Construction vehicle burnt as residents and police clash
By Ashleigh Furlong, Nomfundo Xolo, Denise Patterson and Sune Payne
14 September 2017 A construction vehicle burns in Hout Bay on Thursday. Photo: Nomfundo Xolo
Violence continued in Hangberg on Thursday, as dozens of residents protested over the allocation of fishing quotas.
The Deputy Minister of Police Bongani Mkongi had agreed to an imbizo
with the community, but the meeting was cancelled. No public reason has
been given for the cancellation, and this article was written after work
hours so GroundUp has not yet been able to ask for comment from the
minister. After hearing of the cancellation, protesters set a
construction vehicle alight. Some protesters said that they would
continue burning things until they were addressed by a minister.
As the situation escalated, protesters taunted police with stones,
while the police responded with teargas. Tyres were set alight and
petrol bombs were lobbed at the police. Crowds of residents from
Hangberg stood outside their homes, watching the chaos unfold. A man stands with a petrol bomb, while a dog watches petrol proceedings. Photo: Nomfundo Xolo
After about two hours the construction vehicle had been almost completely stripped for scrap metal.
One woman said that the protest was about more than fishing rights,
and that there was also an issue with land in the area and that they
wanted proper houses to be built.
Another man said that a portion of land in the area had been bought
by a private individual and that the community wanted that land to be
used for housing. He was possibly referring to a new housing development opposite Hangberg.
Residents GroundUp spoke to stressed that their protests did not
start off violently. They mentioned attempts to get a response from the
Deputy Minister of Police and being avoided. They said that they had to
resort to violence to invoke a response.
Residents threw petrol bombs, while police used teargas. Video: Ashleigh Furlong
Fourteen-year-old boy has surgery to remove rubber bullet
By Ashleigh Furlong, Kimon de Greef, Mary-Anne Gontsana and Ashraf Hendricks
13 September 2017 A police officer points his rifle at people hiding behind
a table in Hangberg on Tuesday. One of the people hiding was Ona
Dubula. Photo: Justin Sullivan (copyright: Justin Sullivan - this photo
is not available under GroundUp’s usual licensing terms)
Fourteen-year-old Ona Dubula, who was shot in the face at close
range by police while he hid behind a table during a protest in Hout
Bay on Tuesday, had surgery on Wednesday afternoon to remove a second
rubber bullet that had been lodged under his tongue for more than 24
hours. This is the latest in a series of incidents in recent years of
police heavy-handedness in Hout Bay.
It is unclear whether the South African Police Service (SAPS) is
investigating the shooting of Ona. A SAPS statement issued on Wednesday
said only that “it is alleged” that a 14-year-old boy was injured during
the protest and taken to the Hout Bay fire station for treatment.
SAPS spokesperson Captain FC Van Wyk said: “We urge the guardian
and/or parents of this boy to come forward to open a criminal case to be
investigated.”
SAPS didn’t respond to multiple questions from GroundUp asking
whether police were investigating the incident and what action was being
taken, following the release of graphic footage documenting the
shooting.
Ona was hit with at least four rubber bullets – two hitting his ribs
and cracking them, and another two hitting his mouth. He had ventured to
the scene of the protest from about 3km away in Imizamo Yethu where he
lives.
GroundUp visited Ona and his mother Pinkie in Groote Schuur today.
In a video
taken by Hangberg resident Peter Parker Michaels, Ona can be seen
removing something from his mouth and dropping it on the sand shortly
after being shot. GroundUp understands that this was one of the rubber
bullets. Another is lodged beneath his tongue. While GroundUp was at the
hospital, Ona was wheeled into surgery to have the bullet removed under
general anaesthetic. At the time of writing it is not yet clear if his
tongue will fully heal.
Pinkie, his mother, said she wanted to open a case against the
police. She wanted to keep the bullet as evidence for reporting the case
but was told by hospital staff that this was not permitted. Instead the
bullet would be kept for the investigation.
She said she also received a call from someone claiming to be from
the police who said they would be sending a detective to take a
statement from her because a case had already been opened “on her
behalf”.
