The president of Sudan, Omar Al Bashir, has agreed to an initiative to tackle the problem of water shortage in northwestern Sudan. The "1,000 Wells For Darfur" initiative was agreed on during a meeting (20 June) in Khartoum between Al Bashir and the Egyptian scientist Farouk El-Baz, director of the Center for Remote Sensing at the US-based Boston University, who proposed the initiative.

The assets of the African and Third World exceeds all the capitalisation of all the major stock markets, which in turn are capitalised by legitimised instruments in traded paper (Fiat money). The only way for Africa and the rest of the Third World to lift themselves is to address the Money Supply. If there is a desire as to how this can be done, please come back.

Cost of living in Nairobi slums higher than minimum taxable income

Integrating the continent can be used as a means of speeding up Africa's achievement of the United Nations Millenium Development Goals (MDGs), a top UN official says. Speaking at the opening ceremony of the 11th session of the AU Executive Council in Accra Thursday, Abdoulie Janneh, UN under-secretary general highlighted economic integration as vital for Africa's successful unification.

A court in the French city of Bordeaux ordered the President of Gabon, Omar Bongo Ondiba, to compensate the son of a French citizen, René Cardona, who was jailed in Gabon in 1996. The court found Mr Bongo guilty of official corruption. The court portrayed Mr Cardona as an “accomplice of President Bongo and his family in arms and fishing equipment firm” when a judicial inquiry that led to his jailing in Libreville was launched.

The first round of Congo's legislative elections was marked by chaos on Sunday, with long delays, protesters crying foul and about 40 smaller opposition parties boycotting the ballot. In neighbourhoods of the capital, Brazzaville, and the economic capital, Pointe-Noire, several polling stations had still not opened by noon, five hours after they were supposed to, officials and local reporters said.

Something is brewing at the Kenya Police Airwing and it’s not smelling too good, writes Mwalimu Mati Documents have come to light regarding the award of a US$12.8 million (Ksh 840 million) contract to overhaul 4 Russian built helicopters operated by the Kenya Police Airwing.

It would appear that 9 years after they were bought in 1998, these 4 helicopters have consumed close to US$ 15 million each and Kenyans are now being asked to spend an additional US$ 12.8 million to overhaul them. This calls for an immediate explanation from the Government of Kenya as to why we are throwing good money after bad, servicing these second hand helicopters which have done nothing to improve either our debt or security situation.

Kenyans are also entitled to know what action is contemplated against the public officers (Ministers, Permanent Secretaries and Police Commissioners) over the years who have charged our collective account with what is clearly a bad deal worth over US$ 60 million or Ksh 4.2 billion.

Until these documents surfaced, as far as we knew, the matter of the junk helicopters was at a rest. The position, as we knew it to be, was that as of June 30th 2006, the outstanding debt related to the helicopters remained at just under Ksh 350 million and that this debt was recorded as being owed to J.S. Schroder Bank. It was our hope that the investigations by Kenya Anti Corruption Commission and the special assignment of Price Water House Coopers would eventually reveal the truth about these expensive helicopters, and which public officers and their associates we would be demanding to see punished for the misadventure.

What we could never have imagined is that in 2007, the helicopters would still be used to appropriate even more tax money (actually Ksh 840 million) in what is a dubious contract to overhaul them.

FEATURES: Owen Alik Shahadah describes how history is written to deny agency to Africa and its peoples
COMMENTS & ANALYSIS
- Abdul Raufu Mustapha assesses the impact on Nigeria’s recent fraudulent elections
- South Africa’s involvement in Nigeria is not about Pan Africanism Shawn
Hattingh but about exploitation
- Corruption scandal hits Kenya
- Joseph Yav argues that poverty alleviation requires a holistic approach
LETTERS
- Amnesty International and CSOs call on human rights to be at the centre of the dialogue between government and MDC
- Operation Murambatsvina comes to KwaZulu Natal
PAN AFRICAN POSTCARD: we are blessed with two contributions from Tajudeen this week: the killing of John Garang and the call for a Union Government of Africa
BOOKS & ARTS: More from the Poetess of the People

AU MONITOR: with Pambazuka News staff in Accra, there is plenty to report from the African Union
PODCAST: Interview with Madaraka Nyerere on the relaunch of the Arusha Declaration
WOMEN AND GENDER: Mauritian budget to target women
CONFLICT AND EMERGENCIES: Can the Ouagadougou agreement bring peace?
HUMAN RIGHTS: Human trafficking on the rise in East Africa
SOCIAL MOVEMENTS: Zimbabwe government lifts ban on rallies
REFUGEES AND FORCED MIGRATION: Damning report on Uganda war crimes
ELECTIONS AND GOVERNANCE: Disorder mars Congo’s elections
AFRICA AND CHINA: AU to help Africa benefit from trade with China
CORRUPTION: Liberian graft watchdog threatened
DEVELOPMENT: Initiation to bring jobs to Sierra Leone’s rural youth
HEALTH AND HIV/Aids: Taking stock of the AIDS response
EDUCATION: Africa moves to achieve Education For All
ENVIRONMENT: A difficult trade-off to save Rwanda’s Lake Kivu
LAND & LAND RIGHTS: Mozambique’s first land confiscations
MEDIA AND FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION: Lesotho journalist charged with treason
NEWS FROM THE DIASPORA: The UK’s child slaves
INTERNET AND TECHNOLOGY: World Information Society 2007 report
PLUS: e-newsletters and mailings lists; courses, seminars and workshops and jobs

*Pambazuka News now has a Del.icio.us page, where you can view the various websites that we visit to keep our fingers on the pulse of Africa! Visit

Three months after the extra-ordinary Summit of the Heads of State and Government of the Southern Africa Development Community (SADC), which took place on 29 March 2007 in Dar es Salaam, the United Republic of Tanzania, over one hundred international human rights and civil society organisations have come together to call on SADC leaders to urge the government of Zimbabwe to end human rights violations in Zimbabwe. In particular, we call on President Thabo Mbeki of South Africa, in his capacity as the SADC-appointed mediator, to ensure that human rights issues are prioritised in any settlement to be agreed by the government of Zimbabwe and the political opposition party, the Movement for Democratic Change (MDC).

Further details: follow links below.

Today [Thursday 21 June 2007] the KwaZulu-Natal Elimination & Prevention of Re-emergence of Slums Bill will be discussed in the provincial parliament. Abahlali baseMjondolo have discussed this Bill very carefully in many meetings. We have heard Housing MEC Mike Mabuyakulu say that we must not worry because it is aimed at slumlords and shack farming. We have heard Ranjith Purshotum from the Legal Resources Centre say that "Instead of saying that people will be evicted from slums after permanent accommodation is secured, we have a situation where people are being removed from a slum, and sent to another slum. Only this time it is a government-approved slum and is called a transit area. This is the twisted logic of the drafters of the legislation". We have heard Marie Huchzermeyer from Wits University say that this Bill uses the language of apartheid, is anti-poor and is in direct contradiction with the national housing policy Breaking New Ground. Lawyers have told us that this Bill is unconstitutional.

It is very clear to us that this Bill is an attempt to mount a legal attack on the poor. Already the poor, shack dwellers and street traders, are under illegal and violent attack by Municipalities. This Bill is an attempt to legalize the attacks on the poor. We know about Operation Murambatsvia. Last year one of our members visited Harare and last week we hosted two people from Harare. This Bill is an attempt to legalize a KZN Operation Murambatsvina before the World Cup in 2010. We will fight it all the way.

We will fight this Bill in the courts. We will fight this Bill in the streets. We will fight this Bill in the way we live our ordinary lives everyday. We will not be driven out of our cities as if we were rubbish.

