Opinion: Mugabe’s failing reputation has now even gotten stained by Botswana!

There are often many signs when someone has been in power for too long, their age and their will to serve. That is why the Mugabe family are riding new Rolls Royce’s down the streets of Harare, while the citizens are struggling to afford gasoline and possible hyper-inflation again. So, the Zimbabwean

President, the Head of State have the audacity to insult Botswana. Even if his own state is in tatters and self-indulgent of his cronies and ZANU-PF. A man like that should more careful with his words, but his use of power and His Excellence are used to be chauffeured and have enough “yes men” filling brigades. Therefore, they will not stop him or disagree with him.

That’s why these sort of acts and words comes from his mouth. President Mugabe wants to act like the wise, but comes off as the ignorant. Blaming Botswana for not sticking-up for itself. Would he have respected if someone said the same about himself, which was a fellow Statesmen? I doubt it, he would say other foreign forces had allied against him and wanted to invade his precious Republic. Because, then Mugabe become defensive.

Now, lets look at the quotes from recent events!

Mugabe publicly spatting about Botswana candidate:

“Speaking at a meeting with his South African counterpart, Jacob Zuma, Mugabe said everyone in the region had tried to support Venson-Moitoi, except Khama. “We worked hard, they worked hard, sweated. They sweated, you sweated, we sweated, but one man did not sweat. He sat at home and expected miracles to happen, but that did not happen. Everybody just said you (Venson-Moitoi), we have not seen your President here, he does not attend meetings. What will happen if we placed the organization (AU) in his hands. She had worked hard and we were sorry that she lost. But we knew in advance that we were trying the impossible one,” Mugabe said, drawing laughter from both the Zimbabwe and South African delegation attending a binational commission, aimed at strengthening trade relations between the two neighbors” (Mhaladi, 2017).

Botswana retort to Mugabe:

“The Ministry of International Affairs and Cooperation wishes to respond to the recent media reports in which His Excellency, Mr. Robert G. Mugabe, President of the Republic of Zimbabwe blamed the loss of the candidature bid of Botswana’s Foreign Minister, Dr. Pelonomi Venson-Moitoi for the position of the Chairperson of the African Union Commission, on the lack of support by His Excellency, Lieutenant General Dr. Seretse Khama Ian Khama, President of the Republic of Botswana. In this connection, the Government of Botswana has taken note of the comments and regrets these inaccurate and unfortunate remarks. However, the Ministry chooses not to comment any further out of respect for President Mugabe’s advanced age and as such, understands that allowances need to be made” (The Observer, 2017).

That President Mugabe has some age, that is true the President is now currently 93 years old and has been running the government since 1980. It’s high time for changes in Zimbabwe since the government is rotting on its roots. Therefore, political activists are detained on phony charges and no-sense policies are put on the people. The economy is fragile and weak, the reputation of the Bond-Notes is as low as it should be, considering it came with beautiful idea, let’s borrow money to print money. Could think they key economic adviser came from bankrupt banks and maybe it did!

So President Mugabe should be more careful, its been years since his last success, unless seeing his wife fleeing from the law in South Africa on possible assault with battery charges on a South African model. The rampant injustice of the system and total control that put the whole state into abysmal performance because of constant oversight. Clearly, the Mugabe regime and ZANU-PF has not thought of letting it go, even if it means making the situation worse, than it already is.

So that he critique the Botswana government for their African Union position and blamed them for the way it went. Shows the lack of tact the man has now. Instead of concealing defeat and discussing it with the Botswanian counterparts, he bluntly speaks ill of them with South African President Zuma. So use others misfortune to bond with important neighbor. That just how Mugabe, the supposed elder Statesman is acting and not supposed to be.

That President Khama should take is offense is natural, but Mugabe can offend anyone because of his age and get away it. Still, he deserves to be rebuked for his words. If he continues he will has less friends on the continent. Not that the Zimbabwean Republic is strong friend for them in need either. Not at this point. Peace.

Reference:

Mhaladi, Bakang – ‘Botswana mum after Mugabe jibe on Khama’ (03.10.2017) link: https://southernafrican.news/2017/10/03/botswana-mum-after-mugabe-jibe-on-khama/

The Observer – ‘“Mugabe’s comments are inaccurate and unfortunate”: Botswana responds to Mugabe’s attack on Ian Khama’ (05.10.2017) link: http://theobserver.co.zw/mugabes-comments-are-inaccurate-and-unfortunate-botswana-responds-to-mugabes-attack-on-ian-khama/

Grace “Gucci Gucci” Mugabe [above the law] got her ‘Diplomatic Immunity’ today after her violent acts against several models at Sandton Hotel!

