AfriForum submits a complaint of discrimination against the South African government at the United Nations

3 March 2015

The civil rights organisation AfriForum today submitted a complaint against the South African government at the United Nations' (UN) Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights defenders. The complaint arises from the unlawful behaviour of the South African government to prevent AfriForum from participating in the activities of the UN.  

AfriForum reveals today that the Chief Editor: Human Rights and Humanitarian Matters at the Department of International Relations and Cooperation (DIRCO) gave a South African representative at the UN's Head Office in New York on 2 February 2015 instruction from Pretoria to do everything in his ability to ensure that AfriForum's application to be registered at the UN's section for non-government organisations, fails. 

Since 2011, AfriForum has been in the process of registering at the mentioned forum in accordance with ECOSOC Resolution 1996/31. The procedure for registration is procedural of nature and member states of the UN that are represented on the selection panel (which includes South Africa), are prohibited from using political preference as reason to either give preference to or be prejudicial to organisations.   

Ernst Roets, Deputy CEO of AfriForum, who attended the session in New York, was however informed personally by a representative of the South African government that the South African government could not find any problem with AfriForum's application to register at the UN and that government's problem with AfriForum is only political of nature. The representative informed Roets that, according to the government, AfriForum is "too loud" and "too arrogant" and that this is the real reason why government "will fight" to keep doors closed at the UN for AfriForum. 

As an example of AfriForum's arrogance, the representative referred specifically to the fact that AfriForum uses UN forums to create awareness surrounding farm murders as well as the fact that AfriForum protested against the fact that the Zimbabwean President, Robert Mugabe, was invited to attend the inauguration of President Jacob Zuma at the time. This protest was in reference to the oppression of South African citizens in Zimbabwe.  

Roets said that this looked like the behaviour of a totalitarian state that secretly wants to oppress minorities. "If the government however thought that their actions will help silence AfriForum, they achieved exactly the opposite," said Roets.  

Duplicates of the complaint were also handed over to the Special Rapporteur on the rights to freedom of peaceful assembly and of association as well as to Pitso Montwedi, Chief Director: Human Rights and Humanitarian Affairs at the Department of International Relations and Cooperation (DIRCO).

Even though AfriForum's application for registration at the UN did not fail, it was postponed until the next session.

Text of the letter of complaint:

Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights defenders, Mr Michel Forst

Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights Palais Wilson

United Nations Office at Geneva CH 1211 Geneva 10 Switzerland

Honourable Mr Michel Forst

FILING OF A COMPLAINT AGAINST THE DEPARTMENT OF INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS AND COOPERATION (DIRCO) IN SOUTH AFRICA

I would hereby appreciate the opportunity to submit a complaint on behalf of AfriForum, a South African civil rights NGO. AfriForum aims to protect the rights of minority communities in South Africa. At the time of writing this letter, AfriForum consists of approximately 125 000 individual members and we currently have about 130 local branches across South Africa. AfriForum is widely accepted as a key role-player in South African civil society.

The complaint is filed with reference to discrimination against our organisation by the South African government, regarding an application by us to be granted consultative status with the United Nations (UN), NGO Branch. The application was filed in terms of ECOSOC Resolution 1996/31.

AfriForum's application for consultative status was filed in 2011. Since then our application has repeatedly been deferred. The process of being granted with consultative status is procedural in nature and it is my submission that our organisation complies with all of the requirements to be granted special consultative status.

It has come to our attention that the South African government is deliberately using politics to prevent AfriForum from being granted consultative status with the United Nations. Deliberate and repeated steps have been taken to prevent AfriForum from contributing to the work of the United Nations.

In my capacity as Deputy CEO of AfriForum, I have attended sessions of the NGO Branch every year since 2012. Between the years 2012 and 2014, I was told that a representative of the South African government has encouraged members of the NGO Committee to pose questions to our organisation with the aim of deferring our application.

In 2014 I wrote to the Chairperson of the said committee to put our frustration on record. The letter is attached to this complaint as Annexure B.

In February 2015, however, a representative of the South African government, who is now also on the panel, informed me that he had received instructions from the South African  Department  of  International  Relations  and  Cooperation  (DIRCO)  to do everything in his power to prevent our organisation from being granted consultative status.

The representative explained to me that the South African government's concern with our application was not procedural in nature, but strictly political. The representative even went as far as stating that the South African government regards our organisation as being too loud and "too arrogant" and that we "talk too much". He then explained that they would support our application only if we stopped being arrogant and stopped using UN platforms to speak critical of the South African government.

A detailed account of my personal experience at the meetings of the NGO Branch and the manner in which the South African government has taken steps to prevent us from being granted consultative status, is attached to this complaint as Annexure A.