South Africa has played an intimate role in the recent Nigerian elections. Despite what the ANC government claims, South Africa’s foreign policy towards Africa is not based on Pan-Africanism or anti-imperialism; it is rather based on promoting South Africa’s expanding business interests on the continent. In reality, the South African state’s interests, in both the domestic and African arena, have become fused with those South Africa’s capitalist elite. The ruling party in Nigeria has served the South African capital and the state’s interests well. It has facilitated the process whereby South Africa has become a major economic player in Nigeria in only 8 years, writes Shawn Hattingh.

From the very start, the recent Nigerian elections, which saw Olusegun Obasanjo placing his hand picked successor, Umaru Yar’ Adua, into the Presidential palace, were mired in controversy. The ballot papers for the election, which were printed in South Africa, contained no counter foils or serial numbers – features which would have made vote rigging difficult. In fact, only 40 million ballot papers were even printed; this for an election where over 65 million people had registered to vote [1]. To make matters worse, only 30% of these ballot papers were ever sent to Nigeria; the rest remained lying in a warehouse in Johannesburg on day of the elections [2]. Of the ballot papers that were sent to Nigeria, most were rushed off to areas that were and are strongholds of Obasanjo’s and Yar’ Adua’s ruling party, the People’s Democratic Party. In contrast, areas where there was strong opposition to the government, such as the Niger Delta, did not receive enough ballot papers. On the day of the election, independent observers noted that vote rigging and fraud were rife. Yar’ Adua supporters were even seen stuffing fraudulent ballot papers into ballot boxes at voter stations across the county [3]. Intimidation of opposition supporters was also widespread. In fact, over 200 people, mainly members of the opposition parties, were murdered in the run up to the elections [4]. This situation that led most independent observers to declare the elections deeply flawed.

The South African government, however, had a very different view of the elections. Spearheaded by Thabo Mbeki, it came out and said the elections had been free and fair. Indeed, South Africa was the first country to congratulate and offer support to the ruling party’s candidate, Yar’ Adua, on ‘winning’ the elections [5]. Immediately following this, he was invited to Tshwane to have a personal congratulatory meeting with Thabo Mbeki. The question is: why would the South African government fall over itself to congratulate Yar’ Adua on ‘winning’ an election that was so clearly rigged? The answer to this question lies in South Africa’s policy towards Africa, in the form of New Partnership for Africa’s Development (NEPAD), the relationship that it has with the ruling party in Nigeria, and the expansionist agenda that South African corporations and parastatals have in Nigeria.

South Africa’s policy towards Africa: neo-liberalism and NEPAD

Despite what the ANC government claims, South Africa’s foreign policy towards Africa is not based on Pan-Africanism or anti-imperialism; it is rather based on promoting South Africa’s expanding business interests on the continent. In reality, the South African state’s interests, in both the domestic and African arena, have become fused with those South Africa’s capitalist elite.

In Africa, South Africa has used it hegemonic position, based on leadership by consent and at times coercion, to develop a neo-liberal policy – NEPAD - for the entire continent. The close relationship that exists between the South African state and South African capital is the main reason why NEPAD emerged [6]. Representatives of South Africa’s capitalist class, along with other neo-liberal government advisors, played a central role in developing NEPAD. In true hegemonic fashion, however, South Africa also brought junior partners on board, such as ex-president Obasanjo of Nigeria, so that it could pass its own initiative off as an African initiative.

Nonetheless, South Africa’s control over NEPAD is underpinned by the fact that NEPAD’s headquarters are situated in South Africa. It is also no mere coincidence that Thabo Mbeki’s main economic advisor, Professor Wisemen Nkuhlu, is the executive head of NEPAD.

NEPAD itself is based on some of the classic pillars of neo-liberal economic fundamentalism. It views the private sector as the main driving force of the African economy. As such, NEPAD states that all barriers to companies making profits in African countries, such as Nigeria, should be removed. It explicitly promotes the development of the private sector; privatisation; free trade; financial liberalisation; labour flexibility; and foreign direct investment in Africa [7]. Indeed, NEPAD states that foreign direct investment is its most important pillar. Considering that South African corporations and parastatals are already responsible for the vast majority of foreign direct investment in Africa, it is very clear who stands to benefit. In fact, all of NEPAD’s neo-liberal pillars are creating a climate that facilitates the expansion and profiteering of South African companies in Africa. The reality is that NEPAD aims to further entrench the neo-liberal policies that the IMF and World Bank imposed on Africa, only this time the South African government hopes it will be to the advantage of South African multinationals [8]. Wisemen Nkuhlu stated as much in 2003, when he said:

“South Africa’s self interest in the socio-economic development of the continent is well understood by business. South Africa needs markets for her products and access to raw materials that are not produced in South Africa. Countries like Angola, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Equatorial Guinea and many other countries have resources that are of economic interest to South Africa…. Supporting and sponsoring NEPAD, places South Africa in a strong position to become the preferred development partner by a number of African countries”[9] .

The South African state has not only opened up Nigeria’s economy to South African investments and exports through NEPAD, it has also done so through bi-lateral agreements and a Bi-national Commission.

South Africa’s bi-lateral interventions in Nigeria

Prior to 1999, South Africa had a poor political relationship with Nigeria. At the time, Nigeria was ruled by a military junta that was politically hostile towards South Africa. This, however, dramatically changed with the end of the military government and the election of the People’s Democratic Party’s leader, Obasanjo, as the Nigerian president in 1999. From that point on, the South African state built a strong, but unequal relationship with the People’s Democratic Party government under the leadership of Obasanjo and Yar’ Adua. This relationship was also helped by the fact that Thabo Mbeki had formed a strong friendship with Obasanjo and Yar’ Adua when he was in exile in Nigeria from 1976 to 1979 [10].

In 1999, the South African and Nigerian governments signed bi-lateral agreements on trade and investment. These agreements, amongst other things, aimed to increase the amount of trade and investments between South Africa and Nigeria [11]. Along with this, the agreement on investments specifically protected South African companies’ investments in Nigeria, which included protection from any possible future nationalisation [12]. Indeed, the agreement on investments was highly favourable for prospective South African investors in Nigeria. Added to this, the two governments also signed an agreement on eradicating double taxation. This meant that South African companies that paid tax in Nigeria would not have to pay tax again on profits that were, and are, repatriated to South Africa [13]. Such measures were aimed at increasing the attractiveness of Nigeria for South African investors.

In October 1999, a South Africa-Nigeria Bi-National Commission was also established by the South African and Nigerian governments. The Bi-National Commission has been meeting twice a year ever since, and aims to increase the amount of trade and investment between South Africa and Nigeria. The Deputy Presidents of South Africa and Nigeria head up the commission. Representatives from all government departments attend the meetings along with top South African business people. At the meetings, trade and investment opportunities in Nigeria are identified and plans are put in place so that they can be realised. In this way, many deals that have proved very lucrative for South African companies and parastatals have been facilitated through the Bi-National Commission.

The South Africa-Nigeria Chamber of Commerce also arose out of the Bi-National Commission. Some of the largest South African companies that have investments in Nigeria are members of the Chamber, such as MTN, Standard Bank, First Rand, Imperial, Johncom, Massmart, Nampak and Sun International [14]. The main goal of the South African-Nigerian Chamber of Commerce is to identify investment opportunities in Nigeria for South African corporations [15]. Added to this, the South African-Nigerian Chamber of Commerce also provides information on Nigerian government policies and how to do business in Nigeria. It also conducts market research for South African companies wanting to invest Nigeria. The Chamber receives strong support from the

South African government. On many occasions the President, Deputy President and other government officials have addressed and offered support to members of the Chamber. Linked to this, the Department of Trade and Industry (DTI) launched the South African-Nigeria Business Investment Forum to assist South African companies wanting to invest in Nigeria [16].

The South African High Commission in Nigeria also provides massive assistance to South African companies investing, or wishing to invest in Nigeria. In fact, it works closely with the South Africa-Nigeria Chamber of Commerce and the DTI to further South African business interests in Nigeria. It also provides various services to prospective South African investors in Nigeria, including providing contacts and information on Nigeria’s business climate.

