News / National
MRP backs South Africa's stance on Palestinian self‑determination, demands same recognition for Matabeleland
4 hrs ago |
85 Views
The Mthwakazi Republic Party (MRP) says it fully agrees with the South African government’s remarks on Palestinian self‑determination made during proceedings at the International Court of Justice (ICJ) — and insists that the same principle must be applied to Matabeleland.
South Africa is the complainant in the ICJ case against Israel, accusing it of violating international law through its military operations in Gaza. In its submissions, Pretoria argued that Israel’s conduct denies Palestinians “the most basic human rights – including the right to self‑determination.”
MRP president Mqondisi Moyo said his party welcomed South Africa’s position, arguing that the doctrine of self‑determination is universal and cannot be selectively applied.
“The principle of self‑determination, once asserted as a binding norm of international law, cannot be confined to a single people or a single dispute,” Moyo said. “If the denial of self‑determination constitutes an internationally actionable violation of law, then that principle applies to every nation whose sovereignty has been suppressed. Among those nations is the Matabele nation of Mthwakazi.”
MRP, which advocates for the self‑determination of Matabeleland, says the region has suffered decades of marginalisation, political exclusion and economic displacement — particularly since the Gukurahundi atrocities of the 1980s.
Moyo argued that Israel itself emerged through the exercise of self‑determination by the Jewish people, and that international law — including the UN Charter — recognises the right of all peoples to determine their political status.
He cited several ICJ advisory opinions, including Namibia (1971), Western Sahara (1975) and Kosovo (2010), as precedents affirming the principle.
Moyo also referenced the Montevideo Convention of 1933, which outlines the criteria for statehood, and said recent recognition of Palestinian statehood despite limited sovereign control has created what he termed the “Palestine Precedent”.
“Recognition can now be extended primarily on the basis of asserted self‑determination rather than strict fulfilment of Montevideo criteria,” he said.
He added that Zimbabwe is bound by Article 20 of the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights — which guarantees the right to self‑determination — after ratifying the instrument in 1986.
“The African Charter is an African instrument, adopted by African states. Article 20 already applies to the Matabele nation,” Moyo said.
He argued that the Matabele nation existed as a sovereign kingdom before British conquest in 1893, with defined territory, governance structures and diplomatic relations.
“No voluntary treaty of union was concluded. The kingdom was conquered and its sovereignty extinguished by force,” he said. “When Zimbabwe became independent in 1980, the territorial framework imposed by conquest was preserved.”
Moyo said South Africa cannot invoke the ICJ’s authority on Palestine while ignoring the court’s own jurisprudence on declarations of independence.
“The right to self‑determination does not depend on political convenience. Once asserted as universal law, it applies universally,” he said.
South Africa is the complainant in the ICJ case against Israel, accusing it of violating international law through its military operations in Gaza. In its submissions, Pretoria argued that Israel’s conduct denies Palestinians “the most basic human rights – including the right to self‑determination.”
MRP president Mqondisi Moyo said his party welcomed South Africa’s position, arguing that the doctrine of self‑determination is universal and cannot be selectively applied.
“The principle of self‑determination, once asserted as a binding norm of international law, cannot be confined to a single people or a single dispute,” Moyo said. “If the denial of self‑determination constitutes an internationally actionable violation of law, then that principle applies to every nation whose sovereignty has been suppressed. Among those nations is the Matabele nation of Mthwakazi.”
MRP, which advocates for the self‑determination of Matabeleland, says the region has suffered decades of marginalisation, political exclusion and economic displacement — particularly since the Gukurahundi atrocities of the 1980s.
Moyo argued that Israel itself emerged through the exercise of self‑determination by the Jewish people, and that international law — including the UN Charter — recognises the right of all peoples to determine their political status.
He cited several ICJ advisory opinions, including Namibia (1971), Western Sahara (1975) and Kosovo (2010), as precedents affirming the principle.
“Recognition can now be extended primarily on the basis of asserted self‑determination rather than strict fulfilment of Montevideo criteria,” he said.
He added that Zimbabwe is bound by Article 20 of the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights — which guarantees the right to self‑determination — after ratifying the instrument in 1986.
“The African Charter is an African instrument, adopted by African states. Article 20 already applies to the Matabele nation,” Moyo said.
He argued that the Matabele nation existed as a sovereign kingdom before British conquest in 1893, with defined territory, governance structures and diplomatic relations.
“No voluntary treaty of union was concluded. The kingdom was conquered and its sovereignty extinguished by force,” he said. “When Zimbabwe became independent in 1980, the territorial framework imposed by conquest was preserved.”
Moyo said South Africa cannot invoke the ICJ’s authority on Palestine while ignoring the court’s own jurisprudence on declarations of independence.
“The right to self‑determination does not depend on political convenience. Once asserted as universal law, it applies universally,” he said.
Source - Byo24news
Join the discussion
Loading comments…