I am convinced that the South African government is attempting to prevent the international community from being informed about the gradual unravelling of minority and civil rights in South Africa, out of fear that the South African government might lose credibility in the eyes of the international community. These attempts by the South African government are not only curtailing to our organisation, but to the plight of all minority communities in South Africa.

Thank you for your anticipated assistance. Please contact us if you have any questions.

Yours sincerely

Ernst Alex Roets Deputy CEO AfriForum

CC: Mr Maina Kiai

Special Rapporteur on the Rights to Freedom of Peaceful Assembly and Association

Pitso Montwedi

Chief Director: Human Rights and Humanitarian Affairs
 Department of International Relations and Cooperation
The South African Government

APPENDIX:

SWORN AFFIDAVIT

I, Ernst Roets, declare as follows under oath:

1.

I am an adult male, currently employed as deputy CEO of AfriForum, a South African civil rights NGO registered in 2005, with the purpose of protecting the rights of minority communities in South Africa.

2.

At the time of writing this statement, AfriForum consisted of about 120 000 individual members. AfriForum is widely accepted as a key role player in South African civil society.

3.

In 2011, AfriForum applied for special consultative status with the United Nations (UN). The application was registered with the NGO branch of the UN's Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC). The application was brought in terms of ECOSOC Resolution 1996/31.

4.

I have studied the Principles to be Applied in the Establishment of Consultative Relations, as outlined in ECOSOC Resolution 1996/31, and I am convinced that AfriForum complies with all the prerequisites for the granting of special consultative status with the United Nations.

5.

The prerequisites for the granting of special consultative status are of a procedural nature and in no way does ECOSOC Resolution 1996/31 allow member states of the UN in general or of the NGO branch of ECOSOC in particular to discriminate against NGOs on the basis of political standpoints.

6.

The NGO committee convenes twice a year to consider new and deferred applications for the granting of consultative status. NGOs are invited to attend these sessions, although attendance is not required. NGOs that do attend are provided with the opportunity to participate in a question-and-answer session with the NGO committee.

7.

We believe that attendance of these sessions indicates to the NGO Committee that we are eager to participate in the work of ECOSOC and it also provides the committee with the opportunity to get to know the NGO better. As a result, AfriForum decided to attend the sessions of the NGO committee.

8.

The first session that I attended on behalf of AfriForum was in January 2012. The following events during the 2012 meeting should be noted:

8.1. More than one member of the committee informed me that the opinion of the South African government was important in the granting of consultative status to our organisation.

8.2. Although South Africa did not have a representative on the committee at the time, a representative of the South African government did attend many of the sessions as an observer.

8.3. During our question-and-answer session, I was asked a series of questions regarding our application, which I answered to the best of my ability.

8.4. I was, however, requested to respond not only verbally, but also in writing to some of the questions that were posed to me. I understand this to be a common practice within the committee on important issues.

8.5. After the question-and-answer session, I was told that the South African representative had taken steps to encourage certain members of the committee to prevent the granting of consultative status to AfriForum.

8.6. AfriForum's application for consultative status was deferred.

9.

After responding to the questions in writing, I attended the session of the NGO committee in January 2013. During the question-and-answer session, we were again asked a series of questions. After answering the questions verbally, I was again requested to put my answers in writing, which I did. I was again told that a representative of the South African government had taken steps to prevent the granting of consultative status to AfriForum.

10.

I then attended the session in 2014. The following should be noted about our participation at the 2014 session:

10.1. I was informed that this would be the last session of the current committee and that the committee would be reorganised to continue in 2015.

10.2. During the question-and-answer session, I was again asked a series of questions, which I answered to the best of my ability. I was again requested to put my answers in writing.

10.3. Shortly before I was called to participate in the question-and-answer session, the South African representative again entered the room and had brief discussions with representatives from countries that the South African government regards as its allies.

10.4. These countries happened to be more or less the same countries that had repeatedly asked questions of our organisation in the past, and that had repeatedly demanded that we respond to the questions in writing as well, which led to our application being deferred in 2012 and 2013.

10.5. During the question-and-answer session, I was asked a particular question about AfriForum's involvement with minority communities. Although I believed that the question had already been covered during previous sessions, I answered the question to the best of my ability.

10.6. Immediately after answering the above-mentioned question, I was then asked the exact same question again, by another member state. This time I responded that I had already answered the question and that I did not see the purpose of answering the same question repeatedly.

10.7. In response to this, a representative of another member state asked for the floor. The representative requested that individuals who planted questions for organisations not plant the same question with different member states as this was embarrassing to the committee.

10.8. I noted that it had been the same member states that had been posing a variety of questions to our organisation and that these member states happened to be countries that the South African government described as its allies.

10.9. I also noted that the questions posed to our organisation had become repetitive.

10.10. After the question-and-answer session I approached the chairperson of the committee to complain about what I believed to be political meddling in the work of the committee. The chairperson advised me to write a letter to the committee to bring our concern to their attention, which I did.