All of the above measures have been extremely valuable in furthering South Africa’s business interests in Nigeria. Indeed, the South African state has used its diplomatic power and the relationship that it has with the Nigerian government to assist South African corporations and parastatals to become big players in the Nigerian economy.

South African corporations and parastatals have become big players in Nigeria

Prior to 1999, there were only 4 South African companies operating in Nigeria [17]. This situation has dramatically changed with the assistance of the South African state, and the signing of bi-lateral agreements and the establishment of a Bi-National Commission. Today there are now over 100 South African companies doing business in Nigeria [18]. Within a mere 8 years, South African companies have become major players in almost every sector of Nigerian economy.

The biggest investment by South African companies in Nigeria has been in the telecommunications sector. In 2001, MTN was awarded a license by the Nigerian government to operate a cell phone network in the country. In return, MTN had to pay licensing fees of over US $ 285 million. Added to this, MTN has spent a further US $ 1 billion on setting up its operations in Nigeria [19]. Currently, MTN is the largest cellular network company in Nigeria and has over 10 million subscribers [20]. This has seen MTN making massive profits in the country. In 2004 alone, MTN recorded an after tax profit of over R 2.4 billion in Nigeria [21]. Such profits have led other South African telecommunications companies to also set up shop in Nigeria in a bid to get a piece of the very lucrative pie. This year, Telkom announced that it was buying Multilinks, which operates a wireless network in Nigeria, for US $ 200 million [22].

South African companies have also become dominant in Nigeria’s construction sector. Entech, a Stellenbosch based engineering company, headed a consortium of South African companies that were awarded a tender worth R 2.1 billion from the Lagos State government to redevelop the Bar Beach and Victoria Island area outside of Lagos. The idea is to turn the area into a complex akin to the V&A Waterfront [23]. Another South African construction firm, Group Five, was awarded a R 585 million deal to build a power station in Nigeria for the Ibom Power company [24].

Many large South African companies have also invaded the tourism and leisure sector in Nigeria. Under NEPAD, the South African parastatal, the Industrial Development Corporation (IDC) has become one of the largest investors in Nigeria’s tourist sector. To date it has invested over US $ 1.4 billion in tourism and telecommunications ventures in Nigeria [25]. Another major player in the tourism sector is the South African company Bidvest. Through its subsidiary, Tourvest, it has purchased one of the biggest tourism companies in Nigeria, Touchdown Travel. The biggest development in the Nigerian tourism sector, however, is the massive Tinapa Project in the Cross River State. This project falls under the auspices of NEPAD and has the full backing of the South African and Nigerian governments. The project entails the construction of a massive entertainment complex, consisting of 4 shopping centres, 5 bulk warehouses, 4 hotels, and a casino, and is set to cost over US $ 300 million [26]. The major stakeholders in this development are South African companies, such as the Standard Bank, Tsogo Sun, Broll, Johncom and Southern Sun. Indeed, the centre pieces of this development will be a 300 room hotel owned by Southern Sun and a casino owned by Tsogo Sun. Another South African company, Broll, will be the leasing agents of the complex. The South African state has provided direct assistance to these companies so that they can carry out this project. Indeed, the state owned IDC has provided finance, and has underwritten these companies’ investments in this project.

In the Nigerian retail sector, South African companies also loom large. Massmart and Shoprite have opened a number of stores in Nigeria. Added to this, Johncom has established a number of stores selling books, CDs and DVDs in Nigeria [27]. A number of South African companies have also entered into the fast food business, including Famous Brands, St Elmo’s and Nandos. In fact, South African companies control almost 50% of the international fast food franchising industry in Nigeria, and have out competed companies from both the European Union and the United States. Considering that the fast food industry in Nigeria is worth over US $ 2.5 billion a year, this control over the fast food franchising business in Nigeria has meant that South African companies have made super profits 28]. The South African property management group, Broll, has also landed a deal to manage 594 retail fuel stations across Nigeria [29]. This deal too is worth millions of dollars.

South African companies are also heavily involved in Nigeria’s media and entertainment sector. DSTV is a major force in the television industry and accounts for 90% of the viewers that watch satellite TV in Nigeria [30]. This has seen DSTV growing into the sixth largest company listed on the Lagos Stock Exchange. Johncom has also eagerly entered into the Nigerian entertainment sector. It has established cinema complexes throughout Nigeria. One of these cinema complexes, in Lagos, cost US $ 40 million dollars to develop [31]. Along with this, Johncom has purchased one of the largest daily newspapers in Nigeria, Business Day [32]. South Africa’s parastatals have also ventured into the entertainment industry. For example, Arivia.com was provided with a contract worth R 140 million by the Nigerian government to assist with the running of that country’s lottery.

Since adopting NEPAD, the Nigerian state has been accelerating the privatisation process in the country. South African parastatals have been one of the major beneficiaries of this process. Indeed, through its parastatals, the South African state has become directly involved in accumulating capital in Nigeria. For example, as part of the move towards privatisation, the Nigerian government provided Umgeni Water with R 350 million contract to manage Port Harcourt’s water services for 3 years. At the moment, this contract could possibly be extended to 20 years [33]. If it is extended, it would be a massive money-spinner for Umgeni Water and the South African state.

As part of the privatisation of the energy sector, the Nigerian government allowed the state owned ESKOM to buy a 51% stake in the Nigerian Electric Power Authority (NEPA). With this, ESKOM received contracts worth US $ 165 million from the Nigerian government. Eskom has also entered into a partnership with Shell in Nigeria to upgrade and operate gas powered power stations. The Nigerian government has granted Eskom and Shell a US $ 540 million contract to operate power stations in Port Harcourt [34]. It is very interesting that ESKOM, a company owned by the South African state, wished to enter into a partnership with Shell considering Shell’s appalling human rights and environmental record in Nigeria. Indeed, Shell has destroyed the environment of the Niger Delta and has been directly responsible for over 3 000 oil spills in that area since 1976. Added to this, Shell, along with the Nigerian government, has been implicated in the murder of over 2 000 activists in the Niger Delta since the 1980s [35]. Clearly, the South African government and ESKOM are not interested in this; what they are interested in, however, is profit.

Prior to 1999, the Nigerian government awarded all of the oil concessions in the country to companies from the United States, the United Kingdom, France and Italy. As a result, companies from the Northern imperial powers dominated Nigeria’s oil sector. After 1999, this situation began to change, in part because of the close relationship that the new Nigerian government had, and has, with the South African government. Companies from the Northern imperial powers, although still dominant, no longer have a complete monopoly over the oil concessions in Nigeria; companies from South Africa, China and India have also got a piece of the action. One of the first actions of Obasanjo’s government in 1999 was to award the South African state the right to market 50 000 barrels of Nigerian oil a day. In 2003, Thabo Mbeki intervened to ensure that this was increased to 120 000 barrels of oil a day. However, the South African government has selected to pass on the rights to market this oil to a shadowy company, the South African Oil Company, which is registered in the Cayman Islands. The South African Oil Company in the Cayman Islands is 70% owned by a Nigerian-American businessman, Jakes Lawal. Who owns the other 30%, however, is a mystery [36]. Indeed, the Cayman Island law system protects the identity of the shareholders that own the other 30%. Lawal, however, has close connections with leading ANC figures. In fact, the Mail and Guardian, reported that rumours have been circulating that the ANC directly benefited from this deal. Indeed, it is interesting that the Cayman Island’s South African Oil Company also has a sister company registered in South Africa. It is perhaps no co-incidence that some of the shareholders in this sister company happen to be leading ANC figures. These shareholders are:

