Latest News Archive

Please select Category, Year, and then Month to display items

Africa Month: Continental integration would be an effective means of accelerating economic growth

13 May 2021 | Story Dr Bright Nkrumah | Photo Supplied

DrBrightNkrumah_web read more — Dr Bright Nkrumah, Free State Centre for Human Rights, University of the Free State (UFS)

The year 2021 marks the 58th anniversary of the establishment of the Organisation of African Union (OAU) on 25 May 1963. The month of May is therefore celebrated annually as Africa Month. This piece, in essence, is a craving to respond to an often-articulated question: is Africa Month a moment of celebration or introspection? The former would have been preferred had the various freedoms offered by the organisation been more realistic and dealt with the concrete challenges bedevilling the continent’s population.

At the onset, it ought to be acknowledged that the organisation was not forged with the intent of improving the living conditions of its population but to safeguard the recently won independence and sovereignty of its member states. Against this backdrop, the notion of non-interference in the domestic affairs (Uti Possidetis Juris) of states became its guiding principle, thereby fostering a culture of silence on abuses perpetuate by African rulers against their citizens. Having said that there were notable illustrations of leaders such as Julius Nyerere, Kenneth Kaunda, and Samora Machel, who individually and collectively ‘invoked the notion of humanitarian intervention’ and waged crusades to relieve Ugandans from the jaws of Idi Amin.

Indeed, one of the significant achievements of the OAU during this era was the adoption of the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights (Charter) in 1981. The instrument may be seen as a trumpeting of freedom, as it considers the rights and wellbeing of Africans sacrosanct and uncompromising. It is important and perhaps enthralling that all African states are parties to the Charter. While the large-scale ratification could enhance its moral force, it could also be used as a red herring to cover up various atrocities in hostile countries.

Where are we?

In 2002, African rulers meeting in Durban, South Africa, adopted the Constitutive Act, transforming the OAU into the African Union (AU). The new Act perhaps seems to be breathing fresh air into Africa’s rights struggle. In stark contrast to its forerunner, the Constitutive Act authorises the AU to intervene in a situation where citizens are threatened by grave danger perpetrated by their governments or external forces. Remarkably, article 3(k) calls for raising the ‘living standards of African people’. Going by these aspirations, one might speculate that Africans are in for a cheery and jolly ride.

Remarkably, while the Act addresses several aspects of the continent’s socioeconomic issues its operationalisation remains the captive of competing for national interests of AU states. Four key setbacks merit consideration here.

Instability: The landscape of Africa is punctuated by rulers’ embezzlement of public funds, ethnic privilege, and siphoning resources to one’s home village to the detriment of others. This bias tends to incite discontent and hostilities, even as one of the popular rhetoric of the infamous Boko Haram is to addressing Nigeria’s North-South resource disparity. By the same reckoning, hundreds of women and children have been displaced or killed from avoidable hostilities in geographical enclaves such as Cameroon, DR Congo, Mozambique, and Sudan.

Injustice: State security agencies and specifically the police force have evolved to be intimidators rather than the protective machinery they ought to be. More disturbingly, access to justice seems to be a pipe dream, as legal fees and prolonged trials make it burdensome for victims to seek remedies. As a common practice, many judicial systems across Anglophone, Francophone, and Lusophone countries are still modelled on ancient colonial systems, with lawyers and judges using convoluted legal jargon which frustrates rather than assists victims of abuse.

Poverty: 40% of the continent’s population lives in extreme poverty or on <$1 (approx. R14) per day. Indeed, this figure is sobering. A reader might agree that the New Partnership for Africa’s Development (Nepad) may be seen as the primary document for reversing this trend. The document has, however, been criticised as given superficial treatment to the basic entitlement of vulnerable groups, and without feasible strategies on issues of underdevelopment. It speaks to enhancing greater access to services, but segregates this aspiration from how the impoverished could access these essentials. Without a commitment to enforceable socioeconomic goods, such as health care, education, food, social security, the document may be seen as placing a stamp on the skewed access to resources already pervasive in local communities.

Covid-19: The onset of the pandemic calls for total marshalling of the continent’s fiscal and human resources. Sadly, the virus has claimed the lives of eminent cadres, teachers, and trade unionists who could have played a key role in this regard. South Africa alone has recorded more than 54,620 deaths, leaving behind hundreds of orphans. Still, the ramifications are likely to be more significant, altering the structures of society and putting a strain on the financial resources of weak states.

