Why the NDCA will uphold the NDC findings and ruling!

     – Taking a closer look at NDC Members Bias and denied Opportunity for Mitigation as flawed arguments –

The NDCA hearing has come to an end for its chairperson Cyril Ramaphosa has confirmed such without saying anything yet, accept the decision will be made in due course.

I guess we may begin to speculate on the actual outcome. Yet I will highlight two issues that constituted a cardinal part of the ANCYL leadership defense and rightful claim to appeal, that being NDC members bias and the issue of opportunity for mitigation.

The issue of NDC MEMBERS BIAS is not a new one, it was first raised and entertained in the 2009 Malema hearing when he was defended by Matthews Phosa. The outcome of that hearing whilst first securing the recusal of three NDC members back then, was no different in my assessment than if these were allowed to sit. Let us not forget the first hearing against Malema came out with a ruling against Malema with a sentence.

The ANCYL’ leadership in the 2011 NDC hearings again raised issues around amongst others Collins Chabane and Susan Shabangu as those who are necessarily bias against the ANCYL agenda of nationalization. It is also claimed that these have made pronouncements on ANCYL in a bias fashion or they have crossed swords before.

This argument whilst at face value perceived to be a valid one has more challenges in itself.

The challenge with this assumption of bias truthfully argues that everyone who ever has had a view opposite to the ANCYL literally is asked to be disqualified from a legitimate structure wherein members are deployed to serve informed by the ANC’ trust as custodians of organisational discipline. This is a flawed contention for it in essence negates the independence and intention of the NDC as a structure in organisational context birthed to maintain order and discipline.

The illogic with the ANCYL contention is that it by – default asks that only members who have been silent or have spoken in favor of the ANCYL qualifies to be serving in disciplinary structures. What would the ANCYL have said if one of their so-called defenders was a member of the NDC?

This argument if taken to it’s logical question would also mean the very NDCA members are questioned for the contention has already been raised around for example Jessie Duarte, whom the ANCYL believes hold a grudge against it. Not only is that the case for Duarte, but the Youth League has crossed swords with another member of the NDCA Trevor Manual when at Polokwane a Fikile Mbalula proved vocal in attacking even getting as personal as talking about Manual’s appetite for alcohol.

Not even the sitting chairman Ramaphosa is excused in this, recusal claim for should the NDCA rule against the ANCYL leadership you almost can literally expect a backlash that Ramaphosa is a ‘capitalist businessman’ and billionaire who do not share the philosophy of nationalization as a means of redress, the same the Youth league has proven very vocal and adopted at it’s 24th ANCYL Conference as a cornerstone argument for economic redress.

I guess what I am arguing is that entertaining the issue of members bias would not be limited to just the NDC hearings but also the very NDCA which now has to share their fair adjudication of that which was tabled for a decision.

The NDCA should not give any weight the claimed members bias contention for it another level compromises the structures of disciplinary as established in the ANC. Entertaining such holds ramifications for it could make the disciplinary hearings of the ANC weak and questionable in every facet where any member could argue bias at the drop of a hat even for absolute obstructionist and frivolous reasons.

It is therefore my view that this issue of members bias though raised would not be entertained for the ramifications it hold for democracy and freedom of speech in organisational context.

The second issue OPPORTUNITY FOR MITIGATION in my assessment rings hollow too as an argument for it kills the original claim of a political motif in that it subliminally confirms an acceptance of the case as legitimate.

I shall dare speculate an outcome on the entire appeal. For in my assessment the only sticky issue could be was the accused offered opportunity to argue in mitigation? The challenge could be was the accused given sufficient opportunity for arguing for such mitigation.

Yet, to argue in mitigation is to inherently concede that the case against the accused was duly made and stands. Anyone who argues in mitigation has innately accepted and conceded that the case against them had been made and now asks for factors to be considered informed by a genuine remorse.

If the issue of potential NDC members bias and opportunity for mitigation is dealt with and literally proven hollow what is left is to argue that the case from inception had political motif.

Yet political motif in my view is a difficult case to make in material corroborative evidence and the NDCA will steer clear from seeking to deal with such.  Yet we are comfortably beyond this argument as material evidence though in nuanced it may be read outside the NDCA room as such.

The truth is in the case of Malema he was already sanctioned before the 2011 hearings and was serving a sentence, which explicitly argued that he should not make him guilty of the same in a two-year period. He accepted the first hearing findings; the question is why accept such first and on what grounds then reject the very structure and its outcomes in a second hearing? Hence the second case stands in the umwelt of such first case.

I shall venture to conclude; the NDCA will uphold the findings of the NDC as a case that stands and the ANCYL leadership had to answer. Secondly it may find that the accused was not given opportunity to mitigate.  In the light of such mitigation opportunity claim Malema may have a reduced sentence from 5 to 3 years and the rest a cautioned 1 year sanction, with clear a set of recommendations that outlines discipline in the ANC is not an optional issue but a constitutional demand of members.


Yet as we all know the ANCYL still have opportunity to escalate its claim to another forum, yet what cannot be argued is that the NDC and NDCA findings makes the playing fields of opportunity significant smaller of success at a NEC sitting.

Then again I may be so wrong and have to eat my proverbial hat, yet I hold it’s in the interest of the ANC to restore discipline in the ANC and to set the tone for such respect in a polarised and factionalised organization. The NDCA has therefore a responsibility to be seen to work to the ethos of discipline, and I am afraid if Malema and Co argues for mitigation they have implicitly conceded the case against them hold.