• Nomusa Mufamadi, wife of Sydney Mufamadi
• Hintsa Siwisa, brother-in-law of the Eastern Cape Premier
• Miles Nzama, leading figure in the ANC Fundraising Trust
• and Brian Casey, a confidant of Penuell Maduna [37]

Other, more genuine South African companies have also enjoyed receiving oil concessions from the Nigerian government. Ophir Energy, owned by Tokyo Sexwale’s Mvelephanda Resources, has been given the right to drill for oil in several blocks in Nigeria. This is bound to add to Ophir’s current value of over R 14 billion [38]. The parastatal PetroSA has also been given the right to drill in a number of oil blocks. Added to this, PetroSA owns Brass Exploration Unlimited in Nigeria. Through this company, PetroSA and the South African state have a 40% interest in the Abana oilfield off the Nigerian coast. Currently, the Abana oilfield is producing 22 000 barrels of oil a day [39]. Some South African companies have also entered into partnerships with well established multinational oil companies operating in Nigeria. For example, SASOL has entered into a 50/50 partnership with Chevron to develop a gas to fuel plant at Chevron’s Escravos oil terminal [40]. This plant will cost US $ 1.3 billion and is planned to come on line this year [41]. It will initially produce 33 000 barrels of fuel a day, but this will be increased to as much as 120 000 barrels a day over the next 10 years [42]. A number of South African firms have also become involved in providing services to the oil multinationals in Nigeria. Most notably, Grinaker established an oil-rig fabrication yard in Port Harcourt in 2000. It assembles and services the oil rigs that multinational oil companies use in the Niger Delta at that facility [43].

The Nigerian people have not benefited from South Africa’s expanding investment

Despite all this investment, the people of Nigeria have not benefited. This is partly because South African corporations operating in Nigeria are allowed to repatriate the profits that they make out of Nigeria. Added to this, many of Nigeria’s economic sectors have become completely foreign owned, which has had negative implications for the country’s sovereignty. The majority of South African corporations also source most of the products that they use or sell in Nigeria through South Africa and not locally. This means they operate in an enclave and do not promote the creation of up stream or down stream industries in Nigeria. South African companies operating in Nigeria have also created very few jobs. The jobs that they have created have tended to be casual. At many South African owned companies in Nigeria, workers have been denied the right to join trade unions [44]. For example, despite its massive profits, MTN has only created 500 permanent jobs. Most of its employees are casual or temporary workers, and it has denied all of its workers the right to join a trade union [45].

South African companies have also been involved in blatant profiteering and looting in Nigeria. Indeed, MTN charges the highest rates in the world for cellular phone calls in Nigeria [46]. Along with this, some South African companies have implemented heavy handed tactics to recover revenue owed to them by Nigerian consumers [47]. In fact, ESKOM/NEPA has hired 10 South African companies to collect the debt that it was, and is, owed by Nigerian consumers . Some South African companies have even been involved in, or were complacent in, human rights abuses in Nigeria. For example, in 2005 there was a community protest outside of the Escravos oil terminal where Chevron and SASOL are establishing their gas to fuel plant. Representatives of these companies at the Escravos oil terminal called in Nigerian security forces to break up the demonstration. On arrival, the Nigerian forces opened fire on the crowd, killing one person and injuring a further 30. Some of the protesters were then severely beaten with rifle butts and other weapons. Added to this, access to the healthcare facilities at the Escravos terminal was denied to the injured protesters. The result was that it took several hours for the injured protesters to find their way to a hospital [48].

Conclusion

From the above, it is clear that the ruling party in Nigeria has served the South African capital and the state’s interests well. It has facilitated the process whereby South Africa has become a major economic player in Nigeria in only 8 years. Indeed, South Africa has joined the older imperial powers in looting Nigeria’s resources and dominating its economy. It is, therefore, no wonder that the South African government immediately offered its congratulations to Obasanjo’s hand picked successor, Yar’ Adua’ directly after the elections. Indeed, Yar’ Adua has vowed to continue with the Obasanjo’s policies, and inevitably this will include serving South Africa’s interests well in Nigeria; even to the detriment of the Nigerian people. For as long as Yar’ Adua carries out policies that favour South African capital and the state, he can count on the backing of the Africa’s own imperial power, South Africa.

For references, see link below.

* Shawn Hattingh Works for ILRIG in Cape Town

* Please send comments to or comment online at http://www.pambazuka.org/

Since 1999 there has been a consistent deterioration in the conduct of Nigerian elections. Abdul Raufu Mustapha assesses the impact on Nigeria’s recent fraudulent elections on the future political and economic development of Nigeria.

Nigerians have not forgotten the June 12th 1993 Presidential elections which were annulled under controversial circumstances by General Babangida, plunging the country into political crises. Similarly, Nigerians are unlikely to forget the state and national elections of April 2007. There was much hype in anticipation of the 2007 elections: US National Security Adviser, Negroponte testified before Congress that these were the most important elections in Africa in 2007, while Nigerians themselves trumpeted the fact that this was going to be the first time that a civilian-to-civilian transition took place in the country.

The elections have come and gone, trailed by near universal condemnation. But we need to pause and ask, what do the elections mean for Nigeria’s future? The problems with the elections can be classified into three broad categories: incompetence and deliberate bungling by the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC); widespread use of thugs and the security forces against voters; and the flagrant abuse of the powers of incumbency.

The Electoral Commission’s catalogue of illegalities included the flouting of court orders; illegal/unconstitutional disqualification of candidates; refusal to include the names and pictures of major opposition candidates for the gubernatorial elections in Anambra State in spite of subsisting court rulings; the late arrival or non-arrival of voting materials in many places followed often by no voting, yet results were announced; in some states, the INEC headquarters announced a result when the Resident Electoral Commissioner in situ said there was no result; declaration of results while collation and counting of votes were still going on; and a month after the April polls ended, three INEC staff were caught thumb-printing ballot papers meant for the election at Igarra, Edo State, in a bid to manufacture supporting evidence for their already declared result. These can hardly be said to be the actions of a competent and fair arbiter in an electoral contest.

INEC’s commissions and omissions were compounded by the widespread use of violence in the party primaries and during the actual elections. Patterns of the systematic use of violence included the use of thugs, bombings and assassinations during the party primaries to select party candidates; the use of the police and soldiers to intimidate voters and in many places they were also observed to have participated in the seizure of ballot boxes; the use of thugs to perpetrate violence with impunity, leading to the killing of 260 people on April 14, according to Amnesty International; the assassination in a Kano Mosque on April 13th Sheik Jafar Adam, an act possibly aimed at provoking ethno-religious rioting; the attack by the so-called ‘Taliban’ on April 17th on the police in Kano and the subsequent killing of 21 policemen; and post election political assassinations in Ondo state.

Finally, there was the blatant abuse of incumbency particularly by the PDP-controlled Federal government, including the sudden declaration of a two-day public holiday to frustrate the judicial process involving opposition candidates; the unannounced closure of Kaduna airport the day before an opposition party was to hold its congress there; the block booking of hotels in Abuja to frustrate another opposition party from holding its convention; the use of the Nigerian Television Authority (NTA) to announce controversial results, such as in Jigawa State where the NTA reported that the opposition ANPP had won and two minutes later, reversed itself and awarded victory to the PDP; and finally, the physical assault on the Abia State Resident Electoral Commissioner by PDP party leaders.

Weeks before the presidential election on 21 April 2007, local and international pollsters predicted a tight race, all putting the opposition ANPP candidate Mohammadu Buhari slightly in front. In the end, INEC announced the victory of the Obasanjo protégé and PDP candidate Umaru Yar’ Adua with 24.3 million votes, with Buhari garnering 6.6 million votes and Action Congress candidate and Obasanjo antagonist, Vice-President Atiku Abubakar, trailing with 2.6 million votes.

