The Cape Town mayor, the sanctioned oligarch and the limitations of municipal power

Russian oligarch Alexey Mordashov. (Photo: EPA / Sergei Ilnitsky)

By Peter Fabricius

26 Oct 2022

Cape Town Mayor Geordin Hill-Lewis’s call on the national government to bar a Russian oligarch raises questions about the limits of municipal power.

When Tshwane’s then mayor Solly Msimanga of the Democratic Alliance (DA) visited Taiwan in 2016, the ANC blew a fuse and accused him of “treason” because it said he had violated Beijing’s “One China” policy, to which the South African government adhered.

Msiminga eventually moved to defuse the row by writing to the Chinese embassy to explain that his trip had not been intended to violate the One China policy, but only to explore opportunities for cooperation in good governance and business.

cape town russia mordashov Russian oligarch Alexey Mordashov. (Photo: EPA / Sergei Ilnitsky)

This week another DA mayor, Cape Town’s Geordin Hill-Lewis, challenged the ANC’s foreign policy. He wrote to International Relations and Cooperation Minister Naledi Pandor urging her not to allow the Russian oligarch Alexey Mordashov, a close ally of Russian President Vladimir Putin, to dock his R9-billion 142m superyacht Nord in Cape Town or to allow Mordashov to set foot in South Africa.

The US sanctioned Mordashov and members of his family in June, along with several other oligarchs and officials, “to degrade the key networks used by Russia’s elites, including President Vladimir Putin, to attempt to hide and move money and anonymously make use of luxury assets around the globe”.

The US said Mordashov was the leader of Severgroup and one of Russia’s wealthiest billionaires.

Hill-Lewis pointed out that Mordashov was the main shareholder and chairman of Severstal, Russia’s biggest steel company.

“The steel industry is of key strategic significance to the government of Russia and of the Russian war effort,” said Hill-Lewis.

Visit Daily Maverick’s home page for more news, analysis and investigations

The mayor also pointed out that Severgroup, which Mordashov chairs, is a major shareholder of Rossiya Bank, which had expanded aggressively into Crimea after Russia’s illegal annexation of the territory from Ukraine in 2014. He said Rossiya had opened branches in Crimea, “forcing the economic integration of Ukrainian territory into Russia. Accordingly, Mr Mordashov has personally derived financial benefit from illegal activities.

“Severgroup also owns a large share of the National Media Group, which controls several Russian television stations which broadcast Russian propaganda and actively promote the Russian government’s actions in Ukraine. In this way, again, Mr Mordashov has helped to support activities which undermine Ukraine’s territorial integrity and sovereignty, and is an accomplice to the unconscionable crimes committed against Ukrainian civilians.”

Hill-Lewis continued: “South Africa has a moral duty to do what it can to protest unjust war, state terrorism, and the gross violation of human rights. We must stand up against expansionist imperialism wherever it rears its ugly head. This is especially so, in light of our country’s own painful history of imperialism.

“The founding provisions of our Constitution state our nation’s commitment to human dignity and the advancement of human rights and freedoms. To welcome an accomplice to state terrorism against innocent people to our shores as a guest would be a violation of these values. If Mr Mordashov is allowed to dock and enter, I believe this is something of which we will come not only to feel ashamed as a matter of our own morality, but it will also lower our reputation and standing amongst the peace-loving nations of the world.

“The national government has a duty to nurture our country’s standing in the international community and uphold our obligations to other nations. It must be said that so far, our country’s foreign policy conduct in relation to Russia’s illegal, imperialist war has been nothing less than shameful. Here is an opportunity to correct some of those errors of judgement and stand up for what is clearly right.”

Nord is believed to have left Hong Kong earlier this month, heading for Cape Town, where it is expected to arrive on 9 November. Oligarchs like Mordashov, whose yachts are sanctioned, have to choose their routes carefully. In March, the Italian government seized his superyacht Lady M at the port of Imperia in Italy.