Ona has been able to speak, albeit with a slurred voice. He managed
to speak to his grandmother on the telephone last night, Pinkie said.
During Tuesday’s protest in Hout Bay over fishing quotas,
Hangberg resident Clint October was arrested and allegedly beaten by the
police, allegedly for holding a petrol bomb. GroundUp witnessed several
petrol bombs being hurled at police vehicles after the protest turned
violent.
October’s mother, Tessa, said three police officers had bashed down
her front door in pursuit of her son, before beating him repeatedly with
rifle butts. She said that the police also pointed a gun at her two
children.
She said that October remained at the police station. When GroundUp
went to Hout Bay police station today, the lieutenant on duty said that
October had been taken to Victoria hospital.
It is understood that October will appear in the Wynberg Magistrates’ Court on Thursday on a charge of public violence.
Over the last few years there have been a number of cases of police
allegedly using excessive force on protesters in the Hout Bay area.
GroundUp has sent a number of questions to the Independent Police
Investigative Directorate (IPID) about these incidents, but was told
that they would not be answered immediately as the IPID spokesperson was
currently appearing in Parliament.
Earlier this year, Songezo Ndude, a resident from Imizamo Yethu, was
shot in the head and died during a protest over concerns with the
reblocking process that was being undertaken following a massive fire in
the area. At the time IPID said that it was investigating the case.
In 2014, Santonio Jonkers was dragged by his dreadlocks and beaten by the police.
Jonkers had been living in Die Sloot, an area in Hangberg that he was
allegedly illegally occupying. His case was forwarded to IPID but in
2016, Jonkers told GroundUp that the case was still continuing.
In 2012, four Hout Bay residents lost eyes during protests. One, Delon Egypt, still has the rubber bullet in his head.
Late last year, IPID told GroundUp that a total of 17 cases were being
investigated as a result of injuries sustained during the protests in
Hout Bay and that the investigation was complete and was about to be
sent to the Director of Public Prosecutions.
In a meeting in Parliament in June,
IPID reported that in the first half of 2016/17, there were 3,313 cases
reported to it and that 1,857 of these were assault cases. There were
207 deaths as a result of police action and another 154 deaths in police
custody. The Western Cape had the highest number of assault cases at
425. IPID also said that there were “86 disciplinary convictions; 87
acquittals; 27 criminal convictions; 64 members were arrested for
different crimes and 805 matters were on the court roll”.
Police in Hangberg on Tuesday. Photo: Ashraf Hendricks
Published originally on
GroundUp
.
South African Deputy President Cyril Ramaphosa unwittingly fell for an old trick used to discredit politicians. GCIS
There is a famous polling story, commonly attributed to US President Lyndon B. Johnson. Attacking his rival in Texas, where the vote was close, Johnson used the sucker-punch tactic. As re-told by famous American journalist Hunter S Thompson,
The race was close and Johnson was getting worried. Finally he told his campaign manager to start a massive rumour campaign about his opponent’s life-long habit of enjoying carnal knowledge of his own barnyard sows.
“Christ, we can’t get a way calling him a pig-fucker,” the campaign manager protested. “Nobody’s going to believe a thing like that.
I know, Johnson replied. But let’s make the sonofabitch deny it.
South African Deputy President Cyril Ramaphosa just fell for the same trick, albeit a more mundane: "he sleeps around (with humans)”. Whether it was apartheid era “stratkom” style dirty trick at work or the usual dirty game of electioneering, Ramaphosa was forced onto the back foot.
Instead of ignoring or laughing at the claims, he went to court to prevent a Sunday paper from publishing. Then he engaged the issue and revealed a long-past affair of little interest to anyone. How did his advisers think this necessary in the sleazy moral climate created by Jacob Zuma’s ANC?
The challenge for voters is that there are multiple election-related battles happening simultaneously within the ANC. There is a fight for the post-Zuma leadership, fairly obviously.
