This article is from the source 'guardian' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.

You can find the current article at its original source at http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/jun/25/south-african-deputy-president-cyril-ramaphosa-cleared-responsibility-marikana-massacre-miners

The article has changed 4 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 0 Version 1
South African deputy president cleared of responsibility for Marikana massacre South African deputy president cleared over Marikana massacre
(35 minutes later)
South Africa’s deputy president, Cyril Ramaphosa, has been cleared of responsibility for the police massacre of 34 striking mineworkers at Marikana by a judicial commission of inquiry. South Africa’s deputy president, Cyril Ramaphosa, has been cleared of responsibility for the police massacre of 34 striking mineworkers at the Marikana mine by a judicial commission of inquiry.
Other ministers do not have a case to answer either, according to the long-awaited report, but inquiries should be held into national police chief Riah Phiyega’s fitness to hold office and to ascertain the criminal liability of all police directly involved in the tragedy. Other ministers do not have a case to answer either, according to the long-awaited report. But it says inquiries should be held into the fitness of the national police chief, Riah Phiyega, to hold office, and into ascertaining the criminal liability of all police involved in the tragedy.
The killings at the British-owned Lonmin mine in the platinum belt on 16 August 2012 marked the bloodiest massacre by South African security forces since the end of racial apartheid. President Jacob Zuma read a summary of its 600-page report on television on Thursday, saying: “The Marikana incident was a horrendous tragedy that has no place in a democracy.” The killings at the British-owned Lonmin mine in the platinum belt on 16 August 2012 marked the bloodiest massacre by South African security forces since the end of racial apartheid.
His deputy Ramaphosa, a liberation struggle stalwart, was a Lonmin board member at the time and has been accused of encouraging the violent police action. But the report said: “The commission has found that it cannot be said Mr Ramaphosa was the cause of the massacre and the accusations against him are groundless.” On Thursday the South African president, Jacob Zuma, read a summary of the 600-page report on television, saying: “The Marikana incident was a horrendous tragedy that has no place in a democracy.”
In another finding likely to disappoint many families and campaigners, it also cleared then police minister Nathi Mthethwa. “The commission found that the executive played no role in the decision of the police to implement the tactical option on 16 August 2012.” His deputy, Ramaphosa, a stalwart in the liberation struggle, was a Lonmin board member at the time and has been accused of encouraging the violent police action. But the report said: “The commission has found that it cannot be said Mr Ramaphosa was the cause of the massacre, and the accusations against him are groundless.”
The commission was far more critical of the police, however, noting that a plan to encircle the strikers with barbed wire was abandoned and replaced with a “tactical option which was defective in a number of respects. The tactical option was implemented at about 15.40 that day, resulting in the deaths of strikers in scene 1 and scene 2. In another finding likely to disappoint many families and campaigners, it also cleared Nathi Mthethwa, the police minister at the time. “The commission found that the executive played no role in the decision of the police to implement the tactical option on 16 August 2012.”
“The commission found the police operation should not have taken place on 16 August because of the defects of the plan. It would have been impossible to disarm and disperse the strikers without significant bloodshed on the afternoon of 16 August. The police should have waited until the following day when the original ensettlement plan, which was substantially risk free, could have been implemented.” The commission was far more critical of the police, however, noting that a plan to encircle the strikers with barbed wire was abandoned and replaced with a “tactical option which was defective in a number of respects”. It said: “The tactical option was implemented at about 15.40 that day, resulting in the deaths of strikers in scene 1 and scene 2. The commission found the police operation should not have taken place on 16 August because of the defects of the plan. It would have been impossible to disarm and disperse the strikers without significant bloodshed on the afternoon of 16 August. The police should have waited until the following day when the original ensettlement plan, which was substantially risk free, could have been implemented.”
The report continues: “The commission also found that the operation should have been stopped after the shooting at scene 1 and there was also a complete lack of command and control at scene 2.” The report continued: “The commission also found that the operation should have been stopped after the shooting at scene 1 and there was also a complete lack of command and control at scene 2.”