Respectfully submitted

Clyde N. S. Ramalaine


Is there a Crisis in ANC collective moral leadership: The Phosa Limpopo Statement ?

– What informs these ambivalent statements –


The ANC this year is celebrating its centenary year as a democratic organization. It is said that the organisation for its history stands as a beacon of hope in an Africa where organisations seldom celebrate such longevity. The Secretary General of the UN, Ban Ki – Moon summarized this significant issue when he conveyed his congratulatory wishes to the ANC on this august occasion.

The ANC therefore as a paragon of longevity has therefore claimed the right to teach others how to survive the many intricate facets of organizing oneself, leadership squabbles, agendas and ultimately the ruling of a country for almost two decades now.

Yet amidst this historic opportunity and moment the newspapers carried last week an article of a claimed speech of Matthew Phosa, treasurer general of the ANC. As is usually the case, his words would be reinterpreted until we all led to believe we have heard him wrong.

Phosa’s comments warrants one asking if the ANC as democratic a organization as we know and claim from its known constitution and it’s praxis of electioneering, disallows for top leaders to lack the proverbial “balls” to stand up and say I disagree with this that and the other?

Lest we forget it was at the time of Mbeki’s recall claimed that a Phosa amongst others speaking through a Malema voice the disapproval of an Mbeki leadership.  As to the merits of such claim we will forever be in the dark yet a pattern is emerging of a leader who finds meaning in factionalised praxis as a means to prove a new form of  un-ANC leadership.

The ANC in history has always allowed for such concrete and clear disagreement amongst it’s members and leaders, yet with the proviso that when policy matters have been discussed and deliberated upon, which affords ample expression of individual opinion a position is adopted of all toeing the line.

It is not the first time that leaders stray from respecting the culture and ethos of discourse and opt to prove in a moment of crowd endearment to tantalize with divisive talk.

If the Top 6 has any member who disagreed with the cause of action undertaken in dealing with the claim of ill-discipline on the part of ANCYL leadership why would these members prove reluctant to share their views in open forum in ANC context, yet at the slightest moment of proverbial provocation choose to postulate claims such as ” comrade Premier your powers have been encroached upon”. Is this not serving as potential license to a Provincial Chairperson and Premier Mathale when his senior does not correct or require of him accountability but becomes engrossed to find political gerrymandering as a justified reason to prove silent when he is suppose to lead in asking tough questions from an equally elected ANC member.

What greater good  is served in not asking for accountability on the part of elected leadership? What political value is there for a Phosa to prove distinct even the opposite of a due  ANC – Led process immanent in constitutional embrace that have gone its cause for which the accused has ample recourse be such a Malema or whomever. Even more intriguing what political value is there for a Phosa to question a ANC -Led national administration’s intervention in a Limpopo that teeters on bankruptcy by its own admission.

Are we dealing with a leadership morality dilemma, in which the elected leaders of the ANC can sabotage the very processes and for personal political expediency. Maybe some would caution me on using a conflated loaded term such as sabotage, yet my claims are not as far fetched if the issue of personal ambition is at play.

The theme of the ANC for it’s Centenary carried the slogan “100 years of selfless struggle” as my golf t-shirt proudly attest. If we use this as more than a slogan, if we in any sense can remotely claim this history immanent in the graciously elected former ANC leaders can we make sense of the new ethos driven by self-centeredness and ambition.

If senior leaders in the ANC lack the mind, freedom to categorically disagree on a principle of action and has to resort to media moments of sunshine, can we still claim we are collectively led by people who mirror the ethos of a John Dube and others.

Is there a moral crisis in leadership when the ANC constitution and structures affords leaders and members the unequivocal right to have their own opinions and yet such avenues are not utilized but wildcat statements are made which lends itself to as usual misinterpretation?

When I am asking is there a moral crises in leadership I am asking given the truth of what a Limpopo government is dealing with as a bankrupt province who cannot pay it’s civil servants, service providers and the supply of food for sick patients, and a claimed flouted or augmented practice of cash-flow management what makes a Treasurer General of the ANC prove less responsible and almost careless in not discerning the issues and opting to prove defensive of the wrong. Yet the Treasurer General of the ANC has the right to advance his opinion but he never asked an elected Cassel Mathale to account for the claimed maladministration in a province that he leads. I would have thought one of the many questions a Phosa should have posed as a member of the top 6 and more so the Treasurer General “comrade premier how did your province get to this crises”.

What blinds leadership to argue political expedient Factionalised views when the real issue  of a Limpopo government is whitewashed as a political gerrymandering emanating from a claimed 2012 Mangaung Elective conference bedrock?

Can we ask the Treasurer General why he did not share his opinions in the structures and forums that he has access to? Can we ask elected Treasurer General if his conflating of personality politics with Malema as anchor serves the ideals of the movement?

Shall we to assume that the desire for power outweighs every reasonable thought of need to intervene on behalf of the people of a Limpopo? Shall we to assume  that the  Treasurer General is satisfied with the administration of bankruptcy as long as friendship in common pursuit of political agenda constitutes the basis of hegemony?

I shall prevail on Mr. Phosa, to share with us in less ambiguous and ambivalence his naked views on the ANCYL hearings, the issue of ill discipline in organisational context, the Limpopo Provincial elections and the state of Limpopo finances. It is your right to share and opine, it’s your organisational right to air such in the correct for a and structures. It is your elected leadership prerogative to share the prism of your thinking as you amply on many occasions have taken the liberty in media platform.

