The controversy over the 70 alleged mercenaries detained in Zimbabwe is gaining momentum and has stirred serious and acrimonious debates.
The families of the detainees, their supporters and defenders are up in arms against the government, accusing it of neglecting the welfare of its citizens arrested in a foreign country. Their argument is that the detainees are not going to receive a fair trial in Zimbabwe and, even worse, they face the death penalty if they are sent to Equatorial Guinea to face treason charges for allegedly being part of a coup plot in that country.
The other sore point with the complainants is that the South African government is not doing enough to alleviate the appalling conditions and torture that these detainees have allegedly suffered. They maintain that they should be extradited to face charges in South Africa.
In its reply, the government has said it is doing everything within its power to discharge its obligation to the group. On the issue of extradition, it argues that the decision is in the hands of the Zimbabwean authorities, leaving the South African government not much space to manoeuvre.
It is beyond debate that the government has a duty and obligation to its citizens arrested in foreign lands, to help them deal with their problems and incarceration.
And indeed, the complaint that the South African government took some time to provide consular services for the detainees is valid — if indeed it is true, because a lot of what we get from the media these days is very suspicious.
However, there are many unanswered questions regarding this issue that need explanations, which have not been forthcoming.
Just who are these men? Why are they in this position and who is responsible?
Taking the accusations of a lack of responsibility against the government, how responsible has the group itself been in its actions?
If indeed these men were on their way to guard mines in the Congo, as they have claimed, did they inform the South African government before they left?
If they had no sinister motives and were on a legitimate mission as a security company, why were the local South African authorities and those in Zimbabwe not notified about its plans?
These are very crucial questions that demand answers, given the sensitivity associated with venturing into a conflict-ridden country.
Common sense suggests that the group should have sought advice and counsel from the South African government. It is the obligation of citizens to inform their governments when going into conflict-ridden zones — so that they can be advised of the dangers. And that this group didn’t do so raises the distinct possibility of clandestine activity.
What the group needs to explain to South Africans is: which mines in the Congo, and owned by whom, was it going to protect? What about the Congolese government itself? Was it informed that this armed group was coming?
All these questions have not been answered. It is only fair for South Africans to know the truth, in order to judge whether intervention on behalf of these men is called for.
Another angle that has not been explained is why this group had to go to Zimbabwe — of all places — to buy arms. With Zimbabwe’s appalling reputation — which incidentally is nothing new, despite what many people believe — it is baffling why the group landed in that country.
Why a legitimate South African security company would want to source arms from Zimbabwe when they are available in South Africa is a matter that also needs clarification.
The group’s background is also shady, lending credence to the accusations that it was up to no good.
Most of them are reputed to be former members of Koevoet, one of the most notorious counter-insurgency units that ever operated in this part of Africa.
This seriously questions their credibility and integrity — because it is no big secret that members of such discredited groups are now using their skills for money. They are fanning out all over the continent and spreading untold mayhem.
These are the very people who — when the South African government is busy committing human and material resources to end these conflicts — are busy stoking them up.
Regarding their extradition: why should that take precedence over the charges they face in Zimbabwe? If they feel they are not going to get a fair trial in Zimbabwe, they should consider what was fair in their secretly traipsing all over the place. People must learn to take responsibility for their actions, whether bad or good.
All South Africans arrested in any country have rights, but they also have an obligation to explain fully to the South African public and government exactly what they were involved in.
Dr Thabisi Hoeane is a lecturer in the Department of Political and International Studies at Rhodes University Grahamstown. He contributes regularly to national print media.