We can now officially say that First Lady of Zimbabwe are now standing above the laws of South Africa, a republic where she doesn’t reside, but because the relationship between Mugabe family and South African government, the RSA laws doesn’t matter to the Princes of ZANU-PF and their Family members. Grace Mugabe can now assault with battery and with intent, and get away it it. Since it was internal family matters, a visit to look after her long-lost kids who lives in luxury, while the Zimbabweans are starving. Such justice there, but the point now, is that Grace Mugabe can assault not only one person, but more with help of her bodyguards. Just take a look, first the ‘Diplomatic Immunity’ and then eyewitness stories from what she is free of charges from, because of her stature and place of life. The law isn’t the same for all kind, especially not when you have powerful friends, it seems.

Government Notice number 850 of 20^th August from Minister Maite Nkoana-Mshabane, the Minister of International Relations and Cooperations wrote: “In accordance with the powers vested in me by section 7(2) of the Diplomatic Immunities and Privileges Act, 2001 (Act No. 37 of 2001) and acting in the interest of Republic of South Africa, I hereby recognize the immunities and privileges of the First Lady of Zimbabwe, Dr. Grace Mugabe, in terms of international law and as set out in the attached Notice” (Government Gazette, 20.08.2017 – Government Notice No. 850 of 2017).

Victims of Grace Mugabe’s rage:

“One of the three women, who describes herself as a promotional model, told of her terror as Mugabe lashed out at them. Mugabe was accompanied by about 10 bodyguards and hotel security guards and she was looking for her sons, Robert jnr, 25, and Chatunga Bellarmine, 21. Both men had fled the room when they heard their mother coming. The attack took place in Sandton’s The Capital 20 West hotel. The woman said that at the time she did not know who her assailant was or why she and her friends were being beaten. “I really thought she was going to kill me … From the moment she stormed into the room she was ready to murder someone,” the woman said. “The electrical cord-cable was tightly wrapped around her hands. No one could stop her. The guards and hotel security guards just stood there and watched as she whipped me with the cord and dragged me across the floor by my hair.” Mugabe’s sons have recently been in the news for their behaviour. The brothers were kicked out of a Sandton hotel last month, allegedly for bad behaviour” (…) “When the three friends could not tell her where her sons where, Mugabe lashed out at them with the electrical cord. The woman said the attack carried on for 20 minutes. While she was being assaulted, her friends fled. “She dragged me by my hair and held me tight. She slashed me viciously with the electrical cord. She then dragged me by my hair across the floor and threw me on a couch where she forced me to call our mutual friend and Bellarmine’s best friend, but their phones were off. “She continued beating me with the cord; I was rescued by the hotel manager, who rushed to the room after hearing my screams for help.” Engels’s two friends said they were too frightened of Grace Mugabe to lay criminal complaints, but said they would support Engels in court” (Ndabeni, 2017).

This should be insulting to the victims, the families and to the justice system of South Africa. That a foreign dignitary can carry out assaults and violence on their citizens. Than, run home with immunity from her crimes. The violence done because of the sons wish of partying with models and expensive bottles wine. The sons of Robert Mugabe have already caused trouble on the same hotel in past, but because of their standing and ranks they are allowed back. If someone else did similar acts, they would be banned from the premises.

Still, as that is awful enough – Grace Mugabe put-up the ante and attacked fellow guests of her sons. She violated them and harassed them. Grace Mugabe actually torn them and used violence. The First Lady did not act against her sons in this way, but against strangers who was invited by her sons. She attacked innocent South African girls, who had no ill-intent and was invited to the hotel. This is vicious and insane!

So with this in mind, the RSA and the Minister Maite Nkoana-Mshabane should offer a leaf of faith. This should be investigated and taken to the law. First Lady Mugabe should stand trial and answer for the possible misgivings and assault with battery. This isn’t flattering, this is a clear violation of ordinary and civilian courtesy. The First Lady could have talked ordinary to the woman and asked why they we’re there and why her sons was gone. Instead, she attacked them with the force of 10 bodyguards and left no-one with wounds. The witnesses even fear the woman after this and that is not strange, she attacked them viciously.

What is more insulting, is that the State offers no sympathy for their own citizens and leaves them behind. They are just flesh-wounds and exchangeable, they can be traded with someone else. The next time the Mugabe boys looking for a fling. No big-deal, but the Mugabe family is so unique and special. So they can assault strangers without any consequence or facing justice. They are above the law, not only in Zimbabwe, but also in the proud Republic of South Africa.

This is just proving that the First Lady of Zimbabwe can do whatever she wants, the same for her sons and also the President. Since they are dignitaries and state officials with different passports, but that doesn’t mean they should get away with everything. Also, this shows how accommodating the RSA is the Mugabe family and therefore, accept this sort of behavior. It is okay and nothing wrong, apparently that is the message. Peace.

