The Government of the Republic of South Africa has formally taken note of the Republic of Ghana’s request to have the matter of alleged xenophobic violence against African nationals included on the agenda of the African Union’s Eighth Mid-Year Coordination Meeting, scheduled to take place in El Alamein, Egypt, from 24 to 27 June 2026. Minister of International Relations and Cooperation, Ronald Lamola, stated that while Pretoria was taken aback by the démarche, it considers the African Union forum an appropriate venue for comprehensive continental deliberation on the underlying causes and consequences of irregular migration and related social tensions.

In a diplomatic communication dated 6 May 2026, Ghana’s Minister for Foreign Affairs and Regional Integration, Samuel Okudzeto Ablakwa, requested that the African Union Commission address what Accra describes as recurrent xenophobic incidents in South Africa. The submission contends that such acts contravene the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights and undermine the principles of Pan-African solidarity and the African Continental Free Trade Area. Ghana further proposed an African Union-led assessment mission and enhanced mechanisms to safeguard the rights and security of African migrants.

South African authorities have rejected the characterization of the country as inherently xenophobic, asserting that the challenges confronting it are rooted in structural inequalities, crime, and broader continental economic disparities.

Minister Lamola and Department of International Relations and Cooperation spokesperson Clayson Monyela affirmed South Africa’s readiness to present its position before the African Union, emphasizing transparency and the need for a collective continental approach to migration governance. The matter is anticipated to feature prominently during the forthcoming AU summit.

AFRICAN VOICES INTERNATIONAL, FREEDOM IN AFRICA

The post South Africa Acknowledges Ghana’s Proposal for African Union Deliberation on Xenophobia first appeared on AFRICAN VOICES INTERNATIONAL.

Ghana has formally submitted a complaint to the African Union regarding recent xenophobic acts in South Africa affecting foreign nationals.. The submission to the AU’s Peace and Security Council cites attacks on businesses, harassment of traders, and inadequate protection for foreign nationals in several South African cities. Ghana contends that these incidents contravene the African Union’s principles on human rights, non-discrimination, and the free movement of persons as outlined in Agenda 2063.

The Ghanaian government hastated that the action seeks a coordinated continental response to prevent further occurrences and ensure accountability for violations. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs emphasized that the safety and dignity of African citizens must be upheld across the continent. Ghana has engaged South African authorities on the matter in recent months, raising specific concerns over repeated attacks on Ghanaian traders and students, some of whom have returned home citing safety risks.

The African Union Commission has confirmed receipt of Ghana’s communication and indicated that the matter will be reviewed through its established mechanisms. South Africa has previously condemned xenophobic violence and pledged to investigate reported cases, though it has not yet issued a formal response to the AU referral. The African Union is expected to address the issue at its next Peace and Security Council meeting as part of efforts to resolve intra-African disputes through continental frameworks.

AFRICAN VOICES INTERNATIONAL, FREEDOM IN AFRICA

Follow our WhatsApp Channel for more updates on: https://whatsapp.com/channel/0029VaDc9jg59PwJmHy1Du2t

The post Ghana Refers Xenophobic Incidents in South Africa to the African Union first appeared on AFRICAN VOICES INTERNATIONAL.

On Wednesday, May 6th, 2026, Israeli airstrikes and drone attacks struck multiple locations across southern and eastern Lebanon, killing at least six people and wounding several others. In Zellaya, western Bekaa, a strike on a home killed four people including two women and an elderly man, among them municipal council head Ali Qassem Ahmad and three family members. Separate attacks in Mefdoun killed two people, while one person died in Adshit in the Nabatieh district. Three paramedics were also injured in Deir Kifa when a drone targeted an Islamic Health Authority team. The Israeli military said the strikes were a response to Hezbollah launching explosive drones and rockets at its soldiers in southern Lebanon on the same day.

The escalation comes amid a ceasefire that began on April 17th, 2026 and was extended through May 17th, 2026. The Israeli army acknowledged on May 5th, 2026 that it had hit about 500 areas in Lebanon since the truce took effect, with five Israeli soldiers killed and 33 injured by Hezbollah fire during that period. Israel also issued new forced displacement orders on May 6th for 12 villages in southern Lebanon, including areas north of the Litani River and, for the first time since the truce, parts of the western Bekaa Valley.

