Southern Sudanese Legislative Assembly’s Specialised Committee on Peace and Reconciliation: meeting; Diplomatic Immunities and Privileges Amendment Bill: adoption

Meeting report

Meeting with Peace and Reconciliation Specialised Committee of the Southern Sudanese Legislative Assembly
The Chairperson mentioned that some of the Committee’s members had individually visited Southern Sudan several times. He explained that the Southern Sudanese Legislative Peace and Reconciliation Specialised Committee had come to Parliament to further find out how South African had gone through its reconciliation through negotiations.

Hon Nyauleng (Chairperson of the Peace and Reconciliation Committee) said that they were honoured to be present in South Africa’s Parliament. Most people were aware of the struggle in Sudan, especially in the South. After the country lost 2.5 million people during the liberation struggle, they developed the Comprehensive Peace Agreement (CPA) that was translated into a national constitution and formed a government of national unity that constituted a number of national parties. One of them was the Sudan Peoples' Liberation Movement (SPLM) which was the largest party that signed the CPA along with the National Congress Party (NCP). The CPA was then further translated into another constitution that formed the government of Southern Sudan. The legislative assembly consisted of more than 170 members from eight political parties that represented the largest constituencies in the South. The government of national unity looked into the issues of monitoring the implementation of the CPA, conflict resolution, and peace mobilisation as well as service delivery from government institutions to ensure that communities received assistance. There was the challenge of developing peace and reconciliation within the communities. It was then decided to go to South Africa for programme training on how to develop a peace and reconciliation process.

Mr M Ramgobin (ANC) explained that South Africa had come from the ugliness of colonialism and Apartheid. The African National Congress (ANC) took the lead in the freedom struggle. The opposing parties met informally at the beginning of negotiations for preliminary discussions that eventually led to CODESA (Convention for a Democratic South Africa). The primary motivation was to save South Africa and ensure that all participated in the negotiation process. The ANC negotiated themselves into power and the National Party negotiated themselves out of power. It was important to note that some credit should go to Mr De Klerk, the leader of the National Party although most should go to the ANC. There was an interim constitution that steered the country away from the wrath of Apartheid and towards democracy. Only South Africans drew up the constitution; no outsiders were involved. In 1996, the final constitution was promulgated. From 1994 to 1996 there was an active government of national unity. The preamble of the Constitution read that South Africa belonged to all who lived in it. Reconciliation became palpable and active and was not mere rhetoric. In order for there to be peace and reconciliation, there had to be adequate transformation in the country.

Ms S Camerer (DA) clarified that she came from the opposite side of the negotiation process. She had been a member of Parliament for twenty-one years. She was part of the National Party’s negotiation team for the duration of the negotiation period. Women across party lines joined in a women’s coalition to participate in the negotiation process. It was soon decided that each delegation had to include women. She gave credit to the ANC and to the previous Speaker of the Parliament, Ms Frene Ginwala, as they were a strong force behind the women’s coalition. One of the most pertinent clauses of the Constitution was the Equality Clause that illustrated the progressiveness of South Africa’s Constitution. Negotiating parties have to be willing to compromise. She made the point that it was unusual for a government, regardless of its legitimacy, to give up power. It was a pity that Mr De Klerk did not continue with the government of national unity for the full five years, as she felt that it would have contributed to the reconciliation process. For various political considerations, he decided to step down.

Dr S Pheko (PAC) commented that during the negotiation period he was at the United Nations. Reconciliation was a process. His party did feel that certain things had been left out and therefore the process should continue. The matter of former freedom fighters that were still in jail was disheartening but the fact that the President had mentioned he would looked into that, was encouraging. Another matter that was not resolved was the issue of land. This illustrated that reconciliation was a process.

Mr M Siboza (ANC) remarked that reconciliation required commitment and willingness from both sides. Justice must be done during the process as was illustrated in South Africa’s Truth and Reconciliation Commission (TRC). Development had to become key. Those that sacrificed their lives had to be honoured. Divisions in the country had to be addressed. Striving for peace had to continue and there had to be compromises on issues of national interest.

Adv Z Madasa (ANC) commented that the TRC was a collective approach informed by the need to build confidence within the nation. A multi-party state was entrenched within the Constitution and therefore within Parliament. The sustainability of peace and reconciliation was also dependent on the strength of the individual parties.

Ms D Motubatse-Hounkpatic (ANC) thought it was wise to deal with the opponent as a human being and find the common good. The legal framework was also important and it should not favour one group over another. The institutions should be utilised by all. Parties should respect those institutions.

