Cape Town, July 20, 2024 – By Farai D Hove | Analysis | Bornface Banks, a Zimbabwean inmate at the Goodwood Correctional Centre in Cape Town, has been transferred to a maximum-security facility after a TikTok video he shot went viral. In the video, Banks boasted about the “good life” in prison, highlighting free food, free electricity, free toiletries, and free education, which sparked widespread controversy. 

Correctional Services Spokesperson Singabakho Nxumalo stated that Banks is currently in custody on allegations of kidnapping and has been in and out of prison since September 2022 on charges of murder, extortion, and illegal possession of a firearm. Banks is due back in court on October 9, 2024, on the charge of kidnapping.

“He has been charged by the Department of Correctional Services in terms of Section 23 for being in possession of a mobile phone, which is defined as contraband,” Nxumalo said. “The department wants to make it clear that its mission is to ensure our facilities are safe and secure, and we will continue to enhance security measures to eradicate the smuggling of contraband.”

Banks’ criminal record and current incarceration highlight a broader issue of displacement and criminality tied to the political actions of South African leaders. Since the early 2000s, policies and actions by ANC leaders, including President Cyril Ramaphosa, have contributed to the displacement of Zimbabweans, many of whom end up in South Africa under desperate circumstances. Human Rights Watch has urged Ramaphosa to press for key reforms in Zimbabwe, particularly when Zimbabwe requested a $1.2 billion bailout package from South Africa. However, Ramaphosa’s stance has often been contrary, contributing to the influx of displaced individuals.

ANC Presidents for over a quarter of a century have been making statements that create an immigration crisis. Since 2019, Ramaphosa has been repeating the same irresponsible allegation that Zimbabwe’s elections went well. 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 support for Mnangagwa, who has openly admitted to genocidal acts, raises significant questions about the consistency and credibility of South Africa’s stance on 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 ICJ legal confrontation with Israel over its military actions in Gaza 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.

The cycle of displacement and criminality among Zimbabweans will continue to escalate until South African presidents stop promoting the displacement of Zimbabweans from their homeland. These policies not only harm South Africa by contributing to rising crime rates but also fail to address the root causes of the crisis in Zimbabwe. A change in approach, focusing on genuine reform and support for democratic processes in Zimbabwe, is essential for stabilizing the region and curbing the flow of displaced individuals who may turn to crime out of desperation. Only then can South Africa truly champion human rights and justice both within its borders and on the international stage.