Latest News Archive

Please select Category, Year, and then Month to display items
Previous Archive
13 May 2021 | Story Dr Bright Nkrumah | Photo Supplied
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

UV belê in gehalte met strategiese fokusgroepe - Volksblad
2006-02-09

Verslaggewer
DIE Universiteit van die Vrystaat (UV) gaan vanjaar R10 miljoen beskikbaar stel om sekere van sy akademiese en navorsingsaktiwiteite in strategiese fokusgroepe te bedryf.

 

Volgens prof. Frederick Fourie, rektor en visekanselier van die UV, is hierdie ’n belegging in gehalte wat sal help om die UV nasionaal en internasionaal van ander universiteite in die wêreld te onderskei.

Tydens die amptelike opening van die UV verlede week het Fourie beklemtoon dat die strategiese fokusgroepe veel meer behels as net ’n herorganisering van gevestigde navorsingsgebiede.

“Sulke fokusgroepe behels ’n gefokusde deskundigheidsgebied en nie slegs navorsing nie, maar ook sterk voorgraadse en veral nagraadse onderrig en ’n potensieel sterk wetenskaplike grondslag vir samelewingsdiens.

“Strategiese fokusgroepe sal georganiseer word op die grondslag dat hierdie kennisgebiede op kort termyn die vlagskepe van die UV kan word. Dit beteken dat hierdie die gebiede is waarin die UV nou of in die toekoms waarskynlik ’n kompeterende voorsprong sal hê.”
Hy het gesê dit is belangrik dat die UV hom in die volgende fase van sy ontwikkeling posisioneer, nie net as ’n goeie onderrig- en navorsingsuniversiteit nie, maar ook as ’n universiteit wat in strategies belangrike kennisgebiede uitblink. Dit is noodsaaklik om energie en hulpbronne so te rig.

Nie alle akademiese en navorsingsaktiwiteite gaan egter hierdeur geraak word nie. ’n Breë ondersteuningsgrondslag is die afgelope paar jaar geskep vir uitnemende navorsing deur alle akademiese personeellede in hul eie navorsingsgebiede. Dié inisiatief sal naas die nuwe fokusgroepinisiatief steeds voortgaan.

Fourie sê die strategiese fokusgroepbenadering sal in lyn wees met die benadering wat ontwerp word deur die Nasionale Navorsingsraad (NNR) om nasionale prioriteite in berekening te bring. Breedweg is die vyf strategiese gebiede vir die UV voorlopig die volgende:
1. Voedselproduksie, voedselgehalte en voedselsekuriteit vir Afrika.
2. Ontwikkeling en streeksontwikkeling binne die Afrika-konteks.
3. Maatskaplike transformasie binne die Suider-Afrikaanse en Afrika-konteks.
4. Waterhulpbron- en ekostelselbestuur.
5. Tegnologie vir die toekoms. (’n Aparte fokusgroep rakende die chemiese nywerheid kan dalk bepaal word).

“Binne elk van hierdie gebiede kan ’n aantal nisgebiede geïdentifiseer word. Die fokusgebiede dek sowel die geestes- as die natuurwetenskappe, maar uiteraard kan en moet dit nie alles vir almal probeer wees nie,” sê Fourie.

Die presiese formulering en inhoud van die fokus- en nisgebiede sal nog bepaal word tydens gesprekke op die kampus. Dit sal met die hulp van kundiges buite die UV geskied.
Hy sê dit het sin dat ’n mediumgrootte universiteit soos die UV sy menslike hulpbronne, infrastruktuur, finansiële hulpbronne en intellektuele kundigheid sal konsentreer om te verseker dat ’n bydrae gelewer word tot Bloemfontein, die Vrystaat, die land en die Afrika-vasteland.

Hy sê van die uitvloeisels kan ’n belangrike impak op nywerheidsontwikkeling hê, byvoorbeeld in die chemiese bedryf, en dit mag ook ’n grondslag skep vir samewerking met provinsiale, nasionale en internasionale vennote.

Behalwe die R10 miljoen vir die vestiging van die fokusgroepe is daar die afgelope paar jaar groot bedrae beskikbaar gestel vir talle projekte om gehalte in onderrig en leer, in navorsing en ander gebiede te verbeter.

Berig verskyn in Volksblad - Dinsdag, 7 Februarie 2006

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