What ought to be done?

One golden thread running through these challenges is the weakness of the AU to forge effective institutions to restrain the excesses of states, monitor the government’s compliance with human rights obligations, and accountability. If the organisation seeks to improve human rights in Africa, it ought to revive debates towards Pan-Africanism and regional integration. At present, artificial borders erected by colonisers have created states which are simply not viable economic and political units. To this end, continental integration is the effective means of accelerating economic growth, uplifting the least developed countries, and domestically-based transformative development.

Opinion article by Dr Bright Nkrumah, Free State Centre for Human Rights, Faculty of Law, University of the Free State.

News Archive

Statement on protest at the UFS

2005-03-04

Following a protest by student and non-student organisations today, the management of the University of the Free State (UFS) would like to place the following facts on record:

1. There is a well-documented process underway to further transform the UFS. At the official opening of the UFS on 4 February 2005 , the Rector and Vice-chancellor, Prof Frederick Fourie, announced that the UFS would draft a comprehensive Transformation Plan to guide the next phase of transformation at the institution.

The UFS appeals to student formations, staff associations, trade unions and other role-players to make a constructive input into this Transformation Plan.

The UFS management has been - and always will be - willing to engage with role-players and is prepared to do so even after today’s protest.

2. There is thus no regulation or policy prescription which separates students in hostels according to race.

The reality is that students exercise their freedom of choice as to which hostel they wish to be placed in. This was agreed upon by black and white students in 1997/8.

However, the unintended consequence and practice of this hostel placement policy has been that students themselves have tended to choose to stay in hostels which have over time become black hostels and white hostels.

This is a matter of concern for the management of the UFS as such a situation does not promote interaction across language, cultural and socio-economic groupings of students.

This matter is receiving attention and an intensive consultative process, which will include students, will be launched to review this policy.

The management is convinced that such interaction will enhance the learning experience of all students and sensitise them to the reality of a multicultural South Africa and a multicultural world.

3. No student organisation has been banned from operating at any of the three campuses of the UFS.

In the past few weeks, SASCO, the Young Communist League and the ANC Youth League (ANCYL) have held meetings on all three campuses, namely the Qwaqwa campus, the Vista campus and the main campus.

There are also regular interactions between top management and the leadership of SASCO and the ANCYL on campus.

In fact, the UFS upholds the right of students and staff to associate freely and to organise themselves as they see fit.

The UFS also upholds the rights of staff and students to engage in legal and peaceful protests.

The management however remains committed to discussing issues that affect staff and students in a constructive manner and appeals to student organisations in this case to engage with management.

4. The issues of registration, fees, debt and financial aid are continually monitored, and interventions to assist students are made regularly. To assist as far as possible those academically deserving students who face financial difficulties, the UFS management has put in place a structure called the Monitoring committee that includes management and student representatives.

The purpose of the Monitoring Committee is to review the cases of individual students to determine how best they can be assisted.

This applies to the Qwaqwa campus, the Vista campus and the main campus.

It is generally the case that students who perform academically will not have any difficulty in obtaining financial assistance. However, according to the requirements of National Student Financial Scheme, students who perform poorly will have difficulty in obtaining such assistance.

5. With regard to student governance, the process to institute an inclusive Central Student Representative Council (SRC), on which all three campuses will be equitably represented, was launched in July 2004, and a preliminary constitution has just been drafted. At the same time an inclusive process to review certain elements of the constitution of the main campus SRC was initiated at the end of 2004. This process, which includes all relevant student organisations and structures, is planned to produce an outcome within the next couple of months.

6. There is no policy at the UFS that is based on racism or that discriminates on the basis of the race of students and staff.

As part of the building of a new institutional culture within the broader transformation process, the UFS management is determined to eradicate all elements of racism that may occur on its campuses, and has already instituted inclusive forums on campus to discuss the issue of values and principles for a non-racial university.

Issued by: Mr Anton Fisher
Director: Strategic Communication
Cell: 072 207 8334
Tel: (051) 401-2749
4 March 2005

Back

Economic and Management Sciences

Education

Health Sciences

The Humanities

Law

Natural and Agricultural Sciences

Theology and Religion

Open Distance Learning

Business School

We use cookies to make interactions with our websites and services easy and meaningful. To better understand how they are used, read more about the UFS cookie policy. By continuing to use this site you are giving us your consent to do this.

Accept