man, a Tutsi. Almost the 

only news reaching the West last year from this small, landlocked Central 

Africa republic was the death of Mrithi, a male silverback gorilla shot by 

a frightened soldier. One of 325 mountain gorillas in Rwanda, Mrithi was 

mourned in a New York Times op-ed by Rutgers University anthropologist Dr. 

H. Dieter Steklis. He succeeded Dian Fossey, the champion of the apes 

portrayed by Sigourney Weaver in Gorillas in the Mist. Apart from his brave 

Rwandan staff, Steklis made no mention of the country's people. At the 

time, 1 million of them were displaced from Northern Rwanda by the same 

fighting that killed Mrithi.

Last month, Rwanda's people finally got the world's attention, though 

accomplishing this took the fastest slaughter in memory, as many as 200,000 

slain in a month. On April 27, Pope John Paul protested the killing as 

genocide. Most of the dead are Tutsi, a minority in a nation run by a small 

group of Hutu men. Government forces loyal to these Hutu men have also 

targeted and killed their Hutu political opponents, including spouses and 

children.

Since 1975, Rwanda's Hutu regime has been a formal military ally of France, 

a relationship that has continued despite the April 6 apparent assassination

 of President Juvenal Habyarimana. On April 27, the same day the Vatican 

issued its moral plea, two top officials from Rwanda's newly declared 

government were received by the French foreign ministry. The next day, they 

were received at the Elysee, the presidential palace.

Rwanda's dictators have long been welcome in Paris. One of President 

Habyarimana's closest friends abroad was French president Francois 

Mitterrand, an interventionist throughout Francophone Africa. It has been 

reported from Kigali that their sons, Christophe Mitterrand and Jean-Pierre 

Habyarimana, have caroused together in discos on the Left Bank and in 

Rwanda at the Kigali Nightclub. At the Elysee, Christophe had been his 

father's special assistant on African affairs.

While it is unknown if President Mitterrand actually met with Rwanda's new 

leaders in the palace, he did receive a January 25 letter from the Human 

Rights Watch/Arms Project that identified France "as the major military 

supporter of the government of Rwanda.... providing combat assistance to a 

Rwandan army guilty of widespread human rights abuses, and failing to 

pressure the Rwandan government to curb human rights violations." 

Mitterrand has yet to respond.

The letter details Rwanda's purchase of $6 million in arms from Egypt, with 

the bill still unpaid. France guaranteed the payment for this March 1992 

contract, which included 70 mortars, 16,200 mortar bombs, 2000 land mines, 

2000 rocket-propelled grenades, plastic explosives, 450 automatic rifles, 

and more than 1 million rounds of ammunition. That's merely a single 

transaction. In addition, France has provided troops, advisers, and other 

weapons.

Rwanda is one of 14 Francophone African nations, almost all of which have 

military pacts with France. With few resources and less industry, the 

country's direct foreign investment is near zero. But like the United 

States allying with anticommunist states during the Cold War, France has 

allied with Francophone nations. Some, like Zaire, with 60 per cent of the 

world's cobalt, are of economic value. But all of them, as a bloc, give 

France command of enough votes in the United Nations to enjoy the pretense 

of being a world power.

Like neighboring Burundi to the south, Rwanda was a Belgian protectorate 

until independence in 1962. Before then, the Tutsi dominated Rwanda from 

the 17th century until 1960. The king, nobles, military commanders, and, 

especially, cattle herders were predominantly Tutsi. Most people among the 

remainder were Hutu subsistence farmers. Although they have distinct 

characteristics, Tutsi and Hutu are about as hard to tell apart as northern 

and southern Italians. Similar to northerners there, Tutsi have generally 

considered themselves superior.

In 1990, Tutsi guerrillas of the Rwandan Patriotic Front (RPF), many of 

them English-speaking, invaded Rwanda from English-speaking Uganda to the 

north. Belgium stayed relatively neutral, providing only nonlethal military 

aid to Rwanda. But France rushed in to defend the French-speaking Hutu 

regime, led by President Habyarimana and a group of men known as the Akazu 

or "Little House." Over the next three years, militant Hutu forces loyal to 

them murdered up to 2000 Tutsi civilians. Although these abuses were 

documented by an international commission composed of Human Rights 

Watch/Africa and three Francophone monitoring organizations, France 

continued to defend Rwanda's regime.

"Are you saying that the providing of military assistance is a human rights 

violation?" asked Colonel Cussac, his palm slamming his desk for emphasis. 

(The colonel, interviewed last June, wouldn't provide his first name.) 

Noting that I am an American, the Colonel added, "France and the United 

States have a common history, for example, in Vietnam."