But there is also Zuma’s own fight for safety from prosecution for alleged fraud, money laundering, corruption and racketeering once he steps down. His chosen candidate – Nkosazana Dlamini-Zuma – isn’t attractive to voters, according to polls. The one attribute she can play on is the mantra “we need a woman as president”. That explains why Ramaphosa was attacked as a wife-beater, and when that didn’t stick, as a sequential blesser (sugar daddy).
What the polls say
Leadership polls in the public domain – of all voters, not just ANC voters – suggest that this election is Ramaphosa’s to lose. Among potential voters from all parties, he has overtaken the main opposition Democratic Alliance’s Mmusi Maimane, to lead Dlamini-Zuma by a considerable margin. Dlamini-Zuma seems to be on an ineluctably downward spiral, matched only by her ex-husband. Her campaign urgently needs an injection. Becoming an MP and presumably thereafter a minister is part of the attempt to do just that, as will the rumoured appointment as Higher Education Minister and bestower of more or less free education for all, if it occurs.
But the problem is Ramaphosa. If Dlamini-Zuma needs a bounce, he needs his bubble burst. The ANC’s mid-year policy conference, which begun with Zuma proxies’ braggadocio, gave Ramaphosa a major bounce in the polls to the point where he is on a continued upward trend. The party’s December elective conference is suddenly very close. A repeat performance would secure Ramaphosa’s position; and leave current president Zuma looking very fragile indeed. Cue the smears.
If Dlamini-Zuma remains burdened by “that” name – and focus groups make it clear that the name is a curse, not a blessing – then attacking Ramaphosa for philandering and beating his wife is meant to take the gloss off his campaign and, crucially, influence women voters. Who wants a(nother) president who cheats on his wife? Who wants a president who apparently beat a former wife (despite her strenuous denials)? These are all intended to dent Ramaphosa’s appeal to women voters. Above all, their aim is to reinforce the “we need a woman president” mantra – which is the central and only message of the Dlamini-Zuma campaign.
The 2019 national elections
All this is being fought out in the ANC, even if simultaneously in the full glare of a willing media. But the ANC nowadays is merely a player in the game – a big one, but most certainly not too big to fail.
There is still, in 2019, the real national election where South African citizens go to vote. This may be Zuma’s major miscalculation. All evidence suggests that the national leadership have not learned the lesson of the 2016 municipal elections, which is core to all polling: do not take your voters for granted.
The ANC has failed to find its mythical reset G-spot, and its post-election post-mortem seems to have found nothing needed correcting barring the removal of some peskily ethical ministers. The #Guptaleaks – the thousands of leaked emails exposing the extent of the powerful Gupta family’s capture of the state – and the cabinet re-shuffling plus simple cravenness of the entire ANC project, have worsened since 2016.
The ANC is still the “mothership” – the famous liberation party, settled deep in the heart and subconscious of many South Africans. But the same lovers of history are judging the present, and will vote accordingly. They did so in 2016. The warning seems to have passed unheeded.
The cloak and dagger cleverness being unleashed by all sides in the ANC struggle assumes one thing – that the party will win in 2019. Polls suggest that at the moment, the ANC remains the majority party. But that is voter sentiment right now – it does not measure voter intention in 2019. Moreover, winning and being a majority party are very different – just ask the ANC in Johannesburg post-2016, for example. A recent IPSOS poll found the following:
Ipsos
Nice guys don’t win
Maimane’s coy slip of his own poll – that the ANC was polling below 50% – may represent a 2016-2018 downward trend. If that happens attacks on Ramaphosa will come from the main opposition DA as well. This doesn’t mean the DA will win. Maimane neatly said nothing of how his party was faring – but the messy business of bartering their way to provincial power via unshaky coalitions may be the future for an ANC that has truly toppled itself from the moral high ground.
Ramaphosa is clearly trying to chart a more moral and honest path than his predecessor. Where Zuma faced a rape trial and repeated evidence of infidelity, Ramaphosa initially fell for the sucker-punch (hence the failed interdict against The Sunday Independent) and then took the route of quiet dignity.
