When Kwame Nkrumah remarked 50 years ago that “the independence of Ghana is meaningless unless it is linked with the total liberation of Africa” he may not have known how much of a catalyst he was providing for the subsequent wave of decolonisation that swept the continent. But the most vocal pan-Africanist of his time certainly did intend to call loudly and clearly for the development of a pan-African spirit and organisations, to spur positive change on the continent.
Fifty years later, it is only fitting that his successor by a few generations, John Kufuor, should be a recent beneficiary of the pan-African spirit, having just been appointed to the one-year presidency of the African Union. But Kufuor’s appointment on the 50th anniversary of Ghana’s independence is a telling example of the role pan-Africanism has come to play.
Everyone who observed the proceedings at the January AU summit is aware that Ghana’s golden jubilee provided African heads of state with an easy out when confronted with the possible presidency of Sudanese President Omar al-Bashir, up for the post for a second time after being skipped over last year amid concerns about his government’s conduct in Darfur.
With little progress on resolving that crisis, African heads of state remained reluctant to appoint al-Bashir this year. But, instead of saying that a man accused of orchestrating the killing of his own people is not a suitable leader for Africa’s political umbrella body, they made it seem as though the decision was motivated by a desire to bestow upon Ghana a particularly fitting birthday present. We doubt Nkrumah had this kind of Pan-Africanism in mind.
We also wonder what he might have thought of the presence at Ghana’s celebrations this week of Robert Mugabe, himself the latest beneficiary of a perverted pan-African solidarity that has seen African leaders avert their gaze from the harsh realities of regimes such as those of Lansana Conté in Guinea, Daniel arap Moi in Kenya and Angola’s José Eduardo dos Santos. Despite an exodus of Zimbabweans from their country, ongoing human rights crimes, crackdowns on political freedoms and massive economic decline, heads of state have remained mute on the havoc their brother is wreaking on his people.
This week, a Zambian official broke ranks by calling for the region to take action on Zimbabwe, and last month African leaders remained silent for the first time after Mugabe was denied an invitation to the annual Franco-African summit in Cannes.
Are these welcome signs that, when it comes to pan-Africanist solidarity, African leaders are shifting their attention to the real issues, such as human rights and freedoms, good governance and economic management? Are they beginning to focus on the interests of Africa’s ordinary people, rather than those of brutal and corrupt leaders? Let’s hope it won’t take another 50 years to find out.
Wake-up call
How many more pensioners will be swindled out of a comfortable Âretirement, how many more small investors parted from their savings, and how many more widows and orphans left destitute before we wake up to the weakness of our corporate governance regime?
From Masterbond to Leisurenet to bulking, JCI and Fidentia, South Africans are habitually suckered. Corporate South Africa shrugs off each new scandal as it polishes its profits. Regulators, under-resourced and irresolute, react only as the last cents go down the tubes.
“South Africa’s own Enron” was last year’s catchphrase as the scandal at Brett Kebble’s JCI group emerged. Similar language is being applied to J Arthur Brown’s Fidentia. How many Enrons do we need before the penny drops? In the United States the Enron and Worldcom scandals sparked the ÂSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, which introduced new standards in financial reporting, auditor independence and regulatory oversight. Similar reforms were introduced in a wave of investor-protection legislation around the world.
South Africa’s regulatory regime is not all bad, and an argument may be made not to burden a system that is grappling with the basics. The real problem, it seems, is enforcement.
A key reason why Kebble, Brown and their ilk keep getting away with it until it is too late is their charisma, the trait of con artists everywhere. Corporate oversight should be stronger than that. A further reason is that regulators such as the Financial Services Board are under-resourced, an issue to which Parliament must give urgent attention.
But perhaps the biggest challenge is South Africa’s way of doing business. From Broederbond to BEE, the system still relies too much on clubby networks. “Connectivity”, whether political or corporate, is valued above all else. Should we be surprised, then, that Kebble salted away R2-billion under the gaze of auditors, regulators and financial institutions? Was it because he hobnobbed and shared the spoils with the political and business elites?
And should we be surprised that Brown, once an instant-lawn salesman, convinced mineworkers’ representatives to keep R1-billion invested with Fidentia against better advice? Did the commercial conflicts of the union and trustee Danisa Baloyi blind them to the needs of widows and orphans?
And was Vuyani Ngalwana hounded out of his job as Pension Funds Adjudicator because he had broken the unwritten rule that regulatory authorities should accept the cosy status quo rather than fight for the rights of the ordinary citizens whose money is at stake?
Fidentia is yet another wake-up call. The club needs to be cracked open, and the regulators compelled to go after the culprits far more aggressively, and far earlier.