These elections have been roundly condemned by local and foreign observers, with the exception of Baroness Linda Chalker. Condemnations and strong reservations have come from the Nigerian Bar Association, Nigeria Labour Congress, Trade Union Congress, Nigeria Union of Journalists, Academic Staff Union of the Universities, and a host of local NGOs and religious organizations. Similar condemnations have come from international bodies, including the National Democratic Institute, National Republican Institute, European Union, Economic Community of West African States, the Commonwealth, COSATU, International Crisis Group, Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, the committee of 48 Nobel Laureates, the Canadian parliament, and even Hilary Clinton. The EU observer delegation reflected generally held opinion when it concluded that the elections:

"were marred by poor organisation, lack of essential transparency, widespread procedural irregularities, significant evidence of fraud, particularly during the result collation process, voters' disenchantment at different stages of the process, lack of equal conditions for contestants and numerous incidents of violence."

Implications of the Elections: Perils of Succession Politics

Some have argued that all elections in Nigeria have been rigged. 2007 is therefore not any different. While it may be true that rigging has been a recurring feature of Nigerian politics with all parties guilty of different degrees of undemocratic conduct, 2007 nevertheless represent a qualitative difference in election rigging in Nigeria. To miss this point is to miss the danger that the 2007 elections represent.

In previous elections, you needed a minimum level of social support and acceptance to rig; there was a sociological foundation to rigging. Where rigging took place without the necessary social support, as in the Western Region in 1965 and Ondo State in 1983, widespread violence often followed. Scholars of African elections like Staffan Lindberg have argued that were repeated elections are held, they tend to entrench democratic norms. Repeated contestation between parties is seen as leading to the gradual sedimentation of democratic norms and practices. Unfortunately, Nigeria’s experience of elections since the return to civil democratic rule in 1999 contradicts this observation.

Between 1999 and 2007, Nigeria has held three elections, and there has been a systematic and persistent deterioration in the quality of the elections; 1999 was not problem-free, but it was better than 2003 which was itself better than the 2007 elections. These observations are supported by a comparison of election monitors’ reports from 1999. In 1999, there were some complaints of old-style ‘competitive’ rigging as the different parties sought to press home their advantages in different constituencies across the country. Most observers remarked that the 1999 elections were peaceful, and that despite the perceived problems the announced outcome was roughly consistent with the wishes of the Nigerian electorate, even if the margins of victory had been inflated. In 2003, however, we begin to see the systematic deployment of organized thuggery, violence and the brazen manipulation of party congresses and the actual elections in few states, particularly in the Niger Delta and the South East. In 2007, this violence and brazen manipulation was broadcast across much of the country. In 2007, Nigeria decisively moved from ‘competitive rigging’ to ‘coercive rigging’; from elections, no matter how flawed, to brazen ‘selection’.

Under ‘competitive rigging’, your supporters simply stuffed some more ballot papers for their preferred candidate and party thugs sought to intimidate the opposition. But the law enforcement agencies generally tried to stop the thugs and maintain a semblance of public order. In some instances, the sanitary inspector, the local authority police, or the Emir’s courts were used to harass opponents of the ruling party. Under ‘coercive rigging’, there is the outright resort to state-sponsored violence, the blatant abuse of the electoral machinery, and the deliberate undermining of the courts. Cudgels, guns and administrative subterfuge have replaced the microphone as the preferred instrument of political communication. When Obasanjo said the elections were going to be a ‘do-or-die’ affair, most Nigerians missed the import of that statement for he must have meant exactly that. It is therefore not surprising that guns and ammunitions were imported for the election even when basic electoral material had not been provided!

It is little wonder that the declared winner, Yar’ Adua, claimed that he won ‘fair & square’, rather than ‘free & fair’. God he said gives power to whosoever He wants! I thought elections were about citizens’ choice? Between 1999 and 2007, there has been the gradual constriction of democratic space, as ‘selection’ of candidates replaced ‘elections’. If this trend is not corrected, future elections in Nigeria have the potential of degenerating into widespread social conflict as the opposition will quickly learn that ‘preparing for elections’ means training your own vigilante groups and thugs as counter-terror confronts state-sponsored terror. Yar Adua has rightly promised electoral reforms in tacit acknowledgement of the gravely flawed process that brought him to power. Without these promised reforms, democracy, or even the continued existence of the country, will be severely put at risk. Nigerians are lucky in that the current sharp political divisions do not correspond to the entrenched cleavages of ethnicity, region and religion. The country may not be so lucky in future, if it continues with the culture of shambolic elections and impunity. The simple message is that there can be no democracy without respect for voters’ choice; if this basic fact is not quickly grasped, Nigeria faces the peril of succession politics in subsequent elections.

After 2007, What Next?

There has been some suggestion that once the transition to another administration takes place, things will quieten down and the much-trumpeted economic reforms of the Obasanjo presidency will resume. This desire for reform continuity in the West is often exacerbated by the politics of oil supplies. Let no one have any illusions: 2007 has sown the seed of insecurity and instability and things will not get back to normal until that ghost, like the ghost of the 1993 election, is addressed.

Such has been the enormity of the assault of the 2007 elections on the collective psyche of the nation that it could easily have provided the pretext for military opportunists to begin plotting to seize power. The National Party of Nigeria’s rigged ‘landslide victory’ in 1983 provoked the Buhari/Idiagbon military regime. In earlier times, therefore, we could safely assume that some factions within the military are already planning some mischief. I doubt though that a military coup is a possibility today for various intra-military and extra-military reasons. And if, out of national misfortune, one were to happen, it is likely to cause more problems than it will solve. It is therefore gratifying that the opposition Action Congress recently slapped down a military chief who hinted that in the post April election situation, the military will not fold its arms if there is widespread breakdown of law and order. All Nigerians must resist the temptation of seeing the military as a solution to the current political crisis.

If we remove the military from the equation, then we have three other factors to ponder: the response of the opposition and Civil Society groups to Yar Adua’s ‘(s)election’; ex-president Obasanjo’s intentions and his real ‘exit strategy’; and the likely trajectories of Yar Adua’s administration.

Opposition & Civil Society
When the opposition failed to get the proposed mass action going on May 1st 2007, many felt that Nigerians had accepted the fait accompli of the enthronement of the new administration. In the face of belligerent threats from the police, many activists felt that they could not put themselves at risk for the benefit of unreliable opposition politicians. Ordinary Nigerians probably wanted to get on with their struggle to eek out a living. It would be wrong, however, based on the inaction of May 1st, to conclude that Nigerians have now accepted the Yar Adua administration. Importantly, a number of significant actions continue to signify widespread displeasure. For instance, the Nigerian Bar Association conducted a successful boycott of courts in protest at the elections and has suggested the likelihood of conducting a judicial review of the elections to document what happened; the Nigeria Labour Congress carried out a partially successful 2-day sit-at-home protest, and refused to serve on the presidential inauguration committee; there was also the unprecedented demonstration by the ‘Women in Black’ in Abuja and similar demonstrations against the elections have been held in London and 10 American cities. Nigerians United for Democracy (NUD), an umbrella group of prominent pro-democracy activists and politicians has given Yar Adua an ultimatum to quit office, while prominent opposition figures like Wole Soyinka have testified before a committee of the American Congress and demanded that Yar Adua set up a panel to investigate the failed elections which he blamed on the ‘criminal quartet’ of Obasanjo, INEC chair Iwu, former Police chief Ehindero, and PDP chair, Ahmadu Ali. Meanwhile, the legal challenge by opposition politicians in 11 states and the federal level continue at various election tribunals.