If Ramaphosa can lose that initial twitchiness, maintain the dignity, but toughen up for far worse muck that will be thrown at him, the country’s most famous buffalo farmer may yet prevail.
Simple booklet explaining Eskom Inquiry has been published
By William Yoder
13 September 2017
On Tuesday evening, the University of Cape Town Graduate School
of Business hosted a public talk on Eskom and state capture and
launched a booklet – Eskom Inquiry Reference Book–
a simply written booklet on Parliament’s public enterprise inquiry for
use by civil society, journalists and citizens. The speakers were
Professor Anton Eberhard of UCT’s Graduate School of Business and Pravin
Gordhan, former Minister of Finance. The event was attended by
about 200 people.
Gordhan spoke first. “If we put it bluntly, this is part of a story
of R150 to R200 billion disappearing from our financial system” over the
past three years, he said.
Gordhan said people need to be aware of the extent of the issue as the “cost is not to the middle class but to the poor”.
Both Gordhan and Eberhard referred to allegations of collaboration
between the Zuma administration and the Gupta family. Eberhard said,
“Eskom is now in trouble. Its revenues are stagnant, its costs are
rising, and its debts need to be financed.”
Eberhard said: “The arguments for breaking up Eskom are becoming powerful.”
Referring to the booklet authored by Eberhard and Catrina Godinho,
Gordhan said it is crucial that an informed South African public send
the message that “you can’t get away with stealing all your life. One
day, you will be held to account”.
“There is a whole industry masking the truth from South Africans,”
said Gordhan, referring to fake news articles and twitter accounts
dedicated to the denial of Eskom corruption.
Both speakers expressed hope that Parliament will begin to hold to account Eskom and those attempting to capture state assets.
Parliament’s inquiry into public enterprises has been postponed until
October. Gordhan said the delays are unfortunate but people should not
immediately condemn the inquiry.
Published originally on
GroundUp
.
New elite security team displaces long-serving parliamentary protection officers
By Moira Levy
13 September 2017 Security dressed in white shirts remove EFF Members of
Parliament from the National Assembly at the State of the Nation Address
in February 2017. Photo: Screen capture from <a
href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M2ZBq408C2I">video</a> by
Branko Brkic
A protracted case to be heard by the Labour Court reveals that
Parliament now requires its “Chamber Support Officers” (CSOs) to be
skilled in crowd control and public order policing. This is an entirely
new role for the Parliamentary Protection Service (PPS). It confirms
that the South African Police Service (SAPS) is now expected to perform
an “assertive” and “proactive” role in the legislature.
Not only does this introduce a new policing style in the institution
which implies a significant shift in the culture of the “People’s
Parliament”, but it also leaves long-serving parliamentary protection
officers feeling marginalised and discriminated against.
In its court papers, Parliament has stated that it requires its CSOs
to be sourced from SAPS so that they are able to “undertake physical
intervention” when necessary. In this sense, they perform a different
role to Parliament’s “general protection officers” who are required to
act “passively” in the House or on off-precinct duties.
A total of 72 applicants represented by Bagraim attorneys, all
members of the PPS including some who have served Parliament for up to
25 years, lodged a complaint with the Labour Court arguing that they
earn less and work longer hours than the recently appointed CSOs, who
have no experience of Parliament at all.
They describe the disparity in earnings between the old and new
protection staff as “capricious” and “arbitrary” wage discrimination.
The long-standing protection officers are claiming that in terms of the
Employment Equity Act, a difference in terms and conditions of
employment between employees doing the same or substantially the same
work amounts to unfair discrimination.
Parliament, however, has said in its response that its CSOs must be
able to deal with high intensity security situations and emergencies and
be able to “effectively handle disruptions in the House (including the
safe removal of Members)”.
They also need to be physically fit, remain calm “in pressure situations” and be able to work long hours.
According to Parliament’s argument, the CSOs, all of whom are former
members of SAPS, introduce three new functions to the PPS. Firstly, they
“undertake physical intervention with and the removal of unruly Members
from the House”. Secondly, they play an “active security role” when
accompanying parliamentary staff and Members to off-site parliamentary
events. Thirdly, they provide the kind of support to Committees, on- or
off-precinct, that used to be the duty of SAPS.