10.11. Our application was again deferred.

10.12. Upon the closing of the session, a representative on the committee expressed concern about what they perceived to be a deliberate attempt by certain countries to prevent NGOs that focus on human rights, civil rights and/or minority rights from being granted consultative status. The representative asked for this statement to be noted and expressed the hope that this practice would not be tolerated at future sessions of the committee.

11.

I again attended the committee session in January 2015. The following should be mentioned about the events at this meeting:

11.1. I noted that South Africa now had a representative on the panel.

11.2. I approached the South African representative to discuss our application and to express my concern about the fact that our application for consultative status had been deferred several times. I also told the South African representative that I had been informed at previous sessions that an indication by the South African government that consultative status should be granted to our NGO would be greatly in our favour.

11.3. Although he did not state it as a fact, the South African representative suggested that there was nothing wrong with our application.

11.4. The South African representative then told me not to worry, as the South African government had great influence over the committee and that he had an open door to discuss our application with South Africa's allies. He then mentioned China, Sudan and Cuba as some of South Africa's allies that were also represented on the panel.

11.5. On 2 February 2015 I was told that I would be called to participate in the question-and-answer session shortly after 17:00. At around 15:00, the South African representative approached me. He made the following statements:

11.5.1. He had just received a phone call from South Africa's Department of International Relations and Cooperation (DIRCO). The caller was his boss, Pitso Montwedi (Chief Director: Human Rights and Humanitarian Affairs). The South African government had given him instructions to do everything in his power to prevent our organisation from being granted consultative status with the UN.

11.5.2. The South African government informed their representative that they regarded our organisation as being ‘too arrogant' to be allowed to participate in the work of the UN. I assumed that his reference to ‘arrogance' was indicative of how the South African government perceived AfriForum's campaigns to promote civil rights in South Africa.

11.5.3. The South African representative told me that he liked me and that I should not take what he was about to do personally. ‘It is not me. It is my instructions from government,' he said.

11.5.4. The South African representative then told me that he had already approached South Africa's allies and that he had planted questions for them to pose during our question-and-answer session.

11.5.5. The South African representative then informed me that it was not really about the questions. ‘Whatever I ask you, I am going to tell you to put it in writing. So it doesn't matter if you answer the questions here or not. You will need to go back and answer in writing and come back next year.'

11.5.6. The South African representative mentioned two incidents as examples of the conduct of our organisation with which the South African government had a problem.

The first was the fact that we had objected to the fact that the president of the Republic of Zimbabwe, Robert Mugabe, had been invited to the inauguration of the South African president, Jacob Zuma. This objection had been with respect to human rights violations committed against South African citizens by the Mugabe regime.

The second example was the fact that AfriForum was too vocal about crime, but particularly the alarming rate at which South African farmers are being murdered. They had a particular concern about the fact that AfriForum had discussed this matter on certain UN forums in the past.

11.5.6. The South African representative then advised me to include in my report a recommendation that we would have to convince the South African government, but DIRCO in particular, that it would be in their interest to support the granting of consultative status to our NGO.

11.5.7. In conclusion, the representative told me that our organisation had been too vocal (about the promotion of civil and minority rights). ‘You must just stop talking too much. You talk too much,' he said.

11.6. When I was called to participate at the question-and-answer session, I expressed my concern about the fact that there was a deliberate attempt to prevent our organisation from being granted consultative status.

11.7. As had been predicted by the South African representative, I was asked a series of questions, mostly by the countries that the South African representative had described as South Africa's allies. I stated my concern about the fact that I regarded many of these questions once again as being a repetition of the questions that I had already answered. I was again asked to put my answers in writing.

11.8. Again, our application was deferred.

11.9. After the conclusion of the meeting, I was approached by a representative of one of South Africa's stated allies. This representative informed me that they did not see a problem with our application and that they had only posed questions to us because they had been requested to do so by the South African representative. The representative also told me that they would support our application as soon as the South African government informed them that they did not have a problem with our organisation anymore. This once again confirmed that there was nothing wrong with the merit of our application for consultative status and that the South African government was deliberately using politics to prevent us from being granted consultative status.

12.

Human rights violations, hate speech, crime and intolerance towards minority communities in South Africa have escalated in recent years. It is my sincere belief that the South African government is attempting to prevent the international community from being informed about the gradual unravelling of minority and civil rights in South Africa, fearing that the South African government might lose credibility in the eyes of the international community, and that this is the only reason why deliberate and repeated steps have been taken to prevent South Africa's largest civil and minority rights NGO from contributing to the work of the United Nations.

Ernst Alex Roets Deputy CEO AfriForum 

Statement issued by Ernst Roets, Deputy CEO, AfriForum, March 3 2015

Click here to sign up to receive our free daily headline email newsletter