These actions may not be as dramatic of mass action, but collectively, they cast a dark shadow of illegitimacy on the Yar Adua administration. It is this obvious lack of legitimacy that made it difficult for ex-president Obasanjo to pay a proposed farewell visit to Washington just before his departure from office. Both Britain and the US sent relatively lower ranking officers to Yar Adua’s inauguration; for the inauguration of the President of Liberia, the US sent a delegation led by Laura Bush and included Secretary of State Rice. For Yar Adua’s inauguration, it was left to the State Department, not the White House, to send a low-key delegation led by Jendayi Frazer. It is speculated that Obasanjo might loose his membership of the club of ex-presidents and Prime ministers, Interaction, and his invitation to serve on Tony Blair’s Africa Panel has been publicly challenged in the British media. Blighted by its heritage and lacking both domestic and international legitimacy, the Yar Adua administration is vulnerable.

Obasanjo’s Intentions
A second important piece of our jig-saw is ex-president Obasanjo’s real intentions in foisting Yar Adua first on the PDP, and then on Nigeria as a whole. Under Obasanjo, the PDP changed its rules so that only he can be the leader and ‘conscience’ of the party. Candidates on the party’s platform were also compelled to sign contracts of ‘obedience’ to the party, and the rules have been changed so that the party is said to be supreme to its elected members in public office. Ladipo Adamolekun recently pointed what he called the ‘dangerous doctrine of party supremacy’ that now pervades the PDP as Obasanjo’s presidential term came to an end. Central to this syndrome was the equation of loyalty to the PDP to loyalty to the Nigerian nation, and a division of labour by which the party under Obasanjo’s control decided policy, while the elected governments under the party’s platform, including the Yar Adua administration, are given the role of policy implementation. There is no doubt that Obasanjo is seeking to entrench his influence in the new administration. But to what ends? One reason may be to defend his back as he moves off the centre stage of presidential power? Or to tele-guide Yar Adua from behind and consolidate his alleged status as the ‘founder of modern Nigeria’? Obasanjo’s real intentions will influence the stability of the Yar Adua administration for while Yar Adua is likely to be willing to defend him, it is not clear if Yar Adua is willing, or can afford, to be a tele-guided robot.

Yar Adua
The final piece of our jig-saw is Yar Adua himself. He has so far given contradictory signals with regard to his intentions. Will he be an Obasanjo robot? Or will he unfold an independent agenda once he consolidates his hold on power? On the one hand, he promised to only marginally tinker with the personnel and policies of Obasanjo’s government. On the other, he has promised a ‘servant-leadership’ style, which can only be taken as an oblique criticism of Obasanjo’s proverbial high-handedness; he has also promised a programme of national ‘restoration’, another Freudian acknowledgement of his tarnished inheritance.

Much of what we have heard about Yar Adua is that he is taciturn, ascetic and relatively incorrupt. These are good leadership qualities by Nigerian standards. We should also remember, however, that he is equally capable of political ruthlessness. For examples, he forced out all the five leading members of the Katsina State PDP after he became governor in 1999; he successfully frustrated Aminu Masari, influential Speaker of the Federal House of Representatives from running for Katsina governor under the PDP in 2007; force and violence were freely used against the opposition in Katsina and Daura in the 2007 elections. We are clearly not dealing with a bumbling saint, but it remains to be seen if he has the will and determination to resist being turned into a puppet.

The stability and security of post-election Nigeria will therefore depend on three critical factors: what the opposition and civil society do; what Obasanjo’s real intentions are; and Yar Adua’s capabilities and response to both. If out of vulnerability, Yar Adua sticks with Obasanjo and the PDP, he is likely to face increasing civil protest and rely more on the coercive apparatus set up under the Obasanjo presidency. If, on the other hand, he decides to be independent of Obasanjo, then he is likely to confront opposition from entrenched forces from within the PDP. Significantly, two people are already on record as saying that Yar’ Adua will ‘deal with’ Obasanjo: General TY Danjuma and Alhaji Makama, PDP Kaduna State Chairman. Whichever direction Yar Adua turns, he is likely to be confronted with stiff resistance, at least in the next 12 to 15 months. Those who think that reforms will continue once the transition to a new administration has taken place may well be mistaken. Nigerians live in the proverbial interesting times.

The Future of Democracy.

It is understandable that most Nigerians are disappointed and traumatized by the 2007 elections. There is no doubt that INEC’s conduct has brought dishonor to the country.

This current disappointment is coming on top of a long-run decline in support for the democratic administration since 1999. According to Afrobarometer surveys between 2000 and 2005, support for democracy in Nigeria has gone down from 81% of those surveyed in 2000, to 65% in 2005. Over the same period, ex-president Obasanjo’s approval rating plummeted from 84% to 32%. The ‘(s)election’ of April 2007 further aggravates this growing disillusionment. Under the circumstances, it is easy to understand the air of despair that pervades the country.

Nigerians however need to remind themselves of some of the positive things that came out of the 2007 experience. Firstly, Yar Adua was not Obasanjo’s first choice; Obasanjo’s first choice through term elongation was Obasanjo himself. The political will that defeated the sit-tight design under the ‘third term’ can also be mustered to defeat ‘the son of third term’. Secondly the judiciary and the media have largely been beacons of hope. In the Ararume and Atiku cases that went to the Supreme and Federal Appeal courts, we see a judiciary committed to the rule of law and worthy of respect and support. This was certainly not the case in the electoral debacle of June 12th 1993. Thirdly, important organs and personalities of civil society have shown that they remain unbowed in the face of authoritarianism. Fourthly, General Buhari, in his statesman-like conduct, and Atiku, through his dogged reliance on the courts, have shown that they can still make useful contributions to the entrenchment of democratic norms in Nigeria. Finally, it should also be borne in mind that this was also the election in which the middle classes came out in post-colonial Nigeria to stand for something new and refreshing: Utomi, Agbaje, Oshiomole, Bugaje, and Fayemi.

It will be important for the opposition and civil society to use the courts, the media, and all peaceful avenues to force Yar Adua to redeem his promise of electoral reform. Nigerian democracy, or even the country itself, will not survive without serious and urgent electoral/constitutional reforms. Logically, it would seem that the correct strategy would be to put enough pressure on Yar Adua to make him sit up and redeem his pledge, but not so much that his only source of succour is the bosom of the Obasanjo-controlled PDP. Only Nigerians can save their country from the scourge of impunity which the sham elections of 2007 represent.

* Abdul Raufu Mustapha is a University Lecturer in African Politics & Kirk-Greene Fellow, University of Oxford.

* Please send comments to or comment online at http://www.pambazuka.org/

When history is reduced from all the pages and pages to the underlining conclusion, we find regardless of if the author is British liberal, American conservative, or Australian the conclusion is the same. Africa has fostered nothing the Western World considers artifacts of civilization. With few exceptions, this is the underlying summarization on Africa, the pathology of discrediting and take-away, writes Owen Alik Shahadah.

To understand the entire discourse on Africa and African people is to indulge in a vivid exercise in the removal of agency. The primary purpose of this study, new and old is the continuous reassertion of Conrad's “Heart of Darkness.” This is the tradition in anti-African scholarship that provides the moral-academic justification for the slave trade: the most successful commercial venture in the history of humanity. In Europe's bid to protect their trade interest, the marriage between racist academia and the exploitation of Africa had to be made. The need for the continuation of this tradition is not lost in today's markets, which are heavily dependent on sustaining the impoverishment of Africa. Africa today continues to be the primary testing bed for new drugs, social experiments, cheap labor and raw material. A wealthy Africa would create stronger corruption-free government, which in turn would be an antigen to Western imperialist designs. The reality of Africa on-the-ground is a continent locked into a blind subservient orbit. Africa is the junk-yard of the Western World, the sole purpose of the continent is not for the native African, but for the harvesting of materials to construct Western civilization.

People speak from their cultural perspective; this in itself is not a problem. It is a natural aspect of human behavior. When Americans speak of tragedy, they reference their 9/11. However, 9/11 is a date in world history and may have significance to another culture. In Iraq, they have much reason to identify with other incidence in their recent history to reference tragedy, like 11/23. [1] The problem comes when the localized experience of one culture or nation is imposed on the reality of others directly outside of this experience.

