South Africa Faces Scrutiny as It Takes Israel to International Court Over Genocide Allegations.
By A Correspondent | ZimEye | In a stark illustration of international legal and political complexities, South African President Cyril Ramaphosa’s recent statements contrast sharply with his government’s actions on the world stage. As South Africa gears up to confront the Israeli government in the International Court of Justice, Ramaphosa’s own rhetoric concerning similar situations, particularly in Zimbabwe, is marked by a conspicuous dissonance.
Ramaphosa has been part of a global narrative that glosses over the harsh realities in Zimbabwe, repeatedly stating that “the elections went well… the only thing that is left is to remove sanctions.” This narrative starkly conflicts with the proven genocide in Zimbabwe, publicly boasted by its perpetrator, Emmerson Mnangagwa. Mnangagwa’s open admissions and declarations about his oppressive actions, including deploying the army against election winners and his chilling remarks equating democracy with death, stand as testament to the severity of these human rights violations.
Mnangagwa’s disturbing statements, such as commanding the army to surround and beat down residents of Kuwadzana for allegedly stopping the rain, and his assertion that “dying is democracy” because the dead constitute the majority, provide a clear and explicit acknowledgment of his role in these atrocities. His rhetoric, which attempts to intertwine political governance with fatalistic and undemocratic principles, highlights a brutal regime that has systematically violated human rights.
The contrast between South Africa’s legal challenge to Israel and Ramaphosa’s active war-crime role in Zimbabwe under Mnangagwa, who has openly admitted to genocidal acts, raises significant questions about the consistency and credibility of South Africa’s standpoint understanding of international law. This dichotomy puts the spotlight on the South African leadership’s integrity and impartiality in addressing and acknowledging gross human rights violations, both within its region and globally. As the international community observes South Africa’s legal maneuvers, the integrity of its leadership in championing human rights is being scrutinized and challenged.
This is a significant escalation of international legal drama, in which the South African government is preparing to take Israel to the International Court of Justice (ICJ) over allegations of genocide, even as it faces its own legal scrutiny over past actions. This move comes at a critical time when Pretoria has been found guilty by the South African Supreme Court of genocide crimes against Zimbabweans led by Nelson Chamisa, raising questions about the government’s consistency in addressing human rights violations.
Adding complexity to South Africa’s position is a separate but related case where the government was found guilty of violating genocide laws and failing in accountability reporting over war crimes related to Zimbabwe’s 2002 elections. The Supreme Court of Appeal ordered President Zuma to disclose a previously withheld report by Justices Khampepe and Moseneke on the rigging of Zimbabwe’s presidential election. This report, requested by former President Mbeki and initially suppressed, had been sought by The Mail & Guardian under the Promotion of Access to Information Act (PAIA). After a prolonged legal battle, the Supreme Court’s decision to make the report public was a blow to the government’s transparency record.
The forthcoming legal confrontation with Israel over its military actions in Gaza will test South Africa’s standing in the international community. Israel’s potential challenge to South Africa’s legitimacy in bringing forth the allegations is rooted in Pretoria’s historical violations of domestic and international laws concerning war crimes and genocide. This includes its controversial support for the violent overthrow of elected governments in neighboring Zimbabwe, often spearheaded by Emmerson Mnangagwa.
The South African government’s involvement in publishing falsehoods about Zimbabwe’s war-crime-ridden elections and declaring Mnangagwa the winner despite evidence of electoral violence further complicates its role as a proponent of justice in the Israel case. The South African Supreme Court’s rulings implicate the government in supporting genocide, thereby potentially undermining its moral authority in the ICJ case against Israel.
The case against Israel, focused on preventing acts of potential genocide in Gaza, has gained urgency and international support. However, South Africa’s contentious legal history, including the suppression of the Khampepe and Moseneke report and the Supreme Court’s criticism of President Zuma’s handling of the case, might affect its credibility in the international legal arena. The Supreme Court of Appeal’s description of the President’s Office conduct as “bordering on the cynical” and an “abuse of process” casts a shadow on the government’s commitment to transparency and justice.
As the international community awaits the proceedings at The Hague, the situation underscores the complex interplay of international law, domestic legal challenges, and diplomacy in addressing serious human rights violations. The outcome of this legal battle could have far-reaching implications for international law and the prosecution of genocide, as well as South Africa’s role in the global human rights landscape.- ZimEye