admin
Baffour’s Beefs with Baffour Ankomah
“IF the facts are on your side, argue the facts. If the facts are not on your side, pound the table.” This is a time-tested American courtroom tactic used by lawyers to wriggle out of trouble. Just this past Wednesday, President Barack Hussein Obama, a lawyer, employed it to good effect when he came face to face with a Zimbabwean youth in Washington DC.
I have always believed that a lie wears a cap to hide its face, but truth walks naked, its natural endowments dangling, and on show. And what a better man to prove me right than our own Barack Hussein Obama.
On the sidelines of the US-Africa Leaders Summit in Washington (August 4-5), Bloomberg Philanthropies and the US Department of Commerce jointly organised the first ever US-Africa Business Forum – “a day”, according to their advertisement, “focused on trade and investment opportunities on the continent for African heads of government and American business leaders”.
Unless my English no longer works, there is no “African head of government” who is 21 years old. But at this Summit supposedly dedicated to “African heads of government and American business leaders”, there was a 21-year-old “entrepreneur” from Zimbabwe, a certain Takunda Ralph Michael Chingonzo, a super-confident and clever chap I must confess if he is really 21, with a bright future ahead of him, who was given the honour of not only moderating parts of the Summit but also to interview our dear Barack Hussein Obama in front of the large crowd of “African heads of government and American business leaders” sitting dutifully there and watching with rapt attention as this mere sapling from faraway Zimbabwe made the American president feel a tad uncomfortable.
Dr Takunda I presume?
The young man, Takunda Ralph Michael Chingonzo, is said to be “a tech savvy, inspirational leader who loves working on cutting edge technology and discovering ways to monetise such technology in emerging economies.
“[He] is the co-founder of Neolab Technology P/L, a multi-award- winning start-up that is currently working on [a] free Internet access to the public. He is also the co-founder of NeoEffect, a social start-up working towards the empowerment of underprivileged youth through IT literacy in southern Zimbabwe.
“Takunda is currently studying for a bachelor’s degree in Quantity Surveying and is also working towards CISCO certification in Network Security. Upon the completion of the Washington Fellowship, he plans to roll out services over WiFi on [a] “free WiFi” network called Saisai that is being developed by Neolab. He also intends expanding his social initiatives to other tertiary institutions in Zimbabwe and Southern Africa.”
This 21-year-old Zimbo ended up getting more from Obama about American sanctions against Zimbabwe than most adult politicians, maybe except the three MDCs, ever got from Washington.
In front of Obama, Chingonzo said he was working in the “wireless technology space” where he and his companies (the third “start- up” is Saisai) were “liberating the Internet for Zimbabweans. He got rapturous applause for this, only for him to explain that “we are creating Zimbabwe’s first free Internet access network, hence liberating the Internet”.
These days if you combine “liberation” and “Zimbabwe” in one sentence while speaking to Western audiences, you become an instant hero – because the two words have taken on new meanings. So Chingonzo got his applause for trying to “liberate the Internet for Zimbabweans”.
But all unbeknown to the expectant audience, Chingonzo had something special up his sleeve. I doubt he himself knew the import of what he was about to do. But he did tell Obama during the sharing of pleasantries that he just wanted to “jump into” his questions.
So young Chingonzo kicked off with a question based on, he said, his “personal experience”. From here Obama’s face began to take on a different hue. His worry lines became prominent, and for a wee moment I thought his face had become thinner and longer.
Takunda speaks
Chingonzo put it to Obama: “In our work,” he said, “we came to a point where we needed to import a bit of technology from the United States, and we were engaging in conversations with US-based businesses.
“But the response that we got time and time again was that, ‘unfortunately we cannot do business with you because you are from Zimbabwe’. And I said ‘aah’ … I was shocked you know. It doesn’t make sense.
“This is the same experience that other entrepreneurs in Zimbabwe have gone through. Even through the meetings that I have had here [at the business forum], you know, you sit down with potential investors, you talk about the project, the outlook, the opportunity, the growth, and all that, and they are excited; you can see it, all systems are firing.
“And then I say I am from Zimbabwe, they look at me and say, ‘Hah, young man, erm, it is a good project, very good, very good, but unfortunately we cannot engage in business with you’.
“And I understand that [the] sanctions we have in Zimbab … erm, erm … that are imposed on entities in Zimbabwe, [Chingonzo checks himself here, stammers a bit, and recoils to political correctness, to be in sync with the “orthodox” or Western view of Zimbabwe, and asks] these are targeted sanctions, right?”
By stopping in his tracks and switching from “the sanctions we have in Zimbab …” to “… that are imposed on entities in Zimbabwe”, Chingonzo was consciously trying not to offend Obama and his Western colleagues who go about telling all who have ears to hear that the Western sanctions against Zimbabwe are “targeted” at selected individuals and entities, and that the sanctions are not indiscriminate. But we shall see presently.
