Four reasons why NUMSA rejects Cyril Ramaphosa’s un-apology for Marikana
The National Union of Metalworkers of South Africa, (NUMSA) rejects the un-apology made by the Deputy President of the country and the ANC, Cyril Ramaphosa, regarding his role in the Marikana Massacre. At the time of the tragedy, Ramaphosa was a director at Lonmin, the thoroughly discredited mining house that was at the epicenter of the events that transpired. His board membership of Lonmin came as a result of his political connections.
Ramaphosa wasted no time and put his connections straight to use, pulling strings in the background to ensure that the mining house continued to house miners in apartheid style conditions and persisted in paying them slave wages while suffering no consequences. Ramaphosa’s actions a few days before the Massacre were telling.
In an email which he sent to Lonmin’s chief commercial officer, Albert Jamieson, the day before the fateful killing of workers on August 16, 2012, Ramaphosa described the strike action taken by the miners as ‘dastardly criminal acts’ which required ‘concomitant action’ from authorities to address the situation. Ramaphosa’s apology nearly five years later is no more than empty words. There is no substance whatsoever to his expression of regret and below are five reasons why:
1. At the time that the miners of Marikana were shot down by South African police Ramaphosa was a board member of Lonmin. The labour dispute which sparked the violent strike at Marikana was precipitated by poor wages and terrible working and living conditions of miners in the area. Ramaphosa’s past experience as a trade unionist and founder of NUM did nothing to improve the conditions of miners in Marikana. Under his watch as a Lonmin executive the majority of miners lived, and continue to live, in the same hovels which existed under Apartheid.
It was the dehumanizing experience of living in squalor, in shacks with no water, no electricity or basic sanitation services, that the demand for a living wage of R12 500 was made. Ramaphosa had the power as an executive to make decisions which could have vastly improved the lives of the miners, but he chose not to. Instead, when the interests of white monopoly capital were threatened, and workers were forced to go on an illegal strike, because they had organizational problems with the trade union of their choice, the National Union of Mineworkers (which he helped establish) he called for and colluded with the minister of police to end the strike, by any means necessary. Why did Ramaphosa not use his skill as a negotiator in the union to find a solution?