Beirut’s southern suburbs were hit on May 6th for the first time in weeks, according to Lebanese security sources. Since fighting renewed on March 2nd, 2026, Lebanese officials report approximately 2,700 people killed and more than 1.2 million displaced. Hezbollah’s leader Naim Qassem stated on May 5th that there is no real ceasefire, describing the situation as continuous Israeli-American aggression. Lebanese President Joseph Aoun said this week that Lebanon requires a security agreement and an end to Israeli attacks before any meeting with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.

AFRICAN VOICES INTERNATIONAL, FREEDOM IN AFRICA

Follow our WhatsApp Channel for more updates: https://whatsapp.com/channel/0029VaDc9jg59PwJmHy1Du2t

The post Israel Strikes At Lebanon first appeared on AFRICAN VOICES INTERNATIONAL.

South Africa saw a significant transition after Johan Merwe’s tenure which has reflected in the sustained democratic frontier, the country enjoys today, despite the challenges. Today we look at Johan Van der Merwe’s tenure where he served as Commissioner of the South African Police from 1990 to 1995, the final years of apartheid and the first year of democracy. A career police officer, he rose through the Security Branch and later commanded the force during South Africa’s negotiated transition. In 1996 he applied to the Truth and Reconciliation Commission for amnesty, disclosing that he had authorized operations resulting in 21 deaths during the apartheid era, stating he acted “in the interest of the state.” His tenure coincided with some of the most violent periods of the transition, including ongoing conflict between security forces and anti-apartheid groups. 

The period of his leadership saw sharp tension between negotiation and violence. While Nelson Mandela and F.W. de Klerk held talks from 1990 to 1993, SAP units were implicated in “Third Force” activity that targeted ANC supporters in townships like Boipatong, Sebokeng, and Thokoza. After the 1992 Boipatong Massacre left 45 people dead, Nelson Mandela suspended negotiations, saying the government did not control its security forces. The 1993 assassination of ANC leader Chris Hani deepened the crisis and underscored the gap between political talks and conditions on the ground. 

South Africa’s transition was ultimately settled at the ballot box. In April 1994, voters elected Nelson Mandela president with 62% of the vote. De Klerk became Deputy President in a Government of National Unity. To maintain stability, Nelson Mandela retained Van der Merwe as Police Commissioner for 12 months. Van der Merwe resigned in 1995 and was replaced by George Fivaz, who was tasked with reforming the SAP into the new South African Police Service. 

Nelson Mandela’s policy of “reconciliation without amnesia” shaped what followed. The TRC process granted amnesty in exchange for full disclosure, but political power changed through elections. Van der Merwe received amnesty for some acts and was denied for others. His testimony became part of the public record of apartheid-era policing. South Africa’s move to democracy was defined by that broader shift from the old security system to a constitutional order chosen by voters.

AFRICAN VOICES INTERNATIONAL, FREEDOM IN AFRICA

Follow our WhatsApp Channel for more updates on: https://whatsapp.com/channel/0029VaDc9jg59PwJmHy1Du2t

The post The Transition Post Ven Der Merwe’s SAP in South Africa first appeared on AFRICAN VOICES INTERNATIONAL.

Kenyan marathon runner Sabastian Sawe made history on April 26, 2026, by becoming the first person to officially break the two-hour barrier in a marathon, winning the London Marathon with a record time of 1:59:30. This achievement shatters the previous world record of 2:00:35 set by Kelvin Kiptum in Chicago last year.

Sawe’s incredible run was closely followed by Ethiopian Yomif Kejelcha, who finished second with a time of 1:59:41, also breaking the two-hour mark. Uganda’s Jacob Kiplimo took third place with a time of 2:00:28, further solidifying the impressive performance of these athletes.

AFRICAN VOICES INTERNATIONAL, FREEDOM IN AFRICA

Follow our WhatsApp Channel for more updates: https://whatsapp.com/channel/0029VaDc9jg59PwJmHy1Du2t

The post Sebastian Sawe Makes History first appeared on AFRICAN VOICES INTERNATIONAL.