More recent cases of intervention are also similar. France formally 

supported negotiations between Rwanda's Hutu government and Tutsi 

guerrillas in the 1990s, much as the United States allegedly backed 

negotiations in the 1980s between El Salvador's government and the 

guerrillas. But representatives of all the non-French Western diplomatic 

missions in Kigali said that France sought a clear victory for President 

Habyarimana and the Little House. "Cussac is a man in favor of a military 

solution," said one European chief-of-mission. "They continue to defend and 

sustain the regime."

But on April 12, France closed its embassy in Kigali and its military 

assistance mission. Having armed the government and the party-led militias, 

who are most responsible for the massacres, France fled (as did most of the 

2500 United Nations troops), leaving behind a bloodbath, which also renewed 

the war between the Hutu government and Tutsi rebels. Even more 

astonishing, the French government has hardly said a word about a country 

whose fate it largely shaped. While the U.S. State Department studies the 

historic outbreak of "savagery" in Rwanda and the Vatican charges genocide, 

France keeps silent.

Last year, French soldiers manned check-points around Kigali. While some 

were armed with WASP 58 shoulder-fired rocket launchers, others demanded 

passing Rwandans to present their apartheid-like identification cards. The 

lDs were stamped Hutu (85 per cent of the population), Tutsi, or Twa 

(hunters and potters, about 1 per cent of the population).

Inside Kigali checkpoints were manned by Rwandan army soldiers. Aside from 

the capital's few taxis, most vehicles on the streets were army jeeps, French 

armored vehicles, and Land Cruisers belonging to foreign relief 

organizations. Getting a job with one of them, becoming a military officer, 

or being a friend or collaborator of President Habyarimana or the Little 

House were the main paths of advancement.

Photos of Habyarimana, by law, had been posted everywhere, even in the 

relief organizations. But when I arrived last summer, many portraits had 

been taken down. Rwanda's political space was finally opening to Hutu 

opposition parties, and the Tutsi guerrillas were respecting the 

cease-fire. Yet Hutu opposition leaders were also being assassinated. While French 

and Rwandan officials alike blamed the RPF for these political killings, 

and other diplomats and surviving Hutu opposition leaders suspected the 

Little House.

"Shadow groups are behind the violence," said Dr. Dismas Nsengiyaremye, one 

of several opposition party leaders. "Take the example of the mafia. Their 

chief may recruit from churches, the government, or private companies which 

allow him to conduct criminal activities without being seen. Here, the 

shadow groups are able to build connections to carry out criminal 

activities with impunity."

Last June. Charles Nzabagerageza, a government minister who admitted to 

being a member of the Little House, denied any government responsibility 

for the Escadrons de la Mort (death squads), as they became known: "[The 

accusations are] the result of whimsical minds, fabricated by a newspaper, 

and inspired by certain political groups for purposes which are political."

My month-long visit to Rwanda left me with images that recur in dreams. On 

a Sunday visit to a military hospital, for example, I saw two soldiers who 

had been wounded the week before. One suffered an open femur fracture and 

gangrene. The other's blood was soaking through old gauze wrapped around 

his stomach. I asked a recovering one-legged soldier, "Why aren't these men 

being treated?"

"Oh." he said. "The doctors don't work weekends."

On another day, Colonel Deogratias Nsabimana, who died with President 

Habyarimana in the April 6 plane crash, waved a stack of letters from 

Amnesty International activists at me. He wanted to know why he kept 

getting all these letters, worrying about prisoners of conscience in 

Rwanda's jails. Despite his bewilderment, Colonel Nsabimana struck me as a 

serious military professional. There were some moderate officers in the 

Rwandan army. Regardless, soldiers under them have long been notorious for 

their banditry. An American relief organization director told me that he 

was uncomfortable placing Western staff women near bases. Consisting of 

5000 soldiers in 1990, before France financed its expansion, the Rwandan 

army had grown to more than 30,000 men. While weakly trained, some troops 

were armed with Egyptian-made Kalashnikov AKM automatic rifles and superior 

South African R-4 automatic rifles.

Over the same period, the RPF grew from 7000 to perhaps 15,000 guerrillas. 

Many carry Romanian Kalashnikovs and wear East German 

rain-pattern-camouflage uniforms. While many weapons were bought on the 

open market, Uganda donated to the RPF most of its other arms, including 

Soviet-made Katyusha multiple rocket launchers; landing in succession about 

10 yards apart in fewer than five seconds per volley, their rockets spread 

shrapnel over an area wider and longer than a football field.

At their base camp near Mulindi in northern Rwanda during last year's 

cease-fire, I saw RPF guerrillas marching shirtless and singing Tutsi folk 

and war songs. They appeared to be a well-trained and highly motivated 

resistance movement. Some of their fighters and most of their leaders spoke 

English. Most came from refugee families who had fled Rwanda before its 

independence in 1962, when an earlier wave of Hutu attacks had killed 

20,000 Tutsi and driven at least 150,000 to neighboring countries. Today, 

about 200,000 of them and their descendants live in Uganda. They have 

competed -- sometimes violently -- with its citizens, and suffered under 

both dictators Idi Amin and A. Milton Obote.