Yet I dare assert  it is not your right to lack the proverbial “balls” to prove suggestive and less concise, it’s not your right to conflate issues, it is not your right to fail to lead unambiguously and confuse all of us when you have your rightful  own political ambitions that at times clouds your judgment as you seek to manifest in factional sense when it warrants  to be prudent in collective leadership.

Can we ask of all ANC leaders to prove moral on the question of leadership as it relates to be honest about their convictions to at all times put the ANC and its people and voters first and to desist the factionalised statements with political expediency as it’s base.

I think it is important that all leaders make known there respective rightful desires to contest a position and quit the claimed selflessness mantra when it’s glaring that self-centeredness drives our intermittent actions wherein the ANC often remains the victim when its leaders prove less discerning and more emotional in rhetoric of factionalism, with  political expediency as the marauding umwelt.

Leaders do not divide they lead, leaders do not prove ambigious for they believe what they say and say what they believe regardless to how unpopular such may be, for they ultimately respect those who have placed a trust in them to lead.

Respectfully submitted

Clyde N. Ramalaine

What informs Archbishop Tutu’s berating of a Kotze “monster” appellation?

What is ArchBishop Tutu really pleading for in berating a Kotze monster description!!

The Star today carries an article and headline in front page articulating the views of Archbishop Emeriti Tutu on the infamous Johan Kotze, who stands accused of having killed his stepson at pointblank whilst the son’s mother had to hear her son’s terrifying pleas, and the quadruple rape of Mrs. Ina Bonnette at the hands of Kotze and allegedly forced workers.

Though Kotze who went on the run following these dastard incidents as alleged and his three accomplices are locked up, we must allow for a jurisprudence that ensembles a ethos of innocent until proven guilty in a court of law.

Tutu’s unequivocal plea for a refrain on the part of the general public exemplified in media in calling Kotze a monster warrants unpacking. His argument for such is then given a theological premise in which he contends, Kotze regardless to what remains a child of God and has the capacity to be rehabilitated to a state of sainthood. He then cites biblical examples of people who came from such messed up lives and became saints.

I concur that the fundamental teaching of Scripture overarching embraces a ethos in which Redemption and Salvation is extended as a gift of God in Christ Jesus who took the sins of the cosmos upon himself and died once for all sins of all men consummated in past, present or future.

There is therefore absolutely nothing wrong to argue the power and work of the Holy Spirit to recreate and change the worst of us to the best, as Tutu remonstrates.

This dictum is the hinge of the Christian Salvation Teaching in which men is incapable of saving himself but God takes the initiative to save that which He created and eternally loves from that which He gravely detests. This God therefore proves willing and ready in having already paid the ransom for the guilt of all.

My challenge with Tutu is not the teaching of the Biblical doctrine of Salvation and the redemptive power of God active in deliverance, nor the fact that anyone of us who have fallen like a Kotze into an inhumane, ghastly and egotistical pride based life of arrogance can be redeemed.

My challenge is why it has become imperative for the Arch to prove vocal only now on the usage of the adjective of monster when such has been liberally used in the cause of media embrace for a number of former accused and convicted felons? There is no evidence that the Arch ever proved this vocal in writing articles pleading for restraint on the usage of such.

We shall with agony remember the many serial killers and rapists who have tormented our collective communities. These were called readily monsters for the evil of what they have perpetrated, the pain they inflicted and the harm potential in eternal context they have caused to innocent people.

Yet the Arch never once berated any reference to such usage of the terminology of monster.  The Arch must tell us why he as an avid reader and active society member and outspoken veteran proved silent until hitherto.

Secondly, the Arch pleads for a theological perspective on the man- Kotze in which he affords and invokes the identity of child of God on Kotze. Yet he argues the deeds as allegedly perpetrated to be of monstrous, inhuman, ghastly nature.

Whilst there is a dialectical tension between invoking an identity of Child of God when the deeds are said to be monstrous, yet our God in His love proves loving to both victim and felon. Again this may not be narrowly perceived for it lends itself to a straddled view of conflation in which God’s love for his child is myopically interpreted without consequence when this child is stepping out of line.

If the story of Cain as recorded in Genesis 3 holds, he is still the God who requires a response from the felon who killed his brother. God visited Cain with one question, “Where is thy brother?”

Not only does God requires a response from the murderer but he excommunicates Cain from the area and that makes him vagabond, though He God, loves him enough that he protects him by sign, lest anyone should prove desirous of killing him.

The Arch draws on the TRC experience in which justice adopted a restorative context of perpetrator and victim being afforded time and opportunity to engage out of which forgiveness could be realized.

Restorative justice is a welcomed and widely acceptable concept and praxis and has proven helpful where other forms potentially could have failed. Yet restorative justice does not deny the very monstrous aspect of the deed, from which the ascribing of such appellation is correctly derived. Those who planned the mutilation and killing of Matthew Goniwe, Fort Calata, Sparrow Mkhonto and Sicelo Mahlauli engaged in monstrous deed and therefore were monsters. No different to those who killed and maimed others in dastard fashion in the cited Camps who revolted under the Liberation Struggle.

The Arch’s citing of the TRC compels me to share a view I am on record for on such process. The TRC for many of us though upheld as the paragon of our miraculous unity simply became an escape for many in which the personality of the very Arch overshadowed and colored the eventual outcome as many victims still awaits reparation when the perpetrators for saying sorry though forced had their pensions intact, their investments secured and now legitimately part of our society.

Perhaps we must ask why we call Kotze a monster? I hold no brief for any media person who may have firstly ascribed such to a Kotze, yet I shall venture to say we call Kotze a monster, because no one in his her right mind firstly fathom such intention, secondly subsequently plan and thirdly ultimately execute such inhumane plan.