In a relentless act of defiance against apartheid, an estimated 3,000 delegates from across South Africa convened at Kliptown in 1955 for the Congress of the People, a multiracial assembly that produced the Freedom Charter, a 10-point blueprint for a democratic, non-racial nation.

Organized by the Congress Alliance, the African National Congress (ANC), South African Indian Congress, Coloured People’s Congress, Congress of Democrats, and South African Congress of Trade Unions, the Congress which took place from 25th to 26th June 1955, took months of nationwide campaigning. Organizers collected thousands of “freedom demands” from townships, farms, factories, and churches as apartheid laws intensified in the 1950s.

“The people themselves must decide the kind of South Africa they want,” Alliance leaders stated. Delegates — black, white, Indian, and coloured — debated and adopted the Charter clause by clause.

The Freedom Charter Demands:
1. The People Shall Govern — universal suffrage for all. 

2. All National Groups Shall Have Equal Rights — end to racial discrimination. 

3. The People Shall Share in the Country’s Wealth — mines, banks, and monopoly industry to be transferred to the people; land re-divided among those who work it. 

4. The Land Shall Be Shared Among Those Who Work It — end to forced removals. 

5. Equality Before the Law— courts not based on race. 

6. Equal Human Rights — freedom of speech, movement, assembly. 

7. Work and Security — 40-hour week, minimum wage, unemployment benefits. 

8. Doors of Learning and Culture Shall Be Opened — free, compulsory education; end to Bantu Education. 

9. Houses, Security and Comfort — slums abolished, decent housing for all. 

10. Peace and Friendship — South Africa to respect rights of all nations.

ANC leader Nelson Mandela hailed the Charter as the “lodestar” of the struggle, saying it proved South Africa belongs to all who live in it;  a direct rejection of apartheid’s “whites-only” vision.

The gathering proceeded under heavy police watch. On the second day, armed officers surrounded the venue, recorded names, and dispersed delegates. Authorities branded the Charter “communist” and banned it.

The aftermath was swift. In December 1956, police launched nationwide raids, arresting 156 leaders on charges of high treason for their role in the Congress. Nelson Mandela was among those arrested. Though banned from attending Kliptown under government restriction orders, Mandela helped plan the Congress and draft the Charter. He and others faced the Treason Trial.

Follow our WhatsApp Channel for more updates: https://whatsapp.com/channel/0029VaDc9jg59PwJmHy1Du2t

AFRICAN VOICES INTERNATIONAL, FREEDOM IN AFRICA

The post Congress Of The People first appeared on AFRICAN VOICES INTERNATIONAL.

The Ugandan government has introduced the External Trade (Amendment) Bill, 2026, proposing a 30% environmental levy on imported second-hand clothing, citing environmental concerns and a desire to stimulate local production. The levy would increase the current surcharge from 15% to 30% of the Cost, Insurance, and Freight (CIF) value, potentially generating revenue and incentivizing domestic textile production.

The Finance Minister of Uganda, Hon.Matia Kasaija has argued that the levy will help mitigate environmental degradation and promote economic diversification. However, stakeholders are divided on the proposal’s impact, with some warning of potential supply chain disruptions and price hikes, while others see opportunities for local industry growth and job creation.

The Uganda Chamber of Commerce, Industry, and Agriculture (KACITA) notes that the used clothing sector contributes significantly to government revenue and questions the levy, given existing tariffs and quotas. The Civil Society Budget Advocacy Group (CSBAG) suggests that the levy may lead to higher prices but could also stimulate local manufacturing and cotton sector development. The bill is currently before the country’s Parliament, with a proposed effective date of July 1st, 2026.

AFRICAN VOICES INTERNATIONAL, FREEDOM IN AFRICA

Follow our WhatsApp Channel for more updates: https://whatsapp.com/channel/0029VaDc9jg59PwJmHy1Du2t

The post Uganda Proposes to Levy 30% Tax on Second-Hand Clothing first appeared on AFRICAN VOICES INTERNATIONAL.

When Nelson Mandela took office on 10 May 1994, South Africa did not only get its first Black president. It also got its first Government of National Unity, a multi-party cabinet born from negotiation rather than revolution.

