Time for honest presidents to quit SADC

DON-MARTN ROPAFADZO
Correspondent | Friday August 20, 2010 00:00

But then, SADC was not formed to perform any meaningful purpose; SADC was formed to fan the egos of regional leaders and, in that regard, it is performing its duties well.

Thus I was astounded when SADC 'came down hard' on Robert Mugabe and Morgan Tsvangirai and directed that Zimbabwe must hold elections next year.

Zimbabweans are not that stupid; SADC leaders are, because we know that SADC has no punitive measures to apply on its wayward member states.

So when those SADC leaders 'demanded' that Zimbabwe holds elections by next year, we knew that what they meant was that their bosom buddy, Mugabe, can continue beating up Zimbabweans at will.

Over the years, how many directives on Zimbabwe has SADC issued and how many of those directives were heeded?None.

And what did SADC do about that?

Nothing.

SADC is so chicken-livered that it now makes our regional leaders look really stupid for dabbling in politics of futility where they are supposed to either keep quiet or say something nonsensical in support of mindless communiqus that betray public trust.

SADC citizens accepted SADC in their midst because we believed and expected the organisation to take a leading role in protecting citizens, not presidents, of this region.

We expected SADC to keep an eye on our leaders and gourd them in the right direction; we expected those of our leaders who came together to form this organisation to respect the organisation's role because SADC was meant to be people-driven and was expected to formulate policies for regional integration.

SADC was meant to provide regional public safety, regional conflict resolution, along with imposing and monitoring the rule of law.

Instead, SADC publicly and undiplomatically undermines its own Tribunal by not acting against Robert Mugabe for his refusal to abide by rulings of SADC Tribunal's pronouncements.

Imagine what this says to the people in our region; imagine what this says to those professionals who sit on the Tribunal and what it says about those individual Heads of State.

Above all else, this misguided, selfish and shortsighted reaction, which could only have been hatched and promoted by people like Jacob Zuma, has laid bare the credibility of both SADC and the Tribunal.

As far back as 2008, the SADC Tribunal ordered the Zimbabwean government to compensate owners for the farms that were seized and to protect the farmers' rights to their land.

Mugabe ignored those orders, prompting the SADC Tribunal to find the Zimbabwe government in contempt of court three times.

Mugabe and Patrick Chinamasa, his justice minister, both declared that the Tribunal's rulings were 'null and void'.

One of Mugabe's men on the bench, Justice Bharat Patel, then went on to rule that 'the Tribunal's orders on land reform have no authority in Zimbabwe'.

During its policy formulations, did SADC ever try to harmonise laws from its different member countries to fit the SADC framework and membership?

Of course, no!

Mugabe is right. If SADC itself does not uphold its own emissaries' conclusions, who should?

Earlier this year, South African courts set a precedent by recognising the SADC ruling as being enforceable.

But this week, instead of SADC standing by its Tribunal, they decided to disband the regional human rights court because Mugabe had refused to honour its pronouncements.

What kind of nonsense is this?

SADC is a talk shop where problems afflicting the region are never discussed.

SADC 'demanded' elections in Zimbabwe by next year. I dare ask 'who the hell is SADC?'

Zimbabwe is not ready for elections and SADC knows it.

I would have hoped that this useless and expensive grouping would be aware of that, but they are not.

Ok, suppose SADC wants elections in Zimbabwe next year, what are they doing about the on-going violence, which has already started interfering with that expectation? Is this SADC aware that Zimbabwe needs a new constitution to hold such elections?

Is SADC aware of the problem it created in Zimbabwe?

If SADC means well, how come it always sides with the person who is messing up not only Zimbabwe but the region?

Is SADC not aware of the on-going violence in Zimbabwe today?

Is SADC blind to the fact that, because of SADC itself, the party that won elections is still, in effect, the opposition party?Is SADC aware that people are being prevented from giving views for a new constitution that would make SADC demand for elections next year a reality?

If SADC wants to further prove its now internationally renowned incompetence by using Zimbabwe as the dummy, then to hell with SADC.

SADC must not, SADC cannot, SADC should not order elections when they have absolutely no authority or legal leeway to intervene when their Prince of Darkness starts slaughtering our citizens as before.

SADC should have told Mugabe and Tsvangirai that they were coming into Zimbabwe to monitor the constitutional outreach programme and set the stage for free and fair elections then, and only then, would SADC leave.

I now hold SADC's individual Heads of State and Government as co-conspirators in the abuse and subjugation of the people in our region. SADC leaders must now choose whether or not to remain in this stupid organisation, which tarnishes every office of the president in the region. Those Heads of State with shame and any semblance of decency must quit this hopeless organisation.

SADC insults the citizens of the region that it is supposed to protect.

The death of SADC is a plus for the region.

Because of SADC, we watch the likes of Mugabe, Zuma, Mswati and all our horrid 'leaders' abusing us at their conferences at which we have neither an invitation nor a say, only footing the bill.

SADC, because of its inactivity, is actually unwittingly lowering human rights standards in the region.

An African leader who does not abuse his people is frowned upon by other African leaders.Prove me wrong.

Human Rights is a scary word to most of our SADC leaders.

Jacob Zuma has absolutely no capacity to understand all this and never will.

True to his masters, Zuma is offering Zimbabwe to South African businesspeople on a platter.

In Zimbabwe, Mugabe wants to remain in office as a means to protect, not only himself but also those who helped him to abuse the nation. And while his young wives are being bonked by his own ministers, Mswati of Swaziland, shamelessly parades in front of us as if he is some sort of symbol for our children to emulate. We can go on until the cows come home and leave again. Do we deserve such leadership?

I am not amused by the outcome of the SADC Summit in Namibia.

It was a useless, cowardly gathering which was not able to scratch its own itching behind and we knew that before all of them gathered.

SADC is a dangerous, phony organisation that must be stopped because it is using its existence to oppress citizens.

SADC is a social organisation meant for our dictators.

It really is time for well-meaning presidents in the region to disassociate themselves from SADC, which, to me, is organised crime.