Demand effectively rejected

Pandor has not responded to Hill-Lewis’s call, but President Cyril Ramaphosa’s spokesperson, Vincent Magwenya, on Tuesday effectively rejected his demand.

“Legally, South Africa is only obligated to sanctions imposed by the United Nations. There are no UN-imposed sanctions on this particular individual. For as long as he abides by South Africa’s immigration laws, we will have no reason to prevent his entry into South Africa.”

In effect then, Magwenya was clarifying and upholding the national government’s “non-aligned” policy on Russia’s war against Ukraine, a policy which some critics say is really pro-Russian.

Hill-Lewis was challenging that policy by demanding that South Africa should in effect sanction Mordashov. The DA has more generally sided very clearly with Ukraine in this war, most conspicuously when the party’s leader, John Steenhuisen, visited the country earlier this year.

Paradiplomacy

The episode of the superyacht raises some interesting questions about the limitations of foreign policy conducted by subnational governments. This foreign policy by provinces and cities has been termed “paradiplomacy”.

Back in 2016 when Msimanga dared to venture into Taiwan, thereby irritating the Chinese government and its ally the ANC, the ruling party’s Tshwane caucus issued a statement in which it said that the mayor’s trip had exposed “the limited understanding of Mr Msimanga on his roles and powers as well as his understanding on the functioning of the three layers of the state, which are interrelated and interdependent.

“While at the same time they all operate according to the Constitution and laws and policies made by national Parliament, local government may not do anything that is against the laws or policies set down by national government. We are … characterising this trip as treason and we will be consulting with the MEC of Cogta [Cooperative Governance and Traditional Affairs] and law-enforcement agencies on the implications of this trip.”

Nothing came of the ANC’s dire threats, including its threat to charge Msiminga with an offence.

To defer or not to defer

Are subnational governments like those of Tshwane and Cape Town really obliged to defer to the national government’s foreign policies? Is it an offence not to?

Fritz Nganje, a professor of politics and international relations at the University of Johannesburg, suggests that Hill-Lewis acted inconsistently with his constitutional mandate. Nganje specialises in the role of sub-national governments in foreign policy and co-authored a chapter on that subject in the book Values, Interests and Power: South African foreign policy in uncertain times, edited by Daniel Bradlow and Elizabeth Sidiropoulos.

“There is precedent in countries like the US where city governments have intervened directly in foreign policy issues often against the position of the national government,” he told Daily Maverick.

“However, the role of local and provincial governments in international relations, and especially in foreign policy, in the South African context is greatly circumscribed by the country’s legal and institutional framework.

“So, while provincial and local governments would be justified in engaging in international relations and activities that further their domestic development mandates, I don’t believe inserting themselves in the foreign policy realm in this manner, in direct contradiction of the national government’s position, is consistent with their constitutional competence or is even desirable.

“It seems to me that this is a manifestation of party-political and ideological differences over foreign policy issues that city governments do not quite have authority over. Ideally, those differences should find expression in parliamentary debates.”

Nganje notes that the US is a federal system which gives states — and to some extent, local government — greater autonomy than South Africa’s provinces enjoy.

However, it seems Hill-Lewis’s statement is defensible on the grounds of his right to free expression to state his views on foreign issues, as on other issues, insofar as these issues may impinge on the interests, including the reputation, of South Africa and therefore of Cape Town.

It could be argued that as long as the City of Cape Town does not act on its foreign policy views — for instance in this case, by forcibly trying to prevent Mordashov from docking his yacht and from disembarking in South Africa — it violates no constitutional limitations.

What is striking about this episode though is that the naked aggression of Russia against Ukraine and its atrocities against the Ukrainian people have emboldened the DA to challenge the ANC government’s controversial non-aligned stance more openly than any other of its foreign policy positions. DM

Categories:

Tags:

DM is much better if you are signed in...

South Africa

Demand effectively rejected

Paradiplomacy

To defer or not to defer