The rules that produced it were forged at CODESA, the Convention for a Democratic South Africa. From 1991 to 1993, ANC negotiator Cyril Ramaphosa and National Party minister Roelf Meyer drafted an interim constitution. The key compromise was that for five years after 1994, any party with more than five percent of the vote would receive cabinet seats in proportion to its support. That clause compelled a multi-party government and was the price of averting civil war. Ramaphosa’s CODESA team traded amnesty and power-sharing for a peaceful election.

Nelson Mandela’s 1994 cabinet reflected that deal. He served as President alongside two Deputy Presidents, Thabo Mbeki of the ANC and F.W. de Klerk of the National Party. The National Party’s Pik Botha retained the Foreign Affairs portfolio while Derek Keys continued as Finance Minister. Inkatha Freedom Party leader Mangosuthu Buthelezi was appointed Minister of Home Affairs, despite years of bloody conflict between the IFP and ANC. Six of Mandela’s twenty-seven ministers were white and three came from opposition parties. The message was clear: reconciliation would be institutional, not merely symbolic.

Nelson Mandela’s own path to that cabinet began with his arrest in 1962 near Howick. He was detained while driving without a passport after returning from secret trips to Ethiopia and Algeria where he had arranged military training for Umkhonto we Sizwe. The state had already sought him for leaving the country illegally and inciting strikes. His arrest led security police to Liliesleaf Farm, and the documents seized there triggered the Rivonia Trial in 1963. Mandela and nine others were charged with sabotage. His statement from the dock, “I am prepared to die,” turned the trial into a global platform against apartheid. The life sentence that followed made him the movement’s most recognized prisoner and, three decades later, its chief negotiator.

As president, Mandela resolved conflicts through direct engagement. When Afrikaner generals threatened a coup in 1994, he invited them to lunch and kept them in the new National Defence Force. When IFP supporters felt sidelined, he appointed Buthelezi to a senior ministry and visited Ulundi. When white South Africans feared retribution, he wore a Springbok jersey at the 1995 Rugby World Cup. His approach was to bring critics inside, grant them dignity, and avoid humiliation. The Truth and Reconciliation Commission extended that logic, exchanging amnesty for truth rather than pursuing punitive justice.

The bottom line is that Mandela’s multi-party government was a masterclass in conflict management that ended political apartheid. But the economic terms agreed at CODESA meant the new South Africa inherited the old economy. When racism erupts today, it is not a sudden shock from a clear sky. It is the storm that was always on the radar.

AFRICAN VOICES INTERNATIONAL, FREEDOM IN AFRICA

Follow our WhatsApp Channel for more updates: https://whatsapp.com/channel/0029VaDc9jg59PwJmHy1Du2t

The post How Mandela Built a Multi-Party Government — And Why Today’s Racism Is Not a Bolt from the Blue first appeared on AFRICAN VOICES INTERNATIONAL.

On 28th March 1994, less than a month before South Africa’s first democratic elections, the African National Congress headquarters became the epicentre of a crisis that threatened the Government of National Unity. Approximately 20,000 Inkatha Freedom Party supporters marched on Shell House in central Johannesburg to protest the 27th April poll, which IFP leader Chief Mangosuthu Buthelezi had rejected in pursuit of constitutional recognition for a Zulu kingdom. As the demonstration reached the building, ANC security personnel inside opened fire from the headquarters. Nineteen people were killed, most of them IFP supporters, and thirty-one others were wounded. The ANC maintained that its guards had acted in self-defence against an armed attempt to storm the building, while the IFP denounced the incident as a premeditated massacre of unarmed protesters.

The killings immediately embroiled Deputy President FW de Klerk and the National Party, the former apartheid ruling party then governing in partnership with the ANC. Mr. De Klerk publicly alleged that the ANC had staged a “planned ambush” and demanded that Nelson Mandela dismiss his security chiefs and surrender the implicated guards for prosecution. The National Party invoked the incident to argue that the ANC could not be trusted with command of the state’s security forces, a position that intensified fears among white voters that majority rule would precipitate retribution. Mr. Mandela rejected the demands outright, stating that the guards had defended the headquarters and that he would not deliver his cadres to political opponents for vengeance.

