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

UFS policies want to help all students

2005-03-09

The death of Hannes van Rensburg, a first-year student from the JBM Hertzog residence, this past weekend, placed various aspects of student life in the spotlight. Dr Natie Luyt, Dean: Student Affairs at the University of the Free State (UFS), and the Student Representative Council (SRC) of the UFS explain which policies are in place to counter these practices.

At all tertiary institutions there are rules and policies to guide students and provide direction for certain behaviour and practices. The same applies to the University of the Free State (UFS).

“At the beginning of the year the UFS provides every residence committee with a manual to establish a framework for meaningful and orderly relations within and among residences on the campus,” said Dr Natie Luyt.

However, it is one thing to set rules, but it is an impossible task to enforce all aspects thereof. Policies currently in place include an alcohol policy, a policy on the induction of first years and a policy on banned practices in residence orientation.

“The alcohol policy was compiled in cooperation with students and their input was constantly asked,” said Dr Luyt. We also liaise on a continuous basis with residences and senior students to encourage the responsible use of alcohol, especially around activities like intervarsities and Rag.

In the policy, recognition is given to the right and voluntary and informed choice of every individual to use alcohol on the UFS campus in a responsible way.

Guidelines for the use of alcohol on campus include among others the following:

Only authorised points of sale will be permitted on campus. In this case it is the various league halls in most of the male residences on campus.

Alcohol will only be made available during fixed times and is not permitted in residence rooms.

All alcohol-related functions are regulated and an application for a temporary alcohol license must be obtained from the Dean: Student Affairs.

The UFS obtained a liquor license in March 2004 which must be administered by senior leagues in various residences on campus. Normal liquor license conditions and the county’s liquor laws apply. Liquor can only be sold to members of the senior league (or special guests) and also to persons over the age of 18 years. Liquor may not be used in public (outside the senior league) or on campus.

The senior leagues may only be open three nights per week and within prescribed times. No liquor could be used in any other place than the senior league halls. Senior leagues could buy liquor from club monies generated by themselves.

The right of senior leagues to serve liquor was suspended by the Rector and Vice-Chancellor the UFS, Prof Frederick Fourie, on Monday 7 March 2005 – pending an investigation of the recent events on campus.

The policy on banned practices include among others that no swearing and shouting at first-years may take place, no first-year student may be targeted individually, no senior may enter the room of a first-year student without an invitation or permission from that first-year student and no senior under the influence of alcohol may have contact with first-year students.

The induction of first-year students takes place by means of three functions, namely an information function (the introduction to the various facets and possibilities of the university system), an induction function (the first-year student becomes involved in various campus and residence activities) and a development function (the first-year student is motivated to take charge of his development potential).

No first-year induction activity may commence before the residence committee’s contracting with the senior students is not completed. This meeting is attended by the residence head and all senior students. The induction policy, residence induction policy of first-year students and first-year rules are discussed.

The senior students sign an attendance list to show that he/she was informed about the policies. A senior who does not sign, may not be involved with any induction session with first-year students.

No physical contact is allowed during the conclusion of the first-year students’ official induction period. The induction of first-year students as full members of the residence is a prestige event, presented by the residence committee. No physical or degrading activities may take place.

The Dean: Student Affairs also has a daily meeting with the primarii of all the residences during the induction period. This helps to monitor the situation and counter any problem behaviour or tendencies.

“Enforced behaviour – where a senior student forces a first-year student to do something against his/her own free wil – is not allowed. Where there is any sign of this, it is met wortel en tak uitgeroei,” said Dr Luyt.

“In any group of people – whether it is a group of students or people at a workplace – there will always be those who will break the rules or those who would like to see how far they could push it.

The SRC, the UFS management and myself are and will stay committed to make each student’s life on this campus a school of learning and an experience which would be remembered for ever,” said Dr Luyt.

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