Remember that a lie wears a cap, truth walks naked.
Takunda keeps speaking
Chingonzo was going to expose a lie, but I bet if he knew what he was doing. According to him, he just wanted to do business with American companies and something was stopping him. So he told Obama:
“But then we have come to a point in time when we, as young Africans, are failing to properly engage in business with US-based entities because there hasn’t been that clarity. These entities believe that Zimbabwe is under sanctions. So what really can we do to try and clarify this, to make sure that we, as the young entrepreneurs, can effectively develop Africa and engage in business?”
That is a big burden, the black man’s burden, developing Africa. And I wonder if the tender shoulders of these young entrepreneurs can ever adequately carry that burden.
But let’s listen to Obama respond to Chingonzo.
Obama responds
As the Zimbabwean youth rattled on with his question, Obama’s facial expression was changing from the jovial to the serious, his worry lines now standing out like some tribal marks. It was clear that the American president was not enjoying the moment.
But he responded to Chingonzo’s question nonetheless, the crowd of “African heads of government and American business leaders” ever anxious to hear what the man who runs American had to say.
“Obviously,” Obama began, “the situation in Zimbabwe is somewhat unique. The challenge for us in the United States has been how we balance our desire to help the people of Zimbabwe with what has frankly been a repeated violation of basic democratic practices and human rights inside of Zimbabwe.
“And we think it is very important to send clear signals about how we expect elections to be conducted, governance to be conducted, because if we don’t, then all too often, with impunity, the people of those countries can suf fer.
“But you are absolutely right, the laws have also to be balanced, with making sure that whatever structures we put in place, with respect to sanctions, don’t end up punishing the very people inside those countries.
“My immediate suggestion, and this is a broader point to all the African businesses who are here as well as the US businesses, is to make sure that we are using the Department of Commerce and the other US agencies where we can get a group of entrepreneurs and find out exactly what can be done, what can’t be done, [and] what resources are available.
“It may be that you and a group of entrepreneurs in Zimbabwe [he was now addressing Chingonzo directly] are able to meet with us and propose certain projects that [our side can] say this is something that will advance, as opposed to retard, the progress for the Zimbabwean people.
“So, what I suggest would be that we set up a meeting and we find out what kind of things the young African entrepreneurs in Zimbabwe want to do, and see if there are ways we can work with you, consistent with the strong message that we send about good governance in Zimbabwe.”
Pounding the table
Here, Obama is clearly aware that the facts are not on his side, so he resorts to “pounding the table” without literally pounding it. Yet that was what he was doing metaphorically, pounding the table, trying to wriggle out of trouble, by using the ruse of shutting up the braggart from Zimbabwe, telling him to meet him in chambers, “to set up a meeting” far from the prying eyes of the “African heads of government and American business leaders” and the TV cameras focusing on every worry line on his worried face.
But Chingonzo was not getting the drift: “I see,” he said as Obama raised his right hand, waved it a bit as if to say, “ask me another question, boy”. The president then crossed his legs, right thigh over left, and straightened up. His body language was clear. The first question had rattled him. But Chingonzo rattled on nonetheless.
“Because,” Chingonzo went on, “the point of emphasis really is that as young Africans we want to converse with other business entities here in the US, and if these sanctions are really targeted, then, in honest truth, they aren’t supposed to hamper the business we are trying to engage in the development that we are talking about.”
Shut up, boy, shut up!
Chingonzo was unwittingly putting the knife in, and wriggling it. “. . . And if these sanctions are really targeted,” he said. Obama’s discomfort could now be cut with a knife, Chongonzo’s knife. His body language was telling Chingonzo to shut up. Just shut up, boy! Shut up! Or I will call your mother!
Remember a lie wears a cap, truth walks naked.
So Obama decided to respond to Chingonzo’s follow-up comment even before the Zimbabwean youth finished his sentence. The president’s voice was now low, rid of strength, and plainly disinterested in what Chingonzo was saying.
“Let’s see where we can find further basis for certain things you talk about,” Obama blurted out. Chingonzo concurred. And the interview moved on to more comfortable areas.
But Chingonzo had already, and I still insist unwittingly, exposed the lie which Obama and his Western colleagues have repeatedly told the world these past 14 years that the sanctions imposed on Zimbabwe are “smart sanctions” targeting President Mugabe and his so-called henchmen, and their cattle, goats, sheep, rabbits, and maize. And that, no other Zimbabwean suffers from these sanctions apart from the targeted individuals and entities.