Denial of agency

When African history is reduced the underlining conclusion we find, regardless of if the author is British liberal, American conservative, or Australian is the same: Africa has fostered nothing the Western World considers artifacts of civilization. With few exceptions, this is the underlying summarization on Africa, the pathology of discrediting and take-away:

* Ethiopia – Not of African Origin
* Egypt – Not of African origin
* Sudan – Not of African origin
* Mali – Not of African origin
* The Moorish Empire – Not African
* Ancient Zimbabwe – Not of African origin

There is nothing glorious in Africa that has not been reassigned to “White” ownership. And some are confused about terms like Arab, but Arabs from the perspective of Eurocentric history are a “Middle-Eastern Caucasoid,” so quite happily will they reassign Ancient Egypt or Islamic Spain to Arab people. The question for the discerning student of history is; why do all the conclusions always serve to empower Europeans and disempower Africans. It does not matter if they use archeology or genetics, linguistics; the conclusions always make a deposit towards the greatness of Europe, and a deduction from the glory of Africa.

• Who ended the slave trade- Europe
• Who stopped the Arab trade – Europe
• Who was the greatest Abolitionist – A European
• The greatest scientist, thinker, architect, composers, inventors – Europeans
• Who invented modern civilization – Europe
• Who invented everything good – Europe
• Who is the most civilized - Europe

The question that should is left hanging is “What has indigenous Africa contributed to the world?” Because the history of take-away has reduced Africa to nothing, thus validating the old statement “Africa is of no historical significance.” So how are today’s scholars any different from David Hume and Kant? If all their conclusions reduced all the nobility of Africa to given, borrowed or stolen. The ultimate hero in every single story is the European; it is the most inescapable imposed reality the world is forced to accept.

Making a slave

In the analysis of the paradigm “the making of a slave” the removal of agency from Africa was the first instruction needed in the creation of a “cooperative work-force.” Africans taken to the New World had no authority over their life; they were not even allowed to commit suicide. And the reason for adversity to African suicide was not religious or commercially motivated. It was not the fear of losing “merchandise” but moreover the mental domination and removal of all forms of self-ownership from the psyche of the African captives. The re-labeling and amalgamation of the Mandika, Fulani, Igbo, Asante, into one bland color label- black, was part of the greater process of absolute reduction of African identity: A color epithet that Europe believed to be the lowest color on Earth, thus reflecting the social designation of African people in European psyche. But for slavery to work this reality had to be transferred from the European mind to the African mind. Africans had to believe what Europe believed about Africa and Africans. Cultures, ethnicity, legacy, royalty, lineage was now melted down to a single entity—slave. The slave had no past and certainly no future, save for after death when they were allowed to service a white god in an abstract heaven.

When we traverse the globe today and look at oppressed people, we see that despite their oppression, they are fully conscious of self, they have religion and culture, which they proudly use to, distinguishes themselves from their oppressors. The Jews in Hitler's death camps knew they were Jewish, they had their Torah, they had the Talmud and they had their history, which was reinforced by a Jewish culture. No amount of “special treatment” could alter the Jewish religion or their historical legacy. However, Africans by a process of the most hideous system in humanity were removed and later denied access to their history. Africans could not be attached to greatness as this would then beg the question, if these people were capable of science, engineering, social structure and kingdoms, how can their function be as beast-of-burden? How can a people who forged Timbuktu, Aksum, Kanem-Bornu, Egypt, Nubia, Great Zimbabwe, Ancient Ghana, Songhay, Sokoto Caliphate, Monomotapa be now mere labor units, movable chattel, branded like cattle, confined, de-robed, whipped, and reduced?

It was essential to institutionalize the myth of a dark and savage Africa occupied by heathen cannibals who were saved by Europeans from absolute misery at the hands of their countrymen and marauding Arabs. History narrates that the European in their mercy did Africans a tremendous favor by bringing them to work in well-nurtured plantations in the West, allowing their lives to be touched by a white god, delivering them from savagery to culture, civilization and industrialization. And today this core racism is dressed with roses and resold in the form of the likes of John Reader et al.

Academic racism and agency

The legacy of the African Holocaust has made a profound affect on African academics: It puts the African at a chessboard where all the pieces are white. And because of the profound disinheritance in areas of social-economic, there has been a natural disinheritance in areas of academics. Africans do not have access to research aspects of their history, and even if they do they are trapped in scholarships programs from European institutions. And even if they survive this ‘killing field’ they need to return their work to European controlled publishing houses, if by divine intervention they escape this, there is the distribution issue to deal with. With the volumes of publish works by the “Hitler's of the African Holocaust” it is impossible for Africans to gain any authoritative stance in their own history. Year after year, the bookshelves are filled with one opinion, that of the most perjorative ideas on Africa. Just take a look in the African history section of ‘Barnes and Noble’ or ‘Books, etc.’ And if an African author is to be found it is likely those singing the loudest from this Eurocentric music score.

Oxford academic [[J.R. Baker]] listed that a civilization is comprised of 21 basic components which where critical to demarcate the degree of civilization of a race. His conclusion was that Caucasians met all 21 criteria in Iraq, Crete, India, and in Egypt, and the Asians met them all in China. The Africans and Australian aborigines met virtually none of the 21 criteria. ‘’Race’’. J.R. Baker’’, 1974, p 507-508

Baker, in his book, argues that a society originates a “civilization” if, prior to influence from outsiders, (FN1) most of its members meet most of these 21 requirements (), where “Africans” means sub-Saharan African

The self-referencing of the “old boys” like Hume and Kant is valid today because it is old, white, and used many, many times. We often hear “so and so is acknowledged by everyone to be one of the most prominent scholars of …” so and so is always white. Final authority is white, the accepted standard in academics is the white verdict on Ancient Egypt, Axsum etc. Scholarship is a white only seat, academic apartheid with no room for debate. They say with one breath that some of these old academics were “men of their time” but they still keep saying these people were the ‘definitive guide to Africa.’ How can you say something is wrong but keep using it as a definitive source? The complete dismantlement (deconstruction) of the academic paradigm of authority needs to be a first step in a pure analysis, and it is for Africans to adopt this approach as bases for articulating and imposing a new academic identify on Africa.

African history on an African schedule in an African format for an African agenda. Africans must determine the placement and the process by which African history and culture is taught, disseminated, absorbed and weighted. The agenda setting and permission slips from Europe are the legacy of mental enslavement. The agency of Africa means just that African people as agents of all aspects of their history, politics and culture. This is not a statement of supremacy but mere equality. And for this reason the Maafa studies is a key sign of the Pan-African paradigm-shift where the legacy of the African Holocaust on African people globally is studied within the framework of the natural history in which the Maafa occurred. The emphasis in the historical narrative is on African agents.

Europe solution for Africa

“Begging the fox to save you from the wolf.”

The premises behind much of the solutions for Africa are in the ideal that a hurting Africa needs a humanist hand from Europe. This is like appealing to the fox to save you from the wolf. An agreement in the United Nations’ Security Council or other diabolical agencies such as the World Bank is like an agreement among a choir, and such agreements are not meant to provide any relief to the problems of Africa. NEPAD insist that a richer Africa is in the interest of the entire world, true or false, this assumption will not appeal to the morality of a world system that never in its legacy acted along a moral compass. From “Feed Africa” to “Make Poverty History” which are mere sloganeering programs with no genuine effect to the teeming population of the continent. These campaigns are industries unto themselves that create billions of dollars and generate millions of jobs for Europeans. Entire European not African business exists that sustain their product line entirely from the poverty of Africa. We are naïve and childish to believe a richer Africa is in the interest of Europe. Poor people do not have the luxury of liberalism and freedom of speech. Poor people have no point of view other than “feed me”, Poor people are absent from the luxury of agency. And a poor Africa will always be a slave to a richer Europe.