We call him a monster for he knew what he was doing. We call him a monster for the deeds attest to that of a psychopath someone who has little or no regard for life, values of life, dignity, mutual respect for others yet has respect for himself.

We call him a monster for if the case holds and he has indeed killed a son his stepson in cold blood, when his role was to defend children as a father to act as protector of the vulnerable he no different to a pedophile violated that trust and robbed a family from this their pride and future in killing their son.

Yes, Arch whoever did this and forced (sexually) himself upon his former wife and equally forced his workers to rape his former wife is a monster. The illogic of allowing another man to violate someone you once claimed to have loved, makes Kotze a monster if he indeed stands accused of such.

We know rape has little to do with sex or intimacy but everything to do with power over the other. We call anyone who rapes another a monster for that was not how intimacy was to be experienced. That is a wrongful deed in societal definition it’s a wrongful deed in constitutional embrace it’s a wrongful deed on which the law of the land looks with less adoration.

The danger of Tutu’s argument is that it subliminally and blatantly fuels a contention that life must not be respected, that the good of who the criminal is must be the guiding light for how the community sees him/her. It pleads for an ethic of with the perpetrator as victim and the burden of forgiveness moved onto the victim as a demanded act.

The challenge with Tutu’s views are that they become a license to have an androgynous morality in which life is not supreme and a disrespect for such informs the panaplea of our consciousness. We struggle in SA in post apartheid with an amoral society and the views of Tutu does not steer us back to the pathway of respect for life, but embosses an ethos of self-centeredness.

Tutu’ argues for a relent and restraint on calling the monster a monster when what he did was monstrous by Tutu’s own admission.

May I remind the Arch that Jesus Christ, once called Peter his first disciple and eventual leader of the church  “get behind me Satan”? This He did for Peter was obstructing his purpose for coming into the world, though Peter intended good.


Are we to deduce we should not call a thief a thief? Are we not to call a rapist a rapist? Should we sugar coat the wrong for it hurts the perpetrator, who meticulously planned his heinous acts?

Arch, it’s the deed, the callousness and heartlessness of such that forces society to condemn such in the strongest and undeniable vehement sense in defining the doer of such as a monster.

This has nothing to do with whose child he is, who his parents are, what sweet person he may have been before, or how neighborly he was. It has nothing to do with the truth that he may become rehabilitated and serve humanity. When we say he is a monster it is to serve as a conscious rejection of what he stands for, allegedly planned, cold-bloodedly did and cowardly tried to run away from. It is to teach our society and children monsters behave like that, which should help them to heed our advice not to engage in monstrous deeds.

Archbishop, anyone who did what he allegedly did and has the mind to evade arrest proves less remorseful, ambivalent in life observation for he values his and not others.

He ran away for fear of arrest in a society where the death penalty has been abolished (and I shall never plead for its return) and where he knew upfront he would not be killed for what he did.

He effectively ran away from loosing his freedom and a potential rape in a prison cell when he never afforded his victims such running away from the wrath of being held imprisoned not just physically but potentially eternally for what he did in taking the young man’s life will forever haunt Mrs. Bonette.

Perhaps we must ask, what is Archbishop Tutu’s plea really communicating? In typical TRC mode, Tutu continues the romanticizing of pain. He perpetuates the challenge of a type of white justice when he finds it correct to speak out on Kotze but remained silent on everyone else particularly those defined as black who equally did what Kotze did and was equally called monster.

Tutu, subliminally tells us be merciful towards Kotze and don’t call him names for it hurts. The call for mercy is a correct call for we are all benefactors of such mercy yet it comes with an acknowledgment of confessed guilt and remorse.

Is it true that the Arch again picks a subject to prove controversial in which he seeks to be purportedly pragmatic as the paragon of justice and the defense of a veiled white identity of supremacy for he never proved vocal when the monster of Inanda and many others who equally received such appellation, is it only right when the perpetrator is black to be called a monster?


In the final analysis the Arch, errs in that he affords Kotze already a remorse, regret and confession of guilt that warrants a reply of forgiveness. Though he cannot claim a Kotze had spoken to him and expressed such remorse.

Yet even when and if such forgiveness is possible it always comes conjoined with a confession necessitated upon the perpetrators mind. Also such deed and subsequent confession even desire for a changed life of sainthood does not nay-say or negate consequences.

I find it difficult to make sense of the challenge Archbishop Tutu has with calling Kotze a monster, for in my eyes anyone who did what he allegedly did is simply nothing less than a monster who feeds of the most vulnerable of our society.

Is personal political motive informing Archbishop Emeriti Tutu’s condemnation of what the media call as the Modimolle Monster?

Respectfully submitted

Bishop Clyde N.S. Ramalaine

The Ghost of an Mbeki- Second Coming !

  • What could  it mean for the ANC Election future ?
  • There are some  journalists and others in different corners who see the recent appearance of the former President Thabo M. Mbeki at the Centenary celebrations as the re- awaking or second coming of Thabo Mbeki. The City Press makes bold “Mbeki is back”.
  • Flipping through the newspapers this subliminal message is vividly portrayed. The Sunday Times article goes as far as speculating on three scenarios of what his so-called return means. One article even refers to his dress code of a pin-stripe shirt decorated with cufflinks and a tie as a STATELY presence setting him apart from all who chose for this day centenary wear manifested in golf-shirts. This claim warrants unpacking, which I will attempt.Mbeki in my assessment ascended the proverbial throne in age too early, which has made him at retirement a relatively young retired and former president. At the time of his recall not that he had years but only 7 months left, he was not ready to retire, partly because his work was not done and the African agenda was beginning be solidified under his visionary leadership.