The commission has also questioned the conduct of the police management during the inquiry. “The police leadership did not initially disclose to the commission the fact the original plan was not capable of being implsmented on the first date and had been abandoned,” it says. The commission has also questioned the conduct of the police management during the inquiry. “The police leadership did not initially disclose to the commission the fact the original plan was not capable of being implemented on the first date and had been abandoned,” it said. “In addition police leadership did not inform the commission that the decision to go ahead with the tactical option … was taken at the national management forum on 15 August. Instead they informed the commission the decision was taken on 16 August and only after the situation had escalated.”
“In addition police leadership did not inform the commission that the decision to go ahead with the tactical option … was taken at the national management forum on 15 August. Instead they informed the commission the decision was taken on 16 August and only after the situation had escalated.” The report added: “The commission has also raised serious concerns that there was a delay of about an hour in getting medical assistance to the strikers who were injured at scene 1 and accepts that at least one striker might have survived if he had been treated timeously.”
It adds: “The commission has also raised serious concerns that there was a delay of about an hour in getting medical assistance to the strikers who were injured at scene 1 and accepts that at least one striker might have survived if he had been treated timeously.” The commission attacked the conduct of Lonmin. “The commission has found that Lonmin did not use its best endeavours to resolve the disputes that arose between itself and its workers who participated in the unprotected strike on the one hand, and between the strikers and those workers who did not participate in the strike.
The commission attacked the conduct of the London-listed mining giant Lonmin. “The commission has found that Lonmin did not use its best endeavours to resolve the disputes that arose between itself and its workers who participated in the unprotected strike on the one hand, and between the strikers and those workers who did not participate in the strike. “It also did not respond appropriately to the threat of, and the outbreak of, violence. Lonmin also failed to employ sufficient safeguards and measures to ensure the safety of its employees. Lonmin also insisted that its employees who were not striking should come to work despite the fact it knew that it was not in a position to protect them from attacks by strikers.”
“It also did not respond appropriately to the threat of and the outbreak of violence. Lonmin also failed to employ sufficient safeguards and measures to ensure the safety of its employees. Lonmin also insisted that its employees who were not striking should come to work despite the fact it knew that it was not in a position to protect them from attacks by strikers.” South African news media reported a mood of profound disappointment in Marikana itself over what they saw as the commission’s failure to hold senior politicians to account. Some were critical of the abrupt timing of the report’s release at 7pm with little notice for them to prepare.
James Nichol, a British lawyer who represented the families of dead mineworkers during the commission hearings, said: “It’s outrageous really the fact we are nearly three years on and we are no closer to understanding why hundreds of police officers fired machine guns at miners that day.
“The report suggests it was a bungled job and they should have known better – that’s just not good enough. Why did those police officers open fire? We don’t know that.”
Nichol added: “It was a whitewash for the government and ministers including Cyril Ramaphosa. Not even one of them is held responsible.
“As far as Lonmin is concerned, it’s ‘they should have done better’ but there’s no suggestion of them paying compensation. All in all, it’s a shambles.”
Rehad Desai, a member of the Marikana Support Campaign, said: “Shockingly bad is an understatement. It’s terrible that it only recommends an inquiry into the national police commissioner’s fitness for office rather than her dismissal.”
Lonmin welcomed the report but declined to tackle specific criticisms. Ben Magara, its chief executive, said: “Lonmin gave its full support to the commission. Its findings will need our detailed consideration before we take further action and before we provide our considered responses.
“We as a company have already moved a long way towards building a more open, transparent and mutually trusting environment. I cannot say that we have fully achieved this yet, but I can say that we have made progress, and we will continue to do so in conjunction with other stakeholders.”
He added: “While the report will generate painful memories for many people, it is all of our responsibility not to lose sight of our common humanity, not to destroy the good work already done, to conduct ourselves respectfully and with due restraint and empathy, and to provide support to those who need it.”