From legislated oppression to legalised exploitation

I note the extent to which the talks around ownership to the vuvuzela have since degraded to the shallow, and shudder with remorse as to how Africans continue to be accomplices in the death of their own destiny. But frankly, I couldn’t care less about who owns the vuvuzela concept, but rather about justice being done, and being seen to be done.

As things stand, Masincedane Sports used the constitutional provisions to secure ownership to the trademark. So, the vuvuzela belongs to them — as per our current rule of law — irrespective of whether they might (or not) be some previously advantaged white kids whose knowledge of SA football is limited to perceptions of black hooligans who kill and rape their own — the uneducated unwashed.

The Shembe Church — albeit unintentionally — contributed a very essential input in this debate, and one that could be particularly useful in further defining African Renaissance. As they claim, a crippled worshipper named ‘Mthembu’ approached the church leadership back in 1935, seeking permission to modify an instrument called “izimbomu”, which was then used by the church for praise and worship since 1910.

The key aspect here is that Mthembu went to ‘seek permission’ to ‘modify’was not his original idea, the ‘izimbomu’. As per the philosophy of ‘Ubuntu’, and the values of respect, dignity and integrity enshrined in African indigenous law, ‘Mthembu’ did not have to find underhanded constitutional loopholes to steal what did not belong to him.

Did Masincedane Sports ask for permission to modify/manufacture the instrument? Surely they must have been aware that the instrument was long a part of SA football long before they ventured on a plot to secure its trademark rights. Surely the owners of Masincedane are not the first people to introduce the instrument (in whatever form) to SA football. Back in the late 80s and early 90s, it would have been a miracle of biblical proportions to find a Steve van Schalkwyk or a Beville Buchmann blowing the vuvuzela in the middle of Orlando Stadium.

Herein emerges the sad episode of ‘Saddam’ Maake — one among a popular group of rabid attention seekers who hog our screens uninvited almost every weekend, and a die hard supporter of some team which I won’t mention by name. To his credit, ‘Saddam’ offers the most legitimate argument — despite it being somehow circumstantial — and hard evidence in the form of photographs, showing him holding various ‘self-made’ vuvuzelas in his hands. And these shots were taken around the 80s and 90s.

But then ‘Saddam’ defeats his cause when he starts pleading for mere royalties on the vuvuzela profits. What exactly does this African want? Does he want control the rights to what he claims to be his invention or does he want a few crumbs from a little the unholy imperialists are willing to shed?

This typical of the blind reconciliation dogma which has become the hallmark of SA since 1994: ‘You stole what was legitimately mine but I beg you, please let’s share.’ I doubt if Madiba’s advocacy for national reconciliation included a syndrome of perpetual blind ignorance. True reconciliation remains alert and decisive in dealing with the day to day realities, while also keeping an objective eye on the possibilities of an ideal future.

So, what happened when Judge President Mandlakayise Hlophe proposed that we ‘Africanise’the rule of law? His detractors were quick to lynch him; label him a persona non grata; taunt him to provide substance, while impatiently waiting to ridicule and undermine whatever solid proposal he could bring forth.

Legal scholars were ashamed to expand on the concept, lest they get painted with the same brush. It would not have done any harm if we were to explore the advantages and disadvantages of such a proposal or at the least, interrogate and exhaust the matter in public domain until we reach a consensus. Maybe today, ‘Saddam’ or the church would be standing a good chance to receive justice.