  • I have always held that Thabo Mbeki must be called the true Africa President, in my assessment he was never a South African domestic president and his passion for foreign affairs shaped his presidency.
  • It was essential for him to centralize all power in Government control manifested in a synapses of arteries connected in his former director general, to allow him the space to travel yet keep control of domestic issues. The logic of such centralisation of power as attested to by the late Kader Asmal in his memoirs “Politics in my blood” makes only sense when one understands the Africa Agenda Mbeki was pushing. South Africa in my opinion was the platform for such Africa and world presence.
  • He had a litany of projects and programmes directly linked to the adopted African Renaissance dream that held him hostage as defining character of his tenure. Therefore parting at the time with such powerful office could not have been for him easy. He will hold he stood because there was a nomination, and such claim rightfully cannot be argued at face value.His attempt to run for a third term in the ANC was born from such conviction that he still had work to do.
  • He therefore could have felt, an ANC presidency would afford him opportunity to direct, influence and command this Africa Agenda potentially steering whoever is president of South Africa to fulfill such obligation of and African Renaissance. His speech at GIBS in the dying days of his tenure attests to this confusion when he quips he does not know if he speaks as ANC president or South African president.

  • There he toyed with the idea of a break in party presidential nomination tradition echoing the sentiments which Archbishop Tutu and Professor Barney Pityana later would chorus after he was recalled, that South Africans must be afforded the right to vote their choice of president. It is also said that Mbeki had leaned more to a woman led presidency to be his successor.
  • Subsequent to his recalling in September 2008, he drafted letters to the ANC presidency informing the president and NEC of his intention to be absent from domestic partisan politics. This Mbeki confirmed even in writing to me in person as he pleaded his actions of permeating absence were not born out of hurt or disrespect. His contention was he did not want to be seen as one attempting to rule from the grave.
  • The mind behind such decision we can only speculate given the dynamics personal hurt and many other less expressed or known factors. However though he opted for such the ANC still called on him to canvas, at least when Fikile Mbalula publicly stated “when we call comrade Mbeki to give support in canvassing for the ANC we expect him to come as a loyal member of the ANC”.

  • The same Mbeki was perceived to have desisted, lending credence to him still dealing with the pain of recall. Newspapers were aflood with his deliberate absence at key events, parliamentary openings, yet he would protest that each time he was not available he had informed those who invited him for he had a prior engagement mostly abroad.
  • To argue that Mbeki is on a second coming is on the one hand a type of ghost argument, the same I am seeking to argue, yet at another level it is about understanding the soluble mind of a politician.Firstly, it is no secret that until the launch of TMALI, Mbeki was very silent and quiet except for his African assignments.
  • Yet in the last year and more from the mid year of 2011, Mbeki became very visible. I fear no contradiction that one can almost see a deliberate communications strategy and campaign championed by his personal assistant, Mukoni Ratshitangara. He posted on every group in social media platforms and send emails of every speech of Mbeki, at times, he hogged all groups on social media context punting the presence of Mbeki in domestic context. This was clear for all to see that the consciousness of an Mbeki was emerging as an orchestrated communications action. It is also not rocket science that Mbeki addressed many more domestic  forums in this period.It is interesting that such also takes place as the challenges around Zuma began to emerge, perhaps it is purely coincidental, and it would be unfair to read anything more into such. Mbeki’s profile in public domain measured in visibility increased in leaps and bounds, perhaps because some as is claimed have been lobbying him to come out if his self imposed exile. Mbeki, is a honorary member of the NEC and may attend its meeting if he so wishes, yet as Mandela found it not proper to do so, Mbeki adopted such also.

    To understand why Mbeki had been absent is to understand that he took his cue from Former President Mandela who except for one time when he berated the HIV&AIDS policy and practice remained quiet not wanting to steal the Mbeki thunder adopted this stance. Having therefore opted to adopt and practice such choice of non involvement in domestic political domain, he had to prove honorable though he may have been tempted to at times it must be acknowledged he remained true to his decision not to prove vocal on domestic affairs until now.

    Yet the first true sign of a possible change of heart was initiated by the claims of Advocate Willem Heath, who should be really accredited for bringing Mbeki formally back into the domestic political fold. Mbeki clearly admits he was forced out of his preferred silence by Heath’s claims. Needless to say, he used that platform to proverbially tease the newsreaders by saying there is much he can share. With this, he in my opinion extended the Heath issue and turned it around as a subliminal campaign for his presence. Clever move I would grant, attesting to the fact that the tactician has not lost his touch.