But in 1986, a guerrilla army led by a defected defense minister named 

Yoweri Museveni overthrew Uganda's govemment. About 2000 Rwandan Tutsi, 

including Paul Kagame, fought with him. Museveni later put Kagame in charge 

of Ugandan military intelligence. In October 1990, more than half of the 

RPF's invasion force, most of its weapons, and nearly all its leaders came 

directly out of the Ugandan army. President Museveni claims -- still -- 

that the deserters "stole" all the weapons they took with them. Kagame is 

currently the RPF top commander. At the RPF in Mulindi, Toni (his nom de 

guerre), an educated 30-year-old man with high cheekbones and a very soft 

manner of speaking, was the intelligence officer appointed to debrief me. 

Although soldiers served and saluted him, he claimed to be just another 

faithful recruit: "[What we] want is not necessarily to go back to 

[Rwanda], but to have a sense of national identity, to have citizenship, 

and the protection of the Rwandan flag." That may be true for Toni. But 

many RPF guerrillas told me that they and their families want immediate 

repatriation.

The renewal of Rwanda's conflict came when the prospect for peace never 

seemed better: President Habyarimana had signed a peace accord with RPF 

leaders, and he had agreed to divide cabinet posts equally among them, the 

Hutu opposition, and the Little House. The Little House had never before 

shared power. Its members had created the Presidential Guard and ruling 

party militias.

Shortly after President Habyarimana was killed in his plane as it 

approached Kigali airport April 6, Little House officials declared 

themselves in charge. While some of them have said that Tutsi RPF 

guerrillas shot down the president's plane, the RTLM radio station the 

Little House controls, said Belgian peacekeepers fired a rocket that 

brought the plane down. The assassination provoked a popular uprising, the 

Little House maintains.

Belgium's foreign minister, William Claes, however, said Hutu extremists 

assassinated the president in a palace coup. Belgian troops reported seeing a 

rocket fired from the direction of the Kanombe army base just east of the 

airport; further east are the headquarters of the Presidential Guard. Within 

minutes of the crash, armed militia loyal to the Little House set up 

roadblocks in Kigali. Hours later, officials from Belgium and elsewhere 

said, Presidential Guard units killed three opposition party cabinet 

members, including then interim prime minister Agathe Uwilingiyimana. She 

was murdered with 10 Belgian peacekeepers who had tried to save her.

For months, RTLM announcers had been inciting Hutu militiamen against 

Tutsi: "The grave is only half-full. Who is going to fill it up?" Since the 

president's assassination, RTLM has been "calling on militias to step up 

the killing of civilians," according to UN spokesman Abdul Kabia in Kigali. 

Three weeks after the killings began, RTLM radio announced that Thursday, 

May 5 (when President Habyarimana was scheduled to be buried), would be the 

target date to finish "the clean-up" of Tutsi.

"When it comes to horror, this is one of the worst situations we have ever 

seen," said Tony Burgener, spokesman for the Intemational Committee of the 

Red Cross in Geneva. (For diplomatic reasons, ICRC officials rarely comment 

on the record.) When the slaughter of the Hutu opposition and Tutsi 

families began, the main body of Rwandan army forces did not necessarily 

join in. Broadcast from Kigali, the army's radio said that "angry soldiers" 

had engaged in "shameful criminal acts." But expecting an RPF offensive, 

commanding officers failed to stop anyone from killing anybody.

When the bloodletting began, an RPF force of about 600 men was camped out 

in Kigali. The main body force of RPF fighters was still in and around 

Mulindi, 32 miles north. They began marching south. Destroying army 

positions along the way, they reached Kigali within five days. That day, 

April 11, French officials said they had no plans to leave. But the next 

day after the RPF began attacking Kigali, the French left.

Departing, French Legionnaire advisers predicted the government's fall, as 

did American intelligence experts. But while Tutsi RPF guerrillas secured 

the north central corridor from Uganda to Kigali, Hutu militiamen and their 

mobs' spread south, west, and east, killing more Tutsi families. Rather 

than then seizing control of a Kigali stacked with corpses, the RPF 

declared a cease-fire, albeit short-lived since it was contingent on the 

government stopping the killings. But in doing so, RPF commander Kagame 

wanted to show the world that his force was disciplined and obedient. Since 

then, some RPF guerrillas have fought the army, while the rest have pursued 

the militias.

The RPF now controls at least half the country, and the fighting is fiercer 

than ever, especially in and around Kigali.