This is significant because the role of PPS has always been the
“protection of life, property and specified information” in Parliament
through the provision of safety and security support, control of entry
and exit from the Chamber, and emergency preparedness, including at key
events. The introduction of the so-called CSOs implies that Parliament
has added a new militarism to it parliamentary protection function.
Members of the PPS were not the only ones who found themselves
unprepared and taken by surprise when in 2014 vociferous EFF Members of
Parliament began disregarding the instructions of the Presiding Officer
and parliamentary protocol by disrupting the House proceedings. Yet it
appears they are now suffering the consequences.
Parliament’s response to finding itself no longer in control of the
National Assembly was to bolster its security forces. A resolution was
passed in July 2015 to enhance the capacity of PPS. According to the
court papers, PPS staff was told at the time that to expedite this
process, phase one would involve the appointment of SAPS members as “PPS
did not have the necessary capabilities.”
It was not made clear what these “necessary capabilities” were and
Parliament immediately dispensed with its comprehensive existing HR
procedures. Instead, it hand-picked 37 appointees from SAPS, offered
them significantly higher salaries and within weeks effectively had in
place a new “elite” unit.
With their new title of CSOs, but known colloquially as bouncers,
they were soon seen in action, clearing the house within minutes of a
ruling from the chair and with a brutal style of policing reminiscent of
a time that many had hoped had long passed. For this they earned annual
salaries of up to R150,000 more than the long-serving team of
parliamentary protection service officials.
A total of 66 new positions were created, of which 37 were first filled from the ranks of SAPS.
In papers before the court, claims of nepotism have been directed at
former policeman Deon van der Spuy, the head of the PPS, who is said to
have head-hunted his erstwhile colleagues from SAPS.
Head-hunting is not new to Parliament, and has become more common of
late. In this case it was initiated by the Secretary to Parliament. It
was argued by Parliament that the applicants needed to be selected from
the ranks of SAPS.
The remaining 29 posts were earmarked for internal staff, who would
be required to undergo a process of training and mentoring, presumably
to gain sufficient skills in crowd control as well as the physical
strength and the demands required to deal with the kind of riotous
behaviour that could emerge in the House.
This has also been challenged by the existing PPS staff, 65 of whom
have applied for the 29 vacant posts. They say many of them come from a
background in SAPS anyway.
Quite unlike the rapid CSO appointments, the process of filling the
remaining posts has so far been more typical of Parliament. It began in
August 2015 and towards the end of 2015 was suspended, in part due to
strike action by parliamentary staff, but apparently also due to
financial constraints.
This does raise the question: did such financial constraints apply
when the 37 SAPS appointees were taken on by Parliament, at salaries
above those budgeted for all existing PPS officers except for one
Controller.
In taking their case to the Labour Court, the applicants state: “The
appointed CSOs who have far less service and experiences [than that of
the applicants] and perform only part of the functions of the job
description of a Protection Officer are earning substantially higher
salaries than that earned by the applicants.”
The result has been tension and unhappiness within the PPS, which is
now divided between recently appointed members of SAPS and long-standing
protection officers who say they are now being excluded by their
manager from functions they used to perform. This amounts to unilateral
changes to their job descriptions.
In their court papers they declare that their “human dignity is
severely tarnished by these baseless, unfair and unreasonable wage
disparities and they [are being] discriminated against based on their
longer years of experience”.
They have said from the start that they want to be remunerated and
provided the same terms and conditions of employment as the newcomers.
Alternatively, they are asking for compensation for being discriminated
against. This they want applied retrospectively to the date of the
bouncers’ appointments. Produced for GroundUp News by Notes from the House
Published originally on
GroundUp
.
Police in Hangberg on Tuesday. Photo: Ashraf Hendricks
If Ramaphosa can lose that initial twitchiness, maintain the dignity, but toughen up for far worse muck that will be thrown at him, the country’s most famous buffalo farmer may yet prevail.