  • Mbeki confirmed his attendance at the Centenary celebrations this I hold is out of his loyalty for the ANC. Yet we may speculate what would have happened if the COPE project had worked. Mbeki,  I said before was relatively young at his recall and obviously has much to offer no different to Bill Clinton or a Tony Blair. He is beyond doubt an astute mind, has vaults of experience in organisational context, and has an epistemology that deserves respect.
  • Another core issue is that he consistently proves vocal and committed to the African cause and at times proves a solitary voice of opposition against the new form of colonialism. At times he truthfully carried the torch of  Africa’s independence when even AU members and leadership appeared lost in the moment when they had to lead.
  • One of the things I absolutely discern and respect is firstly the African and nationalist mind of Mbeki. It is common knowledge that he and the late Gadaffi had no love between them yet such did not cloud his defense of Libya against the onslaught of an agenda of regime change. The disrespect of the leading superpowers shown towards the Africa Union irks the daylight out of a Mbeki, as his many efforts and unsolicited articles would attest. He led a signatory campaign which many of us penned our signatures to.
  • One is not sure if this is also a personal matter for the man I choose to call the Africa President, who sees this as an attack on his labour, toil and leadership, which I already stated constitutes the aorta of his legacy.
  • Politics remains a game and place not for the fainthearted, in which old wounds seldom heal and the opportunity of retribution remains a prayed for occasion. It is amazing how an Mbeki, is held up as a ghost and nightmare for a Zuma second term. Whilst Mbeki in my mind will not prove any challenge he nevertheless has support in the ANC and has a score to settle in straightening his marred domestic and organisational legacy.Yet, Mbeki must stay clear from being tainted with the Malema agenda which at face value has degenerated from a very critical economic redress debate to a personal, less thoughtful, scandalous and disrespectful in organisational embrace, attack of leadership deserving of due censure. Malema is groping on to all and anything to extend his short-lived political career.

    He recently and of late has lost sight of the true National Democratic Revolution ( there will be those who will even argue he never understood the NDR) and its ideals and has been playing into the hands of opposition political parties acting as an enemy of the sitting ANC president. He is fast loosing his claimed grip on the ANCYL leadership as well known in-fights begin to emerge though naturally vehemently denied  by the ANCYL.

    Many have seen the signs of Malema’s future and have casually walked away like Tony Yengeni, Motlanthe and others. Someone once noted there is a distinct difference in the perception and practice of discipline between former Umkhonto we Siwze members and those who never were part of such, as a Malema is of the latter, one may deduce this observation holds. MK Members would disagree with leadership yet proved disciplined to act all times in the interest of the movement and.

  • Today the City Press carries a storyline on the Treasurer General Matthews Phosa statements in Limpopo we all know that Phosa while being a claimed outside wild card simply do not have the wherewithal to ever become president. He has like most always aspired, but has never been a hot favorite not in a Mbeki era and he was blamed by some for the leaks on Motlanthe.
  • His comments and views expressed on the Chancellor House Company and it’s finances when he became treasury general is still remembered, for it appears Phosa is not trusted anywhere hence he seeks to defend a Malema in preempting the Appeals hearing. To his credit it must be said that he has previously defended a Malema in his first disciplinary hearing.  I would not be surprised if he in his position will raise the Malema issue in the NEC, as a means to get him off the hook for a greater political agenda.
  • Perhaps Mbeki’s biggest contribution to the second term debate and actions would be to boost a Kgalema Motlanthe candidacy. He may influence and persuade those in the ANC to motivate for a Motlanthe election. By default helping the Malema ‘wild’ campaign. Mbeki and Phosa had their moments in the sun with each other, Mbeki when he orchestrated the investigations of Phosa, Sexwale and Ramaphosa in the famed myth of presidential toppling as led by the late Steve Tshwete who told Phosa “this is all politics and when it’s over you and I will sit and share a glass”.Phosa had his moment when he on the eve of the recall was instrumental in communicating to Mbeki the NWC decision to recall him.
  • Whether these two have agreed to mutual peace pipe-smoking remains neither here nor there, the question is can Malema’s suspension unite former political foes in Mbeki and Phosa, I think not for Motlanthe stands in between and it’s my view that Mbeki will put his support behind a Motlanthe as to a Phosa.
  • Yet it is claimed Motlanthe betrayed Mbeki at the last minute as Chris Kilowan puts in typical ‘rysmier’ politics when he was counted on. Motlanthe at Polokwane surprised all for though he was categorized a Mbeki man, he opted for the Zuma group at the time. It is said he remains a not to be trusted character that plays his cards close to the chest and may prove surprising when one least expects. Whether he and Mbeki had smoked the peace pipe since remains an unknown question, yet I hold that Mbeki trusts him more than any of the other aspiring ones.
  • Tokyo Sexwale has gone silent for the race for ANC presidency is now even murkier if the ghost of an Mbeki presence counts for anything. Sexwale too is no friend of Mbeki and has his own ambitions for which it is speculated he has been spending like billionaire Patrice Motsepe on a non-performing but ever-hopeful Mamelodi Sundowns who simply cannot get any silverware for its investments on votes from ANCYL leadership.
  • With Motlanthe, Phosa and Sexwale all in a race for presidency the road to Mangaung will deliver many jolts, twists, and turns in the bumpy less predictable contestation of testosterone politics. Has anyone given thought that perhaps a woman may be walking away with the proverbial crown, for such is also a possibility, or is the ANC not yet free from its archaic patriarchial trapped history exemplified in male leadership.The ghost of Mbekism could in the final analysis prove simply a ghost for with the three ambitious characters Motlanthe, Phosa and Sexwale (and it is absolutely their ANC membership right to contest) who all are in bed with the personality politics of a Julius Malema for their own personal reasons, who will never work for each other and a limping Malema.

  • In my book Zuma will walk with it again for these are not unified and not even a ghost of a Mbeki second coming can unite these aspiring ones. Zuma will walk with it again notwithstanding the challenges of DA legal applications, Constitutional Court findings, ANC appeals committee findings and the many things the 2012 year will bring as the Arms Deal hearings begin in all earnest and many including Mbeki are called to answer questions never answered.
  • Maybe the newscarriers and journalists make too much is made of a Mbeki return, maybe it is a ghost even a nightmare which will send hearts racing for a while.  Maybe a sleepless night or two but with the distinct blessing one will wake up from the sleep, perspiring though to the realization Mbeki is a veteran therefore history and part of our past from which we can learn much and must be afforded that rightful place for he deserves such no different to any other former ANC president.