Although I lived in Kigali for a month last year, I find it difficult to 

imagine the current violence. But I still can clearly picture certain 

people. One is journalist Sixbert Musangamfura, the editor of Isibo, a 

weekly newspaper. During an RPF offensive last year the Rwandan army 

confiscated a Mercedes-Benz truck with Ugandan license plates. Uganda 

denied, and still denies, supporting the RPF. Although a Tutsi, like the 

RPF rebels, Sixbert confirmed the Rwandan army's account: By doing so, he 

helped France and Rwanda find a smoking gun, confirming their claim that 

Uganda supported the RPF. Nonetheless, after April 6, French-backed Hutu 

forces killed Sixbert, probably for being Tutsi. Among the dozen Rwandans 

whose cards are in my Rolodex, only two are known to be alive.

http://www.orwelltoday.com/rwandafrenchconnect.shtml

 

*Footnote 8: THE COLONIAL PACT*

This footnote is taken from a site called *This Is Africa* by Harvey Johnson, 

where the article ‘How France lives off Africa with the Colonial Pact’ 

appears. He states that his information is based on a February issue of the 

New African (and from an interview given by Professor Mamadou Koulibaly, 

Speaker of the Ivorian National Assembly, Professor of Economics, and 

author of the book The Servitude of the Colonial Pact). 

The Colonial Pact reads as follows:

 

It is the Colonial Pact that set up the common currency for the Francophone 

countries, the C.F.A franc, which demands that each of the 14 C.F.A member 

countries must deposit 65% (plus another 20% for financial liabilities, 

making the dizzying total of 85%) of their foreign exchange reserves in an 

“Operations Account” at the French Treasury in Paris.

The African nations therefore have only access to 15% of their own money 

for national development in any given year. If they are in need of extra 

money, as they always are, they have to borrow from their own 65% in the 

French Treasury at commercial rates. And that is not all: there is a cap on 

the credit extended to each member country equivalent to 20 % of their 

public revenue in the preceding year. So if the countries need to borrow 

more than 20%, too bad; they cannot do it. Amazingly, the final say on the 

C.F.A arrangements belongs to the French Treasury, which invests the 

African countries’ money in its own name on the Paris Bourse (the stock 

exchange).

It is also the Colonial Pact that demands that France has the first right 

to buy or reject any natural resources found in the land of the Francophone 

countries. So even if the African countries could get better prices 

elsewhere, they cannot sell to anybody until France says it does not want 

to buy those natural resources.

It is, again, the Colonial Pact that demands that in the award of 

government contracts in the African countries, French companies should be 

considered first; only after that can Africans look elsewhere. It doesn’t 

matter if Africans can obtain better value for money elsewhere, French 

companies come first, and most often get the contracts. Currently, there is 

the awkward case in Abidjan where, before the elections, former president 

Gbagbo’s government wanted to build a third major bridge to link the 

central business district (called Plateau) to the rest of the city, from 

which it is separated by a lagoon. By Colonial Pact tradition, the contract 

must go to a French company, which incidentally has quoted an astronomical 

price – to be paid in euros or US dollars.

Not happy, Gbagbo’s government sought a second quote from the Chinese, who 

offered to build the bridge at half the price quoted by the French company, 

and – wait for this – payment would be in cocoa beans, of which Cote 

d’Ivoire is the world’s largest producer. But, unsurprisingly, the French 

said “non, you can’t do that”.

Overall the Colonial Pact gives the French a dominant and privileged 

position over Francophone Africa, but in Côte d'Ivoire, the jewel of the 

former French possessions in Africa, the French are overly dominant. 

Outside parliament, almost all the major utilities - water, electricity, 

telephone, transport, ports and major banks - are run by French companies 

or French interests. The same story is found in commerce, construction, and 

agriculture.

In short, the Colonial Pact has created a legal mechanism under which 

France obtains a special place in the political and economic life of its 

former colonies.

THE BIG QUESTIONS

In what meaningful way can any of the 14 CFA countries be said to be 

independent?

If this isn't illegal and an international crime, then what is?

What is it going to take for this state of indentured servitude to end?

How much have the CFA countries lost as a result of this 50-year (and 

counting) "agreement"? (Remember, they've had to borrow their own money 

from the French at commercial rates)

Do French people know they're living off the wealth of African countries 

and have been doing so for over half a century? And if they know, do they 

give a damn?

When will France start paying back money they've sucked from these 

countries, not only directly from the interest on cash reserves and loans 

these countries have had to take out, but also on lost earnings from the 

natural resources the countries sold to France below market rates as well 

as the lost earnings resulting from awarding contracts to French companies 

when other contractors could have done things for less?

Does any such "agreement" exist between Britain and its former colonies, or 

did they really let go when they let go?