But as Chingonzo put it: “. . . If these sanctions are really targeted then, in honest truth, they aren’t supposed to hamper the business we are trying to engage in . . .”
But the sanctions affect Chingonzo and his colleague entrepreneurs in Zimbabwe, and they are not even Mugabe’s henchmen! So what says thee, Mr Obama? “Targeted” is the new word for “indiscriminate”, and don’t worry about who wrote that dictionary.
In fact, young Chingonzo does remind me of a certain youngish Barack Hussein Obama giving his first major, if not ground-breaking, political speech at the Democratic Party National Convention on 7 July 2004 in Boston, Massachusetts.
“Go to any inner city neighbourhood,” Obama, then 42, told the adoring audience, “and folks will tell you that government alone can’t teach our kids to learn; they know that parents have to teach, that children can’t achieve unless we raise their expectations and turn off the television sets, and eradicate the slander that says a black youth with a book is acting white.”
Did you catch it? “. . . Eradicate the slander that a black youth with a book is acting white”!
It was a line of pure genius, coming from the political neophyte that Obama was at the time. Now he is old, and experienced with grey hair, and, like his colleagues elsewhere in the West, Obama wears a cap to hide his face like a lie. All he wants is to meet people in chambers. Set up a meeting with us, he insists.
God has a way of exposing a lie, and Obama got his comeuppance thanks to Chingonzo. One day it will be the turn of the men of Downing Street.
Back to Charles Taylor
Meeting in chambers reminds me of where I ended this column last week – the shenanigans that led Liberia’s former president, Charles Ghankay Taylor, being sentenced to 50 years in prison by the UN-backed Special Court for Sierra Leone. And once again, the Americans were up to their eyelids in that joint criminal enterprise.
Last week I promised that we would continue, today, from the British role in the whole sorry episode, and how Charles Taylor ended up in a British jail, from where he now wants to be transferred to the UN Detention Facility in Rwanda.
Remarkably, the British offer of a prison place for Taylor came long before his trial began, exposing the interests of the big powers behind both the trial and the Court.
Interestingly, after getting their prey firmly behind bars, the British are now struggling to fulfil the stipulations of the Agreement that they signed on July 10, 2007 with the Special Court for Sierra Leone (SCSL).
Signed by Tony Blair’s henchman, Mark Malloch-Brown, the Agreement included the following:
That, “the conditions of imprisonment shall be governed by the law of the United Kingdom, subject to the supervision of the Special Court…”
That, “the conditions of imprisonment shall be equivalent to those applicable to prisoners serving sentences under the law of the United Kingdom and shall be in accordance with relevant human rights standards.”
That, “the Special Court may at any time decide to request the termination of the enforcement of the sentence in the United Kingdom and transfer the sentenced person to another state or to the Special Court.”
Taylor’s letter
Before his transfer to the UK, Taylor had written, on October 10, 2013; to the registrar of the Residual Special Court (remember, the Court was dismantled after Taylor’s trial, leaving a skeleton presence to handle the Court’s affairs) asking to serve his sentence in Rwanda instead of Britain, but his request was dismissed.
“Serving the sentence at the UN detention facility in Rwanda, in my home continent of Africa,” Taylor wrote, “would be substantially more humane not only on my own account, but also on account of the impact on my family.”
Taylor explained that most of his close relatives, including his wife, his ex-wife, and most of his children, reside in Liberia. “Travel for them to Rwanda is much less costly and easier than travel to the UK for several reasons.”
For example, while Liberians wishing to visit the UK must first obtain visas at the British high commission in Accra, Ghana, “which is itself a prohibitively costly and time-consuming journey”, Liberians and other African visitors to Rwanda can obtain visas on arrival at the Kigali airport.
“Second, the cost of staying in Rwanda is much less than would be required to stay in the UK. Accommodation can be secured for dollars a day, whereas a hotel anywhere in the UK costs many times more, to say nothing of the cost of having to travel within the UK,” Taylor explained.
Overall, Taylor made a strong argument in his letter, but like most of the matters surrounding his trial, which are influenced by the political interests of the outside powers who fund the Court, his plea to serve his sentence in Rwanda and not in the UK was rejected.
Behavioural overview
The dismissal of Taylor’s plea was regardless of a May 4, 2012 “behavioural overview”, written by the International Criminal Court’s chief custody officer, Paddy Craig, in which he attested that “Mr Taylor’s behaviour while in the Detention Centre [in The Hague] has been good.
“He is polite, respectful and is prepared to contribute to carrying out some of the day-to-day chores which are necessary in a detention centre. He looks after himself and pays particular attention to his deportment and appearance.”
Craig went on: “Since I [took] over the role of chief custody officer in September 2011, I can report that I have always had a professional relationship with Mr Taylor which I believe could be described as mutually respectful.