Today at every major anti-slavery or save Africa project is lead by a European deciding and inviting personalities from the African world to sit at “THEIR” table, to discuss Africa’s problems. The frontline for Make Poverty History is a “museum of rock star” beyond their performance years, probably seeking redemption and revival; Gedolf is the expert on famine, Bono the authority on AIDS. Bob Geldof, the Jesus and Tarzan character all rolled into one. The first name that comes to mind when abolition is whispered is William Wilberforce and Granville Sharpe. Walking in the legacy of Dr. Livingston, I presume: A man who single-handedly ended the ENTIRE Arab Slave trade. Again, the agency in African liberation is Europe. None of these ‘saviors’ of Africa even deal with how Africa found itself in the endless cycle of horror. What kind of world do we live in when the views of the oppressed are expressed at the convenience of the rich?

Language of racism

To highlight the academic dilemma against Africans it is necessarily to just site one of Europe’s key historians on slavery. The age of the work and the period it was written in seem to make little impression in universities today, who seem to neglect the social status of Africans in the time these so-called scholarly books were being written in. It also neglects to highlight the mindset of the authors of these works and their contribution to the obscuring and footnoting of African history and African contributions to civilization. Men who would be labeled by a self-determined African today are referenced and cited with little challenge. Despite all the new research and development, this dead racist scholarship is still held high as the authentic source on Africa. Almost as if the more you reference a bad source the more authentic it becomes. The foundation of history of Africa cannot be studied outside of the dynamics of race and racism in the writings of African conquers. This is not to dismiss their entire work, but surely to raise the red flag of sincerity, and subsequently expose the agendas behind these scribbling. J.D. Fage sits high on this throne of Anti-African rhetoric [2].

“Today, however, some scholars assert that slavery did not have a wholly disastrous effect on those left behind in Africa.” [3]

We must assume there is again some degree of salvation in the actions of the Europeans enslaving Africans. It is like saying the Jewish Holocaust was not entirely beneficial because some Jews got senior position in the Nazi army, or slavery was good because Africans got free Caribbean cruises.

“At its peak, the Atlantic slave trade took about 90,000 slaves per year out of a total population of around 25 million in just Guinea, where the vast majority originated. This number was significant, yet only a moderate annual growth rate in population was enough to sustain it by replacement. Therefore, the slave trade is unlikely to have caused a decrease in the population of West Africa, though it may have reduced or even halted population growth in some regions.” [4]

Again, we see the apology and denial of the consequences of enslavement [5]. What this is saying is the harvesting of African people was done sustainable and that it had no demographic consequences on birth rate, it would be worth mentioning that the most viral and healthiest members where been exported overseas so it is inconceivable that it would not affect population demographics not to mention settlement patterns and human social potential.

The Nok civilization is argued by some to prove that Africa had a civilization prior to the arrival of Europe.

This kind of tone appears to vindicate Africa but it actually introduces reasonable doubt. Its references again the false notion of a primitive Africa as a half-valid hypothesis for it shows by implication that anything or everything in Africa has to be articulated by juxtaposition. African civilization does not require any proof or revolutionary rethink. This kind of reasoning follows from “he seems very educated for a black” or “you see they are not all savages.” What needs to be done is exposed the motives behind those removing African agency from the annals of world cultural contributions.

“For those left behind in Africa the standard of living increased substantially and the region became divided into highly centralized and powerful nation states, such as Dahomey and the Ashanti Confederacy. It also created a class of very wealthy and highly Europeanized traders who began to send their children to European Universities. [6]

The contempt in Eurocentrism is so self-evident it almost needs no commentary to identify either intention or fallacies. It is be restated the source of this material comes from a respected seminal academic and authority on Africa. Before Europe, we know the Kanka Musa had gold reserves that made Ancient Mali one of the riches economies in the Ancient world. It is also a fact that Sankore was an African university so notable that Arabs and others came to study there. All of these non-direct facts retort the claims that contact with Europe brought power and education. Also the statement about Europeanized traders is intended by the author as a compliment a kind of accession of the African from savage beast to Europeanized. Fage trips and stabs himself with his own pen and exposes and implements himself as one of the historical agents of academic racism that has distorted the African historical timeline.

Conclusion

It is the responsibility of the next generation of academics to re-interpret the works of their predecessors. This is not a duty exclusive to the victims of Eurocentric academic racism but rather to all. The plurality and multicultural world is far safer if we all exist in an environment of balance and fairness overriding the miss-motives of the past. We must sail the ship of truth on the sea of lies, against the tide of repetition, for this is the only way to erase the pre-assumed notion that washes and perverts the greatest human science--history.

REFERENCES

1. On November 23, 2006, a savage string of bombing attacks erupted on the capital's Shi'ite Sadr City slum to kill at least 215 people and wound 257.
2. The reclaimed history Man
3. A History of Africa: J.D. Fage pg. 261
4. A History of Africa: J.D. Fage pg. 260
5. Maulana Karenga 500 YEARS LATER, Film
6 History of Africa: J.D. Fage pg. 274

* Owen 'Alik Shahadah is a director, African academic , writer, musician, photographer and music producer. He is best known for authoring works, which deal with African history, social justice, environmental issues, education and world peace. Born in Hanover, Germany and educated in both England and the Caribbean, Shahadah is of a new generation of African Diaspora filmmakers inspired by the likes of Ousmane Sembène and Haile Gerima. He produces work that articulates a multidimensional African world perspective. Testimony to this is 500 Years Later.

* Owen 'Alik Shahadah is a director, African academic , writer, musician, photographer and music producer. He is best known for authoring works, which deal with African history, social justice, environmental issues, education and world peace. Born in Hanover, Germany and educated in both England and the Caribbean, Shahadah is of a new generation of African Diaspora filmmakers inspired by the likes of Ousmane Sembène and Haile Gerima. He produces work that articulates a multidimensional African world perspective. Testimony to this is 500 Years Later.

* Please send comments to [email protected] or comment online at www.pambazuka.org

The African Union will help its member states to develop a strategy for engaging China and other emerging economic powers from the South as a bloc, a senior AU official has said. Tarana Loumabeka, co-ordination and liaison manager in the AU’s Department of Trade and Industry, said the continental organisation has been directed by its Summit to play a bigger role in the relations between Africa and China, India, Brazil and Turkey.

The successful second round of presidential elections on two of the three islands in the Union of Comoros has been overshadowed by the continuing political crisis on the third island, Anjouan. The elections on Sunday 24 June on the islands of Grand Comore and Moheli went "very, very smoothly", the UN Resident Coordinator in the Comoros, Opia Mensah Kumah, told IRIN.

Zimbabwe's civic society organisations say they are being sidelined from negotiations in Pretoria, South Africa, between the divided opposition party, the Movement for Democratic Change (MDC), and the ZANU-PF government.

Every year for the last 10 years, the Zambian government's reports to the World Bank have shrunk in both length and quality. From 100 pages they are down to 25 and vital statistics are missing. Why? Some experts suggest the reason is the untimely loss of experienced civil servants as a result of AIDS.

Developing countries themselves must lead the fight against developing country corruption, says Ngozi Okonjo-Iweala, the former finance minister and minister of foreign affairs of Nigeria. But rich countries, too, must consider how they sometimes "aid and abet" corruption that hurts poor people and costs developing countries billions of dollars.

New plans are being developed for the 4,100 km Niger River that passes through several West African countries. Regional leaders, with support from the World Bank and member states of the European Union, are now seeking to turn the Niger River's sprawling, churning expanse into a regional advantage, building up the region's economy and linking nations together in a shared vision of environmental preservation along the way.

Murder, rape and abductions are on the rise in West Darfur state, the United Nations said on Wednesday, noting with concern that increased violence in the lawless Sudanese region had driven more people into camps. U.N. spokeswoman Radhia Achouri detailed reports of tribal killings, and militia and aerial attacks on villages.