Reference:

Ndabeni, Khanyi – ‘ First Lady, Grace Mugabe ‘was ready to murder’ (20.08.2017) link: https://www.timeslive.co.za/sunday-times/news/2017-08-19-first-lady-grace-mugabe-was-ready-to-murder/

Opinion: ICJ supports the renewed notification from RSA gov. to stay within the ICC!

Certainly, there have been blowing a wind of dismay towards the International Criminal Court; the reasons are not subtle, but understandable by the men and woman fearing for their future. The ICC has for some reasons been finding lots of criminal activity and leaders misusing their powers to create crimes against humanity on the African continent. While the same ICC has not used their powers and laws on certain other questionable wars and legality behind the support of internal wars elsewhere. Therefore, the totalitarian and the lingering presidents that fear their respect and legacy, as they could be taken to court for their acts while being Presidents!

Well, here is a key piece of knowledge from the briefing written by the International Commission of Jurist (ICJ) that was dropped this March, in the same amount of days that the Republic of South Africa has released their Withdrawal of the Withdrawal from the ICC and the Rome Statute. Therefore, the ICC can be rest assured that the South African republic will not leave now.

ICJ Reasoning for problems with ICC:

“While there are no doubt many serious situations that have so far escaped the Prosecutor’s purview, it is important to note that because the ICC functions within the jurisdictional limits of the Rome Statute, it cannot assume jurisdiction and commence investigations in respect of States that are not parties to the Rome Statute or nationals of such States. As noted above, in such situations, it is up to the Security Council, to decide whether to refer a situation to the Prosecutor, who will then decide whether to prosecute. The powers of the Security Council, including those concerning the use of the veto when referring situations to the ICC for investigation, also require reconsideration and reform. Efforts toward reconsideration and reform could be led by South Africa and other African States” (…) “The ICJ notes that most African States that are parties to the Rome Statute appear to remain committed to the Court. It is significant that the newly installed President of Gambia has decided to withdraw the notice of withdrawal that was issued by his predecessor” (ICJ, P: 8-9, 2017).

Recommendation of the ICJ:

“Honourable Parliamentarians should ensure that:

1. The Implementation of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court Act Repeal Bill [B23-2016] should not be passed;
2. South Africa should remain a party to the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court.
3. South Africa should engage, where appropriate with other African States, in actively pursuing appropriate reforms within the Assembly of State Parties, with a view to making the ICC more effective in advancing the objectives of international justice.
4. South Africa should actively encourage other African states to put in place legislation required to empower domestic courts with the ability to try genocide, war crimes and crimes against humanity.
5. South Africa should continue to work constructively with civil society on the advancement of international criminal justice” (ICJ, P: 10, 2017).

Still it is good to see the ICJ support the Republic of South Africa will to stay within the Rome Statute and the ICC. Even as they did have questions towards the African leaders and States, as the ICC has not acted towards the United States or United Kingdom for their ill-will wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

So the good news is that the Republic of South Africa still is a member of the ICC, but there is a will to leave there. That will not dwindle away, as the staunch controversy towards the ICC does not go away with a briefing like this or the ways the image of ICC is seen on the continent. That does not leave with the Gambian and South Africa now returning, or not leaving at all. This shows the problems that the leadership has with the court and their legal battles on the continent. That will not be diffused, even as this is good news for those who want to believe in International justice.

Still, there are enough issues that the ICC has to work-on and show less bias in the pursuit of criminal offenders to give the people on the continent faith in their judgement. Peace.

Reference:

International Commission Jurist (ICJ) – ‘South Africa should not withdraw from the International Criminal Court’ (March 2017)

RSA: ICC Withdrawal Welcomed and Process With Parliament – Committee (03.11.2016)

CAPE TOWN, South Africa, November 3, 2016 – The Portfolio Committee on International Relations and Cooperation has welcomed the withdrawal of South Africa from the International Criminal Court (ICC).

The Chairperson of the Committee, Mr Siphosezwe Masango, said the repeal process will soon begin, once the Speaker of the National Assembly has referred the matter to relevant parliamentary Committees.

“We agree with Justice Minister Mr Michael Masutha’s statement on South Africa’s withdrawal from the ICC this afternoon in the House. For a long time we have witnessed the unevenness of international justice and the lack of universality of application in the manner in which countries are treated,” Mr Masango said.

“The ICC is biased towards selectively targeting African heads of states. Leaders of the permanent members of the United Nation’s Security Council are never acted against when they transgress,” he said.

On 19 October, the Minister of International Relations and Cooperation, Ms Maite Nkoana-Mashabane, handed to the United Nations Secretary-General South Africa’s intention to withdraw. Subsequently, Mr Masutha presented a statement that was discussed in Parliament. Of the nine cases in front of the ICC currently, eight involve African presidents.