  • Yet we will thank him for having added a twist maybe even a jolt in this much publicised succession debate.
  • Respectfully submitted,Clyde N. S. Ramalaine

Ter Respons aan Rhoda Kadalie opinie omtrent ANC 100Jaar Feesvieringe!

Ter respons van Rhoda Kadalie, se eensydige opinie rondom die ANC feesvieringe


Daar skort duidelik fout met sommige van ons sogenaamde kenners, dit raak al hoe minder moeilik om die lyne van polarisasie te sien. Ons kenners veral ‘swart’ kenners word al hoe meer vestrengel in n web van vergruisde liberal denke en tendense.


So sou Rhoda Kadalie as kenner onomwonde vandag in die Rapport verklaar dat die ANC as organisasie niks het om te vier. Sy ontsien nie eers die eeufees jaar en kan blykbaar niks in die ryk geskiedenis van n organisasie vind.


Dit is dan juis uiters betreurenswardig dat Kadalie met haar sogenaamde ryp ervaring juis so kleinlik te werke gaan met die besonderse aangeleentheid.


Ek wil my amper verstout deur te se, dit wil soms voorkom asof mense soos Kadalie vir n bepaalde groep mense skryf om juis hul andersheid te bewys van dit wat noodwendig as aaklig en oneerbaar gewys word as ANC karakter.


Wat hiermee verlore gaan is die onbetwyfelde werklikheid dat vandag hier in Mangaung n instansie, n organisasie en n institusie vereer word, veral in Afrika waar institusies dikwels nie die ouderdom behaal nie. Tereg het die Sekretaris Generaal van die Verenigde Nasies, Ban Ki Moon in sy gelukwense gese dat die ANC is nie net n Afrika organisasie maar n wereldwye organisasie and institusie wat n voorbeeld vir die ganse wereld is, dit terwyl n geleerde Kenner sips Kadalie Ons wil laat verstaan die ANC het niks om te vier. Daar moet kwansuis fout wees dat die wereld ons beter eer gee as wat ons self gun.


Kadalie gebruik dan juis n holrug geryde inligtingswet media-betreuring as haar oorkoepelende vertrekpunt om haar eensydige en dwarskrop diskoers te deel met Rapport nuus lesers. Nie net is die media debaat haar argument nie maar sy verwys na n senior lid van die ANC naamlik Trevor Manual. Sy kap na hom as n eerbare mense wat klaarblyklik ondersteunend van die inligtingswet is. So wil sy te kenne gee Manual as eeerbare mens (wat haar barometer is vir die eerbaarheids toets bly onbekend) in vertwyfeling geplaas word deur sy ondersteuning van die huidige inligtigswet.  Selfs dit by uitstek gese is n eng perspektief.


Sy weier om te deel met die aspekte wat juis aangepas is rondom die wet, die wet insy huidge vorm, is strate beter as die wat eertydse Minister Ronnie Kasrils (n huidige verdwaalde kampvegter teen die huidgie inligstingswet). So ook kan sie nie vir ons onomwonde se hoe belangrik die aspek juis vir jan alleman is nie. Dit alhoewel is n debaat vir n ander geleentheid


Dit word dan belangrik om te vra waarom n Kadalie en andere so eensydig te werke gaan oor ons gevlekte geskiedenis ? Miskien nog meer belangrik is tot wie se verjuiging hierdie “analise” gedoen word. Daar bestaan nou nou nie meer twyfel diskoers in Suid Afrika na apartheid het n wending ingeslaan waar sommige oortuig is dat opposisie teen die ANC is n bewys van skranderheid, intelligensie, onafhanklikheid en objektiwiteit.


In n vorige skrywe in my boek ” Through the Prism of My Soul” betreur ek juis die in my artikel onde die titel ” The Crises of the Native intellectual in Post Apartheid context” vertaal in Afrikaans “n Krises van die Inboorling Intelektuel”dat die liberale elitists vandag diskoers gekaap het in die naam van die massas.


Vir Kadalie om niks te sien ter verjuiging van die 100 jaar van n instansie soos die ANC, is juis hierdie eensydige, miskenning van ons geskiedenis. Haar opinie se vir ons ons was beter af onder apartheid. Dit is daarom betreurenswardig dat n Kadalie wie ongetwyfeld selfs bevoordeel is deur die huidige ANC bestel, hetsy of dit akademies, ekonomies of in geleentheid vorm verstaan kan word. Ek vrees geen teen argument om te kenne te gee dat Kadalie bevoordeel is deur die bevryding van ons land en mense,daarmee se ek nie sy het haar bekwaam nie, maar sy het inderdaad baat gevind in vele instansies as gevolg van die ANC begeleide vryheids geveg tot in n konstitusionele demokrasie.


Ter slotte, Kadalie kan daarom gerus ophou om n moraliteits hoe grond te wil eien deur die ANC die vyand van die massas te wil maak. Dit is uiters kleinlik van n Kadalie om juis op so n groot dag te wil te kenne gee die ANC het niks om te vier na n 100 jaar se bestaan.


Ook lei dit my om gemaklik te aanvaar dat Kadalie die valse idee van opposisie politieke partye as waaragtige en enigste werklike beskermheer van demokrasie, mense regte vir die massas nieteenstaande die  onbetwisbare feit dat  die massas geen party met n meerderheid vertrou het nie behalwe die ANC. Die illogika word in grootmaat deur liberale ‘elitists’ gedeel as hulle ruimlik diskoers bepaal en toon aangee.