“Whenever there have been issues in the detention centre, which have been of concern to Mr Taylor or to me, we have had discussions about them in a frank but constructive manner, even when the outcomes have not always been favourable to Mr Taylor.”
Craig revealed that the former Liberian president did not take part in creative lessons, however he took the opportunity regularly to enjoy fresh air and tried to keep himself as fit as the regime would allow.
“He takes part in outside sessions of sports which includes playing tennis with the other detainees,” Craig wrote. “He has good relationships with the other detainees and I am not aware of any exchanges with other detainees which could be described as fractious.”
However, Chief Custody Officer Craig said, “Mr Taylor does like to speak his mind, and to the extent that is possible, he tries to exert some control of his environment and is prepared to challenge the management of the Detention Centre if he perceives any change to the regime, which in his opinion impacts negatively upon his conditions of detention or his treatment.
“This is [a] normal characteristic generally displayed by detainees and prisoners in a detention facility and is a natural response to being incarcerated.”
Craig concluded: “In light of his former position, it is not unexpected that Mr Taylor is prepared to take issue with, and challenge, the management of the Detention Centre on occasions.”
Family relations
In another plea to the Court, before Taylor was transferred to the UK, his lead Appeals Counsel, Morris Anyah, a Nigerian, felt confident to tell the Court that Taylor would maintain his exemplary record as a convicted person and would not be a burden on prison officials and other detainees if taken to Rwanda.
Anyah pressed the point by showing the converse side of a British location: “A designation to serve a sentence outside Africa would remove Mr Taylor from his continent of birth, culture, tradition, family, friends and all support structures for the remainder of his natural life,” the Nigerian wrote.
“Mr Taylor is now 65 years of age [in 2013], is married, and has 15 biological children from the current and previous marriages. Five of these children are under the age of 10,” Anya continued.
“In addition, he has four grandchildren and one great-grandchild. It follows that imprisonment [outside Africa] will strain family relations and severely impair Mr Taylor’s ability to raise his small children. Indeed, and as a practical matter, the 50-year term of imprisonment translates into a life sentence.”
Anyah then quoted the relevant laws and conventions governing the area under argument: “Everyone has the right to family life,” he wrote. “That right is expressed in the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights, and many human rights treaties.
“The right to family life extends not only to the convicted person, but also to their family members. A designation to serve a sentence outside Africa would not only frustrate family efforts to visit, [it] would deprive the right to family life for all involved.”
Anya then told the Court that: “Cultural and other social differences will likely contribute to further isolation in a foreign prison outside Africa. Hardships resulting from cultural and social isolation should not be underestimated.
“Given Mr Taylor’s advanced age, it follows that relocating to a new and unfamiliar foreign environment without family, friends, and all support structures would result in excessive and unnecessary hardships.”
Fallen on deaf ears
But all the sound reasoning by Anya fell on deaf ears, forcing Taylor’s current lawyer, Barrister John RWD Jones, to write twice – first on November 26, 2013 and then on January 16 2014 – raising concerns about Taylor’s incarceration at HMP Frankland in Durham, northeast England. But Barrister Jones’ concerns equally fell on deaf years.
In his January 16 letter, Barrister Jones was extraordinarily strong in his comments, telling the Court that the UK was in contravention of its own Prison Rules (1999) which requires that ‘special attention shall be paid to the maintenance of such relationships between a prisoner and his family as are desirable in the best interests of both.’
“Further, rule 35(2) of the UK Prison Rules provides that: ‘A convicted prisoner shall be entitled … to receive a visit twice in every period of four weeks’.”
But by refusing visas to Taylor’s wife and children, the UK has in effect denied him the right to “receive a visit twice in every period of four weeks”. In fact he hasn’t received one visit, not one, from his wife and children since he arrived at HMP Frankland.
And Barrister Jones was scathing in his letter: “This critical protection has been rendered illusory in Mr Taylor’s case because all members of his immediate family, despite being anxious to see him, have been prevented from visiting and are unlikely to be permitted to visit for the foreseeable future.
“In this respect, Mr Taylor is being treated differently to prisoners who are UK citizens, who are able to receive family visits under the Prison Rules on a regular basis. Owing to its immigration rules, the UK appears to be unable to carry out the terms of the UK Agreement [with the Special Court] requiring equal treatment.”
Sound argument that none can dispute. But when the gods have decided your fate, there is not much the ngyanga can do. So Taylor is still at HMP Frankland, kicking his feet and hoping that after the Americans had finished meeting in chambers, the Residual Special Court might have the courage to move him from Frankland.
Next week, we shall see how Taylor’s fight for transfer to Rwanda is progressing.
Online Reporter