Speaker, the AU's Peace and Security Council issued a communiqu on the findings of the high-level panel on Cte d'Ivoire on 10 March after its 265th meeting in Addis Ababa. The Council reaffirmed all its previous decisions on the post-electoral crisis facing Cte d'Ivoire since the second round of the presidential elections on 28 November 2010.
It recognised Mr Alassane Ouattara as the winner of the presidential elections in the Republic of Cte d'Ivoire. South Africa fully supports the position taken by the AU on 10 March, namely that Mr Ouattara is recognised as the winner. This is a reaffirmation of the position of the Economic Community of West African States, Ecowas. We also support the AU's quest to find a peaceful political solution to the current crisis in Cte d'Ivoire. We are all of one mind on the way forward towards a sustainable political solution in that country. I thank you.
Somlomo, Mongameli, izinkukhu zingakehli emthini, uhulumeni waseNingizimu Afrika weseka uMongameli Gbagbo okunguyena ophumayo esikhundleni ngokwamavoti. Izinkukhu zingakehli emthini. [Uhleko.] Kuthe emva kwalokho washintsha uhulumeni waseNingizimu Afrika, wavumelana nabanye emva kokuba sekuxoxiswene. Kwakuyini eyenza ukuthi uhulumeni waseNingizimu Afrika aqhamuke kuqala aseke umuntu ohluliwe okhethweni, izinkukhu zingakehli emthini, bese ejika kamuva, Mongameli. Ngiyabonga. [Uhleko.]
UMONGAMELI WERIPHABHLIKI: Somlomo, ilungu elihloniphekile, uBaba uGatsheni, ngiyacabanga ukuthi noma izinkukhu sezehlile emthini, uma engabheka lapho kuqoshwe khona izinkulumo afunisise, acwaningisise ngeke aze athole ukuthi lo hulumeni weseka uGbagbo, akakaze nje nangelilodwa ilanga; noma izinkukhu zingakehli emthini, noma sezehlile. [Uhleko.] Into uhulumeni ayisho ngenkathi eshayelwa ucingo ngabaholi abehlukahlukene, abaphesheya nabase- Afrika, besinxenxa bethi asisukume seseke u-Ouattara, sathi kwenzeke isimanga lapha ngoba kuthe uma kufinyelelwa emaphethelweni okhetho kwaba khona izakhiwo ezimbili zase-Cte d'Ivoire ezisemthethweni, lesi esifana nesethu okuthiwa i-IEC, Independent Electoral Commission yathi kuphumelele u-Ouattara, yathi eyesibili i-Constitutional Council kuphumelele uGbagbo ezweni lilinye kwenzeka into engakaze yenzeke kuthiwe kunoMongameli ababili, baphumelele bobabili, kusho izakhiwo ezisemthethweni wakuleliya lizwe.
Sithi-ke thina uma siphendula, asikwazi ukuthi seseke oyedwa walaba ababili. Sizofisa kuqala ukwazi amaqiniso, ukuthi kwenzekeni? Yini le ebangele ukuthi lezi zakhiwo ezibaluleke kangaka ziphume nemibono emibili eyahlukahlukene na? Salile, sakhuluma futhi kwezwakala. Uma ungayocwaninga ubhekisise kahle uyothola ukuthi eqinisweni sala ukusekela lo okuthiwa akasekelwe yiwo wonke umuntu, sangamsekela lo ongasekelwa. Iqiniso limi lapho. Sathi-ke ngoba sinalokho nje kokuthi kunento engenzekanga la, akukaze kwenzeke lokho, nawe awukaze ukuzwe; ezweni elilodwa kuthiwe kuphumelele abantu ababili? Kuphumelela umuntu oyedwa okhethweni [Ubuwelewele.]
Sase sithi uma sifika kwi-AU senza isiphakamiso sathi ngoba nakhu kunombango, abanye bathi kuphumelele lo abantu bathi kuphumelele lowaya - uma lokhu kushiwo ngabantukazana nje ungathi bayazihumela, kodwa uma sekusho izakhiwo ezisemthethweni - inkinga phela leyo, akutholakale amaqiniso. Yingakho-ke kwathi uma sesiphakamise lokho, kwakhiwa le sakhiwo esabizwa ngokuthi phecelezi - i-High Level Panel ye-AU, ukuthi ake iyophenya - neNingizimu Afrika yaba yingxenye yalokho. Nangempela-ke sihambile sayophenya, sawathola amaqiniso. Yilawa maqiniso-ke asebangele ukuthi ngoba sesiyazi ukuthi kwenzekeni, sathi ngempela ngempela u-Ouattara uphumelele, saba yingxenye yesinqumo se-AU. Akukho nje okunye okuphume eceleni, Gatsheni, lungu elihloniphekile. Konke kuhambe ngendlela. [Ihlombe.] (Translation of isiZulu paragraphs follows.)