The Chairperson underscored that there should be a commitment within the leadership

Hon Itorong (Specialised Committee) thanked the Committee. He commented that Sudan had been at war since 1955 and there had been no peace until 2005 when they had achieved the CPA. The eight parties in Southern Sudan had worked together. They had to liberate themselves from social injustice. The challenge was to put the past behind them and face the future. Democratisation was also a process. The most challenging issue was the referendum. The borders had also become problematic in the sense that they had not been drawn. There were many benefits from the Southern African example.

Colonel Jabu (Specialised Committee) noted that there could be no peace and reconciliation without security. There was supposed to be an integration of the armed forces but instead there were two armies that were not integrated. There was still violence on the border. It was a challenge to convince people that there was peace and to lay down their arms. The biggest problem was the border.

Hon Fibel (Specialised Committee) commented that the interim period was the most difficult period yet. Despite the similarities, their case was unique. There were no borders and no transparency in wealth sharing. He thanked the South African government for the crucial role they had played in Africa.

Rev Deang (Specialised Committee) asked the Committee’s opinion on the pending decision on whether to indict the sitting Sudanese president.

Hon Bol (Specialised Committee) asked how many committees were in Parliament and asked for further clarification on the release of the political prisoners.

Ms Camerer replied that the National Peace Accord dealt with the fighting between factions across the country. In order for the negotiations to begin, the outgoing political party released most the political prisoners and allowed exiled leadership of the ANC to return. There has to be a process of amnesty. It was agreed in the government of national unity on the process of how it would happen. This was also linked to reparations for the victims of those crimes.

Hon Garang (Specialised Committee) noted that when they had met with the South African Human Rights Commission, they had become aware of the gap between the rich and the poor and they asked about plans to narrow this gap.

Hon Nyualang (Specialised Committee) noted that during the development of CPA, the two parties could not agree on any reconciliation mechanism in the country. What was agreed was that the reconciliation mechanism would be placed under the presidency. Up until this moment nothing had happened. In the South, beginning reconciliation was seen to be a challenge. The communities still had small arms. Without disarming civilians, there could be no guarantee of security. The complexity in Southern Sudan was that it consisted of different clans and ethnic groups. A mechanism, in the form a commission, was in place to develop an Act that was on its way to Parliament. It was true that if there were no willingness and commitment by all parties, reconciliation would not happen. Another challenge was the indictment of the sitting president. It would be interesting to see the International Criminal Court’s resolution regarding the indictment. The Bill of Rights was stable in Sudan, including the proper representation of women.

Mr Malahela replied that plans to narrow the gap between the rich and poor was a valid question. The new government of South Africa inherited the debts of the Apartheid government as well as the skewed society developed by apartheid. Particular attention had to be paid to infrastructure development. Skills were important and it was decided to empower those that were marginalised. There had to be willingness on the side of those that were marginalised to be part of the strategies that would empower them. He added that the Sudanese should be the people involved in the peace process and outsiders should not be allowed to interfere in the process.

The Chairperson thanked the delegation and adjourned that part of the meeting.

Diplomatic Immunities and Privileges Amendment Bill
The Chairperson briefed the Committee on the issues that had been raised on the Diplomatic Immunities and Privileges Amendment Bill at the previous meeting:
- The definition of “family” took into account other members of the family that were recognised as family members.
- The previous Act stipulated that the Minister had to publish in the Government Gazette a list of all the diplomats. It was often found that by the time the list was published, the list could have changed. A proposed amendment had been suggested that it should be updated frequently on the Department’s website thereby ensuring accuracy and a saving on printing.
- The issue of the certificate that determined whether the individual was entitled to diplomatic immunities and privileges and whether it constituted as prima facie evidence.

Ms Camerer asked whether any research had been done into the certificate.

Mr Gideon Hoon (Principal State Law Advisor: Office of the Chief State Law Advisor) replied that it would depend on the whether Committee decided that the Certificate of the Director General would only be used in a court of law.

Ms K Beja (Parliamentary Legal Advisor) added that if it discouraged people, then it would have to be amended.

Voting on the Bill
The Chairperson read through the clauses of the Bill and the Committee agreed to each.

However, with Clause 2 where it amended Section 9(2) of the Act, the Chairperson remarked that there should be an insertion to this clause to ensure that there was an obligation that the list of diplomats was to be updated frequently on the website and made publicly available.

Ms Camerer remarked that it should be put in writing.

The Committee agreed to this proposed amendment:
The Minister must cause a complete list of all persons on the register to be published on the Website of the Department of Foreign Affairs, and must cause the list to be updated as frequently as may be necessary, and made publicly available.

 The Committee approved the Bill with this amendment.

The Chairperson adjourned the meeting.