Why Whites Can’t Be Legal Africans
Updated: Jun 22, 2019
For many years I have been arguing that white people are not African citizens and can never be until they conform to certain African formalities to gain legitimate status in Africa.
In my mind, white citizenship in Africa can not stand up in law, that is our African law. Considering that most whites either came to Africa as subjects of European royal charters or as colonial settlers who were given immigration status by illegitimate, minority colonial governments to exploit and pillage Africa on behalf of European crowns.
According to the oaths they [their ancestors] took, their sole mandate as charter employees or colonial settlers was to serve the commercial interest of their royal monarchs [motherlands] by committing crimes (theft, murder and at times genocide) against the natives for European benefit. A clear violation of African law and customs.
I believe those charters and oaths had no moratoriums or subsequent cancellation. So these settler covenants are still in full force to date, and as common cause are illegal in Africa because they go against African morality, values, culture and national interest.
This is why whites [Europeans] and their companies in Africa still work in the interests of Europe to undermine African progress. Monopolizing resources, exploiting them on behalf of their mother countries, dominating markets and destroying native capacity.
Which is why they still enjoy reserved citizenship rights in Europe because they are Trojan horses and agents for European imperialism.
We often see those citizenship rights exercised when these Europeans use their charter companies to illegally transfer wealth, resources and profits out of Africa through arms length European surrogates and colonial tax havens.
The same is witnessed when they move the primary listings of their charter companies from Africa to Europe the moment a black government takes over the colony or once there is talk of transformation.
Examples include the likes of NASPERS recent move to the Netherlands, SAB, Anglo America, Liberty and many other South African companies and individuals. Who after making their billions from exploiting the South African market, relocated their primary listings to mother Europe the moment the ANC took over.
Yet, when the colony was under the tough conditions of apartheid sanctions. When they were benefiting from the crimes against humanity, exploiting black labor and property in a protected market. They remained South African companies and got unjustly enriched from the crime. Only to run when the market was liberalized and the prospect of justice for blacks became a possibility.
Even under the colonial era, many of them held the copyrights of the brands they used to harvest the African colony in European tax havens and locales for easy externalization through management fees and royalties.
A case in point, all SABs African beer brands were registered and warehoused in the Netherlands and Belgium throughout apartheid. This is besides the company being established and domicile in South Africa throughout the period and their brands being predominantly sold in the Africa market.
Another example of this ethnic allegiance is seen when civil war starts in an African country. European nations will immediately send their militaries to evacuate all [white] settler populations back to Europe. Concomitantly occupying the African country with their armies or imposing sanctions on the country in question to ensure that it won’t flourish without the settlers.
We have seen this in Chad, Ivory Coast and many of the CFA French colonies. An expressed confirmation that white people are still European [royal charter] subjects and not Africans.
These Immigrants Abrogated African Laws
Besides that, Europeans generally established their tenure in Africa in the course of perpetrating heinous crimes against the humanity of the majority citizens of the African territories they invaded.
Making them illegal invaders and therefore any subsequent laws, treaties, agreements and contracts that they made prior or with the new native governments should be consider criminal, contrary to morality [contra Bono’s mores] and of no legal standing in African practice. Until they have been reviewed through African legal customs.
Here we must consider that in the perpetration of these illegal acts against Africans [humanity]. These illegal invaders, broke local legal customs and illegitimately established their own minority foreign laws: Roman, Dutch and English law systems on African territory to circumvent majority customs in the interests of pushing their minority interests.
This was done with the approval of their monarchs in Europe but without the agreement and ratification of the presiding majority population, legislators, chiefs and kings of the lands they occupied illegally.
Today, these laws have been adopted by African leaders who have been selected by a foreign [imposed] custom referred to as democratic elections. Suggesting that even our so-called leaders today are not leadership in the strictest sense of African culture. Which renders our entire governance and legal system as foreign and non-representative of our practices and customs.
I believe this makes any adopted immigration laws, the preceding immigration rights and their subsequent adoption by liberation governments [giving citizenship to whites and future generations] invalid in the same way colonial rights, segregation, native reserves and bantustans became invalid.
This would then make white citizenship in Africa or shall I say the giving of citizenship to the killers of our ancestors (according to our African customs which we need to value more) together with most of our Southern African laws invalid, as they emanate from an era of fraudulent mandate and legislation.
Our Laws And Constitutions Are Voidable
I would further postulate that any laws and constitutions signed by liberation governments in conjunction with imperial powers on secession. Are equally voidable because they were patently signed under duress, by black leaders selected in an unAfrican leadership process, at a time of desperation for political freedom from an illegal settler who was essentially still in power.
This is supported by the fact that most liberation agreements: Lancaster, Codesa and others in Africa where signed in negotiations held while native liberation fighters were effectively still in exile and colonial settlers still in power and preventing them from returning home.
This suggests that our leaders were compelled to accept unpalatable terms put on the table to avoid running the risk of continued exile, away from their land and families indefinitely.
In Zimbabwe, independence negotiations were held under duress, while a British governor who had a vested interest, was presiding over Rhodesia and playing referee in the negotiations at the same time.
Many accounts say that by the time of negotiations in Zimbabwe, our liberation fighters were confident that they had the momentum to win the war if it could just continue for another two years. Hence they were not keen to negotiate before total victory.
However, in support of the settlers, the British government and Kissinger exerted pressure on Mozambique and Zambia to deny our fighters and leaders refuge or bases if they didn’t attend the Swiss and Lancaster negotiations.
The implication was clear: our leaders were not going to be allowed to vanquish the enemy, therefore they were to accept the skewed terms of these negotiations or else no longer have bases to return to and continue the war.
This is partially why you see that very few African independence agreements saw Africans receiving reparations, restitution or damages for colonialism, because no African liberation movement was ever permitted to have outright military victory over any colonial government.
Africans Have No Humanity Without Full Rights
Colonialism was about denying Africans their humanity and rights to that humanity. And so
denying liberation fighters the right to totally free themselves by the gun, forced them to negotiate unjust settlements with their oppressor as another manifestation of Europeans denying Africans the rights to unconditional humanity.
Such settlements were not reached by consensus, but duress applied on exhausted liberators who did not want to pit themselves against western superpowers and run the risk of remaining homeless indefinitely.
Whites Can’t Be African Without Humanity
In my conclusion, whites can never be legal citizens of Africa, unless they give Africans back their humanity, rights and atone for the crimes they perpetuated against “fellow citizens”.
This means they must make obvious amends to restore what they derogated and dispossessed. While returning the unjust enrichment and property appropriated from fellow citizens [natives] who remain sub-human subjects until their humanity is restored through restitution and restoration of their legal, social, economic, cultural and political rights.
Europeans must not only pay reparations and restitution, but they must denounce their European covenants, abrogate colonial laws, adopt laws made by Africans for Africans and accept the migration franchise that the African laws confer upon them.
Without these changes, Africans remain sub-human white subjects living under european settler laws, on the stolen property of Europeans, in a european economy. Meanwhile whites will continue to be inhumane, illegal aliens who are inimical to Africans.
By Rutendo Bereza Matinyarare