Mthwakazi pressures SA to clarify self-determination stance

The Mthwakazi Republic Party (MRP) has formally asked South Africa's Parliament to compel the Department of International Relations and Cooperation (Dirco) to explain the legal principles it applies when considering claims of self-determination, particularly those relating to the Matabele/Mthwakazi question in Zimbabwe.

The MRP, which advocates for the separation of the Mthwakazi region along the pre-independence Jameson Line, submitted a consolidated document to Parliament's Portfolio Committee on International Relations and Cooperation on August 20.

MRP president Mqondisi Moyo stressed that the submission was not a request for South Africa to recognise an independent Mthwakazi.

Instead, the party wants Dirco to explain the legal test South Africa applies in determining whether a community qualifies as a "people" entitled to self-determination under Article 20 of the African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights.

"This is not a request that Parliament recognise an independent Mthwakazi," the submission states.

"It is a request that the portfolio committee exercise its oversight function by requiring Dirco to state the legal test South Africa applies to claims of peoples' self-determination."

The party pointed to what it considers a need for greater clarity in South Africa's position on self-determination and territorial integrity.

According to the MRP, South Africa has previously described the right to self-determination in broad terms in submissions to the International Court of Justice (ICJ), including reference to Article 20 of the African Charter.

At the same time, South Africa has relied on the principle of uti possidetis, which generally preserves inherited colonial administrative boundaries following decolonisation.

The MRP argues that the two principles are not necessarily incompatible but wants Dirco to explain the circumstances under which one principle would take precedence over the other.

The latest submission consolidates correspondence previously sent by the party on August 6, 10, 11 and 12, with the aim of obtaining a single institutional response from the South African government.

Among the questions raised is how South Africa determines whether a particular community constitutes a "people" for purposes of the right to self-determination, and how those criteria would apply to the Matabele/Mthwakazi community.

The party also wants clarity on what forms of self-determination may be legally permissible while respecting the principles of sovereignty and territorial integrity.

The MRP referred to South Africa's submissions in the Chagos and Palestine ICJ advisory proceedings, as well as African Commission decisions involving the Katangese Peoples' Congress and Cabinda, in support of its request for clarification.

"The MRP accepts that South Africa may reject the political conclusion it seeks. What this submission requests is not agreement but a legal account," the party said.

The MRP further questioned whether peaceful advocacy for a change in political status should be regarded as legitimate democratic expression. It also asked whether the Southern African Development Community (SADC) has mechanisms for considering peaceful political claims that do not pose a threat to regional peace and security.

Moyo indicated that the party was prepared to make an oral presentation to the portfolio committee should it be invited to do so.

South Africa's Parliament had not responded to the submission at the time of publication.