So Rhoda Kadalie, ons het baie om ons oor te verjuig vandag en nie jou pessimisme en misnoee gebaseerd op eensydigheid sal vandag ons gees blus nie, want ons het vergekom. Ja die werk is kolosaal en uitdagend maar ons staan vir n oomblik stil om God te dank vir die unieke moment. Gun ons die oomblik van terugblik  om ons skerper te maak om weer more hard te werk aan die idiaal van n  “beter lewe” vir almal.


Biskop Clyde N. Ramalaine

Mathata Tsedu’s one-sided contention on the one Speaker at ANC Centenary Celebrations !

– What indictment, What censorship? Why not a bold and decisive leadership decision on the part of the ANC? –

Tsedu in today’s City Press joins the chorus of those who feel it and indictment that the ANC as an organization has opted for this one time to one speaker that being the sitting ANC president of the movement instead of including all structures and alliance partners as speakers. The others will be accommodated in messages in booklet form.

He continues to postulate that it is precisely the fact that Malema won’t speak that shifts the attention on Malema more on Zuma. Tsedu uses terms such as “silence”, “indictment” and “censor of speakers”, to create the necessary attention to his views. I think these are typical catchy and media provocative terms that is aimed at giving proverbial “meat” to a tired argument of political gerrymandering.

This kind of thinking as advanced by a Tsedu and others warrants contextualisation in order to make sense of it for  it is paraded as gospel more than an opinion.

Firstly the critical aspect lost in this whole observation is the fact that the ANC as organisation, have structures though elected and sharing a level of autonomity who only exist because of its mother body. I’m saying that to say there is no Youth league or any structure if there is no ANC.

To therefore argue for an ANCYL identity devoid or in opposition of it’s mother body is to either misunderstand the youth league, women’s league and more recent veterans league structures as ANC structures who rightly have no identity in and of themselves if the mother body is non existent. To perpetuate this notion that the leagues are having a bona – fide identity devoid of being ANC is mendacious to say the least.

Secondly, to argue as Tsedu does that all other January 8, statements allowed for the leagues to speak as a standard is also not being cognizant that whilst this may have been a practice it is not a policy matter and to treat it as a policy matter to bolster a contention of “muzzling” or as he argues censoring on the part of ANC leadership is furthermore a stretched subject.

Thirdly, Tsedu argues that those who supported the ANC decision to have one speaker embodied as the president on this august occasion warrants condemnation. The challenge with this assumption on the part of Tsedu and others is the fact that they commit two errors, firstly their views are informed by speculation evidenced in assumption and also these views are predicated on the a fallacious argument of non- thinking leagues. This means according Tsedu and others the Women’s league and Veterans league are as small as being brainwashed by fear to allow for whoever in ANC to punish them for the sins of the ANCYL. This is flawed thinking and deserves rejection with contempt for the illustrious history of the ANC challenges this very now assumed notion. Let us not forget that the Women’s league have an elongated history to make unpopular decisions as viewed by some as in the case of Polokwane 2007 when they chose a man and that man is the current sitting president.

This stance whilst condemned by some for reasons known to them remains a moment of sheer celebrated leadership on the part of the women’s league, to therefore lump ANC structures as lacking backbone in decision making is sophistic to say the least.

In the fourth instance, the fact that the SACP leadership does not speak and again as Tsedu seems to in veiled sense argue that it’s leadership for accepting such kow-towed is again a misreading. Such misreading fails to be cognizant of the fact that this is an ANC event and to invoke a equal status of alliance stature to such as the only means of true centenary celebration of ANC is to confuse the role and alliance structures with ANC issues. Perhaps Tsedu must tell us why he necessarily reads the non speaking of SACP only from a one dimensional sense and not perhaps ask could it be that the SACP affords the ANC it’s alliance partner the right to celebrate the history of the ANC, when such celebration does not negate the fact that there is a functional alliance who is actively involved as partners in the realization of the National Democratic Revolution, yet the ANC remains the centre of such alliance as the 2010 political report of it’s president unequivocally argues.

I shall argue in the fifth instance that the same applies for COSATU and trade union movement role.

Perhaps the biggest challenge for me is what Mathata Tsedu and others hope for to see a Malema on the stage? One would be forgiven to assume that perhaps they desire a spoiled Centenary Celebration as they advance this polarization of organisational context manifested in ANC it’s structures and Alliance partners. In a sense it purports to be a fueling of tension in typical media desire embrace.

I think it is pragmatic and astute leadership of the ANC to make a decision regardless to the tradewinds of political conjecture in organizational context to make tough decisions and abide by such.

Such decision to have only the President speak is a bold, decisive and leading decision that again confirms that the ANC is not held immured by personality politics, it may prove silent but such silence is not to be misconstrued as muzzled but effective leadership in torrid times. Why this is misread as for an indictment defies the odds.

I do not even think the ANC chairperson should have as cited by a Tsedu stated the reason for one speaker on this prestigious occasion is due to the brevity of time and the length of the programme.

In my books the ANC needs not ever apologize for an ANC decision unpopular as these at times may appear for some.

In conclusion to deliberately define this decision as an anti- Malema is to misunderstand that the ANC is bigger than any personality. I am not even going to advance my opinion on whether a Malema is worthy of speaking on such an occasion for that is beside the point.

This is indeed a momentous occasion and to accommodate sideshows is not in the interest of the ANC and it’s illustrious history.

Respectfully submitted.

Bishop Clyde N. Ramalaine, independent observer, author of “Through the Prism of My Soul” and soon coming ” Tradewinds are Blowing”