Threat of pseudo Pan Africanism

in a poetic/theatric manner, expressing his dream for Africa’s success. He makes it vividly clear that he dreams of Africa that is free from hunger, disease, wholly liberated, free from tyranny, corruption and greed.
Gutu further states that as a Pan-Africanist and Zimbabwean patriot, has chosen to see hope and a bright future where others see hopelessness and desolation.
This writer finds it interesting, but could not understand whether Gutu and his party have not become causative factors against what he dreams to achieve.
This writer finds Gutu as a chameleon Pan-Africanist who is trying to blend himself with the truth but with an ulterior motive. Nkrumah said the only good imperialist is a dead one. It therefore boggles one’s mind to read an article from a fine legal young man who is expressing a Nicodemus agenda. It is true that if we allow imperialists to invest in Zimbabwe there will be jobs and fair amount of social-economic development. However, we must not forget that these existed when we took up arms to liberate ourselves.
A visionary Pan-Africanist should not only be satisfied by people being workers/managers; getting benevolent benefits which do not allow ownership and creation of indigenous capital for sustainable growth and expansion. While it might appear to be sound to earn subsistence money, the long-term effect is people will revolt wanting to control their resources.
The liberation war was fought for people to acquire national sovereignty grounded on national interests.
National interests resonates with sovereignty and are grounded on ownership of resources, diverse management of resources, sound people centred leadership, creation of jobs and wealth for communities to enjoy sustainable social life. Gutu and his party, while they clamour for capitalistic concepts in order to create employment, they must understand that this will largely make Zimbabweans remain providers of labour, which is a reason against which the war was fought. Thus by calling for sanctions, Gutu and his party are advocating for the majority of Zimbabweans to remain poor and subjects of foreign owned corporates. Is this what Pan-Africanism is about? Does this kind of ideological thinking see Africa becoming a success story? Gutu fairly highlighted issues of tyrannism in Africa. Yes, there are people who are dictators in Africa but some are inferred as that due to either differences with some “big powers” or some ideological differences with some political parties within African states.
In the case of those labelled tyrannies by the West, Africa needs to clearly define tyranny. It must be remembered that where a leader does not submit to the national interests of the West, that leader is quickly described as undemocratic and ultimately a tyranny.
People in Africa must be careful in their choices as this may lead to unnecessary civil wars and leaving our resources in the hands of greedy foreign powers.
It must be noted that democracy is not a sign of weakness in Africa asserting itself to the concept of owning its resources. A question arise for Gutu: Does he agree that the Indigenisation and Empowerment Act is an act that Zimbabwe is using in order to be totally liberated? Does he agree that this act is a vehicle that would see Africa totally liberated as espoused in his article? From a legal viewpoint does he subscribe to the oppressive Berlin Act, the Land Apportionment Act, Land Husbandry Act and Land Tenure Act?
What is Obert’s legal view on the UN Charter which talks about the natives right to self determination which legalises all the wars of liberation in Africa; the right to resource ownership which legalises the enactment of the Indigenisation and Empowerment Act and the Land Reform Act?
Does he, as a legal expert, agree that the constitutional changes in Zimbabwe are in conformity with the UN Charter, the OAU Charter and the constitution of Zimbabwe? If he is a Pan-Africanist, what is he doing about his party that is abrogating on the indigenisation of our resources? Fellow Zimbabweans, we need to engage in a debate with a view of bringing what is good for the future generations. The period between 2000-2008 has seen the country experiencing excruciating sad moments of hyper-inflation, economic meltdown, unemployment and social despair all caused by acts of violence, political polarity radiating from sanctions.
The question to ask is what has Obert as a politician and Pan-Africanist done to allow Zimbabaweans to engage each other uncorrupted by political motives.
If one reads Gutu’s articles in other newspapers, they will be engulfed with the feeling that the Senator is a traitor and a violence instigator. His articles are rich of adjectives that violate human rights that are enshrined in the UN Charter, OAU Charter and the Zimbabwean Constitution that legalises Zimbabwe’s War of Liberation, independence and sovereignty and the right for Zimbabwe’s self determination.
The Senator is a complete reverse of Dr Edson Zvobgo and Barrister Herbert Chitepo in terms of legal interpretations.
He is a complete opposite of Dr Nkomo, Nkrumah and Lumumba in terms of Pan Africanism. One thing that Gutu needs to know is that the likes of Idi Amin, Mobutu, and Mubarak were supported by the West to create an environment for the West to plunder Africa’s resources.
As a Goodwill Ambassador for Justice for Africa Heritage Society, Gutu should came clear on his Pan-Africanism. He must understand that Africa is heavily concern about repossessing its heritage and is not worried about issues of goodwill. For the unborn millions of Zimbabweans to enjoy their heritage, Africa must put in place laws that create ownership of resources.
Thus hunger, disease, tyranny, total independence and a bright future can only be eradicated or gained when resources of Africa are controlled by Africans.
Justice for Africa Heritage Society must remember that only assets or possessions are inheritable not goodwill. Freezing of nurses posts, results in unemployment and poor health delivery system. A country riddled with poor health services is most likely to experience low productivity in every other sector.
This translates in the country facing challenges of poor health, low capacity utilisation, a shrinking population and poverty. Gutu, as a Pan-Africanist, does not attempt to tell the nation on how he feels these challenges, which he and his party are causing, should be addressed. Gutu notes with great omission that Ghana’s GDP before 1957 was higher than that of Singapore.
The first omission he makes is that from colonisation to 1957 Africans in Ghana was not a factor of calculating GDP as the case was in Rhodesia. The second deliberate omission was that Ghana was riddle with coups perpetrated by the erstwhile coloniser Britain as is with sanctions in Zimbabwe.