According to Business Day, former Madagascan president Marc Ravalomanana has approached the South African Constitutional Court to appeal restrictions imposed on his movements as a result of an ongoing investigation into allegations that he committed crimes against humanity.
Last November, the North Gauteng High Court ordered Ravalomanana to surrender his passport to investigating officers of South Africa's Priority Crimes Litigation Unit (PCLU) within the National Prosecuting Authority (NPA), and ordered that he be permitted to travel outside South Africa only at the invitation of SADC and that permitted to visit Madagascar only at the recommendation of SADC.
The order was secured after the same applicants, who petitioned the NPA to open an investigation into Ravalomanana's alleged involvement in the commission of crimes against humanity, approached the court.
Ravalomanana has lived in South Africa since 2009, having sought refuge here after being deposed in a coup. In terms of South Africa's Implementation of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court Act (the ICC Act), South African authorities are entitled to investigate and prosecute persons accused of war crimes, crimes against humanity and genocide, irrespective of where such crimes are committed, if the persons are present in South Africa's territory after the commission of the crimes.
In a response very different from that which the Southern Africa Litigation Centre (SALC) received in the Zimbabwe torture docket matter, the Madagascan applicants were told by the PCLU that it would investigate the matter, maintaining that the material supplied created "reasonable suspicion that crimes against humanity have been committed and that the subject of the investigation is present in South Africa".
Interestingly, Ravalomanana has claimed in his papers before the Constitutional Court that if the High Court's order is upheld, it will imperil the fate of a number of political leaders, dissidents and former heads of state seeking refuge in South Africa. "If the high court judgement is allowed to stand, then their movements can, at any time, be restricted by the simple expedient of making a vague, unsubstantiated complaint under the Rome Statute to the NPA in relation to any aspect of the civil unrest which led to their departure in the first place."
Certainly, Ravalomanana is, as a result of the court order, subject to inconvenience and he, together with all those seeking a temporary or permanent home in South Africa, is to be extended the full extent of his civil liberties and fundamental rights, consistent with our Constitution's provisions and in circumstances such as these, most particularly to be guaranteed the presumption of innocence.
However it is manifestly not true to claim that the allegations against him are merely vague and unsubstantiated. They have been deemed by the PCLU — the unit specifically authorised by Parliament to manage and direct investigations under SA's ICC Act – to amount to "reasonable suspicion". South Africa, as a responsible member of the international community, has voluntarily assumed a collective responsibility for upholding and enforcing international justice. South Africans, more particularly, have a pronounced interest in ensuring that the country is not a haven for the world's worst criminals.
South African authorities must be given the opportunity to properly investigate in circumstances where reasonable suspicion exists that egregious crimes of the type of crimes against humanity have been committed. There exists a significant societal interest in ensuring that the integrity of such investigations are not jeapordised by the flight of persons key to the investigation. That said, a heavy onus rests on the investigating authorities to conduct their investigations as expeditiously as possible, minimising tthe limitation of rights for those subject to investigation.
What with the possibility of the Constitutional Court hearing Ravalomanana's challenge and the Suprteme Court of Appeal set to hear argument for leave to appeal in the Zimbabwe torture docket case, 2013 is bound to be a year in which South Africa's configuration of international criminal justice is much more brightly drawn.
Comments Post a comment
How is it that the DJ (TGV)allowed ex-dictator Ratsiraka to return to Madagascar...when he was known to have dropped those who opposed him out of airplanes over the Mozambique Channel? Well, perhaps for the same reason Ratsiraka lives comfortably in France. Who is in charge?
Here in Madagascar crimes against humanity take place everyday on all levels of society. Why is no one going after the DJ and his cohorts?
On 7 February 2009, Rajoelina encouraged his followers to go take over the presidential palace. Obviously this move was planned ahead of time as a step towards overthrowing the democratically elected president of the country. When as part of the last Universal Periodic Review of Human Rights in Madagascar, the Rajoelina regime was asked to allow an international investigation into what happened on 7 February, the regime refused and the UN just accepted the regime's response. Right now the courts in Madagascar are just political tools for maintaining Rajoelina in power. Nevertheless SADC has signed an agreement that it considers the current justice system as legitimate -- in effect agreeing to whatever decisions the justice system makes. And it has made plenty: to shut down radio stations, imprison political opponents, delay trials, etc.
So far no serious investigations into the rosewood trafficking scandal, Rajoelina's role in the shootings on 7 February 2009, Rajoelina's role in the looting and burning on 26 January 2009, Rajoelina's use of the $ 100 million from WISCO as a campaign fund.
SADC condemned Ravalomanana when his wife tried to return to return to Madagascar in July 2012. She made it to the airport in Antananarivo but then Rajoelina's security forces promptly kicked her out. SADC issued a communiqué basically supporting her expulsion and the UN kept quiet about this violation of her right to return to her homeland.
Meanwhile poverty continues to go up, to 84% of the population this year according to a recently reported estimate.
What does the court in South Africa think should have happened on 7 February 2009? Should the guards at the palace have allowed the people to take over the palace? Does South Africa support coup d'états as a means of dealing with governments that it doesn't like? South Africa and France have the distinction of both having invited Rajoelina to come visit in violation of the AU sanctions against him.
Is the legal stranglehold that South Africa has put on Ravalomanana just an extension of the SADC-approved politization of the judicial system in Madagascar? Is it just another way of supporting Rajoelina in power? After all, after Rajoelina came to power, South Africa along with other members of the international community agreed to give the coup leader dictatorial power to name the members of government, members of 'parliament' (to replace the democratically-elected members that Rajoelina kicked out), and the members of the electoral commission.
Hopefully the truth will come out and true justice will prevail.