[Mr V B NDLOVU: Speaker, President, the South African government jumped the gun and supported President Gbagbo who has been voted out. They jumped the gun. [Laughter]. Right after that the South African government changed its tune and agreed with the others, after some discussions. What made the South African government to first support someone who was defeated in the elections a long time ago and then change at a later stage, President? Thank you. [Laughter.]
Speaker, Mr Gatsheni, I think that even if we jumped the gun, he should search thoroughly where some discussions were recorded; he will not find that this government supported Gbagbo, because it has never done so, even if we did not jump the gun. [Laughter.] What happened when the government was phoned by different leaders from abroad and Africa, was that they requested that we must stand up and support Ouattara. We said that it is unusual that at the end of the elections two legal institutions in Cte d'Ivoire, the one which is like our Independent Electoral Commission, IEC, declared Ouattara as the winner and the second one, which is the Constitutional Council, declared Gbagbo a winner in the same country - something that has never happened before, that is one country having two presidents.
In our reply we told them that we could support only one of the two. We would like to know the truth first as to what happened. What caused these very important institutions to come up with two different results? We have refused, and we were heard. If you research this you will actually find that we refused to support the one who was supposed to be supported by everyone and we did not support the one who was not supported. That is the truth. What we said was that we had never experienced such a thing; even yourself, you've never heard of such a thing - that in one country two people won, because only one person wins in an election. [Interjections.]
We made a proposal when we reached the AU that it should take over and conduct an investigation because it is a respected body, since there was a dispute - some say this one has won and some say that one has won. If that was just said by ordinary people, it would have had no effect but if that came from legal institutions, then there was a problem. That is why the institution called the High-Level Panel of the AU together with South Africa went and investigated and found the truth. These are the truths that have made us say that Ouattara is the one who truly won because now we know what truly happened and we were part of the AU's decision. There is nothing sinister about that, Gatsheni. Everything went accordingly. [Applause.]]
Speaker, on a point of order: Is it parliamentary for members of the ruling party to disrupt the input of the President when he is answering opposition parties? [Interjections.]
Hon member, please take your seat. [Interjections.] [Laughter.] Take your seat, hon member, please. I have the following members who would like to take the floor: hon Meshoe, hon K S Mubu and hon Magama, in that order.
Speaker, having been to that country, I still maintain that the endorsement of Alassane Ouattara as President of the Ivory Coast by the UN, EU, AU and Ecowas was both premature and unconstitutional. What happened in that country before, during and after the presidential elections is a travesty of justice. The call by the AU to the Constitutional Council of that country to swear him in as the new President of that country is nothing but a subtle attempt to legitimise the unconstitutional decision they have made.
My question to the hon President is whether he read former President Mbeki's report which highlighted constitutional irregularities. If so, why did the President choose to support this travesty of justice rather than stand for truth, justice and principle? I believe that what has happened is a perversion of justice at the expense of the suffering people of the Ivory Coast and that the sovereignty of that country has been undermined by foreign powers that want to continue controlling the economy of that nation. Surely, a full investigation into the irregularities should have been conducted first by the international community. I thank you.
Hon Speaker, I am also aware that the hon member took a trip to the Ivory Coast, so he must be speaking from an informed position. Let me explain what happened and what we discovered as the high-level panel began to do its work. I am going to help the hon member by explaining properly, because the high-level panel had a team of experts that first went in and looked at the facts, the claims, counterclaims and allegations. The high-level panel also went in, talked to everyone there, and asked them questions.
We should understand that their IEC is not like ours. Ours has the final say on elections; it pronounces finally who has won and who has lost. It has said many times that the ANC has won, and nobody can challenge that. [Laughter.]
What happened is that there were four important bodies at the level of looking after the processes as well as the conclusion. These bodies are the IEC, which is basically administrative; the UN, which all parties agreed should be brought in to oversee and certify; the facilitator, who was the President of Burkina Faso; and the Constitutional Council.
All these had different functions. The facilitator's function was to facilitate, and the electoral commission's was to pronounce the provisional results - not final results, provisional results. The UN representative had to certify the results. The Constitutional Council's function is to receive the results, complaints and allegations, as well as to investigate. After investigating, the Constitutional Council should then determine and pronounce the final results. That is the procedure.
I am not going to go in to detail because we sat in front of these bodies, one by one, for a long time until the evening. I will just explain what happened at the end. The IEC did not agree to finalise their own conclusions; they were supposed to do so within three days. Three days elapsed; they were arguing. The reason they were arguing is that they are not like our IEC. Their IEC is political and comprises representatives of political parties. They could not agree.
On the fourth day, the chairperson decided to leave the IEC and went on to announce the provisional results. He went to the hotel where Ouattara operates from and next to him were the French and the US ambassadors. These are accusations that people levelled against those results. By the time this happened, all four institutions had received the same results at the same time.