The confrontation triggered the first major rupture within the Government of National Unity and jeopardised the fragile constitutional arrangements negotiated to end apartheid. With the election date approaching, the standoff raised the prospect of a collapse in the transitional process and a descent into wider civil conflict. The crisis underscored the fundamental distrust between former adversaries who were nonetheless compelled to share power during the interregnum.

Years later, the Truth and Reconciliation Commission concluded that ANC security had fired without warning and that the use of lethal force was not justifiable, holding the ANC politically accountable for the deaths. The Commission also found that some IFP marchers were armed and noted that thirteen people had died in related political violence elsewhere in Johannesburg earlier that day. No criminal prosecutions followed for either side. The Shell House massacre therefore remains a defining episode of South Africa’s transition, revealing the extent to which the imperatives of political stability and national reconciliation were ultimately deemed to outweigh the demands of retributive justice.

AFRICAN VOICES INTERNATIONAL, FREEDOM IN AFRICA

Follow our WhatsApp Channel for more updates on: https://whatsapp.com/channel/0029VaDc9jg59PwJmHy1Du2t

The post 28th March 94 Shell Killings in Johannesburg first appeared on AFRICAN VOICES INTERNATIONAL.

My dear ladies and women,

Gone were the days where women have their own trade and businesses, where they can operate at their own time. If I have my own shop, I can open it or close it on days I may have a piled work to attend too at home. But in this day and age, where almost 50% or more of us are also gainfully employed in someone’s company or institution, where you can’t choose the time to report and the time to close. Therefore, there is a formal demand on our time as well but the physical tasks of the home also still awaits you and you can’t use the workplace duties to excuse yourself from performing the home tasks. We got to be stronger and devise ways to go round it.

I am always against the extremities of our behaviors. We should be taken care of but we are not “exclusively entitled” to some of the demands we make. We are to help the man build not to break him down. In reality, we do most of the physically work at home most and are often at the mercy of tiredness than our husbands but consider this scenario. Upon all the tiredness, when our kids are sick we will still wake up in the night to attend to them. I remember situations where I will be sick as well but I have to throw mine over the bar and see to the child’s needs. So, always denying your husband his conjugal right over a long period as it becomes obvious you have predetermined that attitude and it is not tiredness per se, then we have an issue to deal with here.

When our kids say they are hungry we don’t beat them up and say why are you saying you are hungry. We are made to understand that our husbands’ conjugal right is a necessity to their living, it is a natural hunger for them like our children been hungry and as much as sometimes we don’t have food but find a way to provide for the kids, we have to find a way to sort our husbands out amidst the tiredness.

Per my own definition of irresponsibility or an irresponsible partner is that, a case where one is capable of helping the other partner both physically, financially or in any regard without anything hindering him or her and obviously refused to help that person or partner can be described as irresponsible partner. So if by any chance your husband could have assisted you and you can see he just obviously refused to provide the help, just maintain your dignity and keep still. The person is adamant in doing it and no amount of shouting will cause them to do it. You will rather stress yourself and have heartache. Just find your way around, do what you can and if the rest left undone won’t kill someone then leave it there like that. We too we are somebody’s children. If you ask more than twice and can see the person obviously refused to help in that case the person is capable of helping but refused, please keep still and do what your capacity can do. Please same applies to us we shouldn’t refuse to help them when we can obviously offer help.

In all these, I am against the extremities where some women are over demanding than their husband’s capacity, denying the men their rights or even financial support or any other over month because of a small offense or misunderstanding etcetera. The other man who is saying he can take better care of you and he will leave his wife for you, please draw the statistics and see where most of those relationships ended.

We are also much aware of our responsibilities as women before marrying; it wasn’t imposed on us in the marriage. Seeing our mothers do most of them when we were young painted a clear picture of what is expected of us before marriage. It wasn’t anything new being introduced to us. Let us be on guard. Marriage can be more beautiful than we have these days.

Follow our WhatsApp Channel for more updates: https://whatsapp.com/channel/0029VaDc9jg59PwJmHy1Du2t

AFRICAN VOICES INTERNATIONAL, FREEDOM IN AFRICA

The post Marriage Is Not An Occult (Women’s Edition) By Abigail Mavis Xatse first appeared on AFRICAN VOICES INTERNATIONAL.