Therefore they all had the minutes, as they call them, from different regions or areas which were saying exactly the same thing. What were they saying? They were saying that Ouattara has won, in other words he was leading. This is what the chairperson of the IEC announced, provisionally. As soon as he announced this, the UN representative certified that the results are correct as announced by the IEC.
The international community then said Ouattara had won. These were not the final results. That is the debate we have been engaging in. We asked why an announcement was made that a person has won when it was not announced by the final body that has the right to do so. This was the problem. This explanation will even help those who asked why we had a problem and, given all of this, why should we support this side or that side. Clearly there were things that were wrong.
Whether there was a debate within the IEC or not, the fact of the matter is that these remain provisional results, not the final results. The final results, therefore, are those that were announced by the Constitutional Council; it is a legal body and it did its job.
The entire committee was brought before the high-level panel to be asked about what had happened; all of them - there is not a single one of them who was not questioned. We established the fact that, in reality, the results that were supported by the world were provisional. The final results were Gbagbo's. Since all the minutes or results were the same, we asked what had happened.
The IEC could not agree on the four regions that Gbagbo had complained about. Indeed, when the Constitutional Council looked at the results, they were the same. However, there were complaints and they did their job. They investigated the four regions and found that there was something wrong. They nullified the results of these regions. They also investigated three more regions and, finally, emerged with 12% fraudulent results. They, therefore, changed the initial results and Gbagbo's figures were more than Ouattara's. Gbagbo was pronounced as the winner.
The question that the high-level panel asked - because the panel had all the information - was, if Gbagbo had complained about four regions, what was the reason for investigating the other three? The high-level panel also wanted to know who instructed the investigation of the other three regions. Their answer was that they have a right by law, it was self-referral. The panel proceeded to ask if the Constitutional Council realised that they had investigated regions that nobody had complained about, something which altered the results. They claimed they had the right to do so.
The panel put it to the Constitutional Council that the three regions that they investigated were only in the north, the stronghold of Ouattara. The panel wanted to know why they didn't look at the regions in the south. Their answer was that they just wanted to look at the north. The panel brought it to their attention that they had changed the results and had abused their authority as a legal entity. Furthermore, the panel told them that had they not done so and only looked into the four regions and disqualified Ouattara's votes, he would still have the majority votes. The panel put it to them that they had indeed realised that and wanted to add three regions so that they would get 12%.
Finally, having considered that the Constitutional Council, using their legal status, took away Ouattara's votes, the high-level panel declared Ouattara the winner. That is how it was concluded, and that is why the results said Ouattara won. That is what happened, my hon member, and that is why we agreed with the decision. We were there. We questioned and were satisfied. They did not act honourably at first, compared to the manner in which they acted with regard to the final results. I thank you. [Applause.]
Mr President, thank you very much for your lengthy answer and the details you gave. There is speculation that one of the ways in which to resolve this issue might be that another country grants Mr Gbagbo political asylum. If that would be the case, would your government consider offering him asylum here, maybe to replace Mr Aristide?
Hon Speaker, firstly, we don't agree with giving any asylum to any leader who loses elections. Why should you leave your country if you lose elections? Why? [Interjections.] We need to start there. We can't even look at whether we can give asylum. Asylum is given to someone who comes here and asks for it. By law, one cannot say I cannot give asylum, unless it's not a political animal. The critical point is that it is wrong to say that when a person loses elections, he must leave a country. That would then be a funny democracy. We would actually oppose anyone who says Gbagbo must leave. That is what we said ...
... ngaphambi kokuba kwehle izinkukhu. Kungani kuthiwa akahambe. [... before jumping the gun. Why is he being ordered to leave?] That's all.
Mr President, let those who have ears hear that a lot of work has indeed been done by your good selves within the context of the African Union, AU.
Wouldn't you say, Mr President, that, given what transpired in Cte d'Ivoire and elsewhere, our step as Parliament in ratifying the Charter on Democracy, Elections and Governance is indeed a very good attempt that sets us on the path moving forward in pre-empting or preventing such occurrences in Africa? How far is the AU in implementing this charter? Thank you so much.
Hon Speaker, certainly our step to ratify the charter was absolutely a good one, and many other countries have also done so. The AU is trying its level best to implement it. I think we need to support the AU in what it does, because there's a general acceptance in the continent that we need democracy as a way of life on the continent. People are working very hard to do so.
That charter helps because it gives us guidelines on how we should conduct business, as we go forward, on matters of this nature. As South Africa, we are guided by principles such as principles of believing in free and fare elections, as well as democratic decisions. So, Parliament was right.
Use of national demographics as determining factor for affirmative action
6. Mr M H Hoosen (ID) asked the President of the Republic:
Whether the Government supports the use of national demographics as the determining factor for affirmative action, irrespective of the demographics of a particular province or region; if not, what is the position in this regard; if so, what are the relevant details?