, South Africa’s world-famous political prisoner who became his nation’s first democratically elected president, turns 90 years old this summer.
Fourteen years ago, under a full Autumn moon, about two poignant minutes apart before midnight and after — I witnessed a white soldier lower South Africa’s old flag for the last time and a black soldier raise his nation’s new colors.
The people of South Africa — including, for the first time, the majority black population — had gone to the polls in a jubilant, chaotic and epochal election and altered the course of their nation’s bitter history. A liberation election finally put the beast of in the grave and Nelson Rolihlahla Mandela into power as president of South Africa.
“I will concentrate on those things which give hope to all South Africans,” Mandela, who was the symbol and instrument of the anti-apartheid struggle, said on being elected.
The original white Dutch settlers arranged things so that whites would hold the power and wealth of the nation. and his cohort in 1948 codified those policies into apartheid — the system of racist laws and policies by which South Africa’s 5.6 million whites oppressed 24 million blacks and others of mixed race for half a century. Verwoerd never expected blacks to vote. By the 1980’s, however, South Africa, the last colonial outpost on the African continent, had become a pariah nation, apartheid reviled, its economy tottering on the edge of collapsing from the strain of sanctions and the unrelenting violence of the struggle.
Then-president told the Times of London the reason apartheid had to end:
“A more conservative government might possibly keep the lid on the pot for another five years. But, after that, the pot will explode and blow us and our future into the air.”
He found an essential partner in Nelson Mandela. Mandela, born July 18, 1918, was a lawyer, then an activist and, finally, an opponent of apartheid. South Africa's white government put Mandela on trial for treason in 1963. At his sentencing, Mandela proclaimed his ideals:
During my lifetime I have dedicated myself to this struggle of the African people. I have fought against white domination and I have fought against black domination. I have cherished the ideal of a democratic and free society in which all persons live together in harmony and with equal opportunities. It is an ideal which I hope to live for and achieve. But, if needs be, it is an ideal for which I am prepared to die.
Mandela was imprisoned and held on the harsh for 27 years, during which his legend grew almost too great for any one man to bear.
“I am not prepared to sell the birthright of the people to be free,” he once proclaimed to his jailers on being offered freedom in exchange for giving up the fight against apartheid. He had received numerous such offers since 1963. De Klerk, six months after assuming the presidency, lifted the ban on political activity by Mandela’s group, the African National Congress, and gave Mandela his unconditional release from prison.
De Klerk and the old liberation fighter then hammered out a new Constitution for South Africa.
When , following the 1994 election, it was a remarkable transition to which I was a witness: for perhaps the first time in human history, a tyrannical leadership voluntarily gave up power to the very people it had long oppressed. Mandela, at his moment of triumph, spoke from his heart and danced like a boy. It was a victorious day for all South Africans, he proclaimed. “The people have won.”
But no one knew better than de Klerk how bitter the struggle ahead could be.
“Mr. Mandela has walked a long road and stands at the top of the hill,” de Klerk said. “A traveler would sit down and admire the view, but a man of destiny knows that behind this hill lies another hill, and another. The journey is never complete.”
To win South Africa's presidency, though a great leap forward, was a poisoned chalice: A lifeboat with too many people on one side, Mandela must steer the country through dangerous waters: ethnic rivalry, black anger and white anxiety. For whites, would they flee the country or cower in their homes awaiting the black horde to come and take away the wealth they spent a lifetime accruing? And for the long oppressed majority black population, how could anyone, even their beloved Mandela, counsel patience at this moment of their triumph?
The problems facing Mandela and his new government were staggering: 40 percent unemployment, 50 percent illiteracy, widespread crime and political violence that had killed more than 11,000 people since 1990, ethnic polarization and the impatience of tens of millions of blacks demanding a better life now that apartheid is over.
Those very early years after the historic election were perhaps the most dangerous for the new nation of South Africa. A less sure hand and the country would quickly slide into chaos. Mandela led by example. He served one term in the presidency and yielded power to a successor, an exceptional transition on the continent of Africa, where liberators soon turn to despots.
But no one should have expected anything different from the courageous Mandela; he is fond of saying “If you are in harmony with yourself, you may meet a lion without fear.”
Although the actual date is not until July 18, many around the world have already begun saying “Happy 90th birthday, Madiba!” with through the year, including a kick-off birthday concert today in London’s Hyde Park.
Learn More About the Issues on This Page
-
Press ReleaseDec 2024
Free Speech
National Security
ACLU and Partners Urge Supreme Court to Block TikTok BanACLU and Partners Urge Supreme Court to Block TikTok Ban
WASHINGTON — Today, the American Civil Liberties Union, the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), and the Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University filed an amicus brief urging the Supreme Court to block the enforcement of a law that would effectively ban people in America from using TikTok as soon as January 19, 2025. Earlier this month, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit rejected TikTok’s challenge to the law. TikTok has asked the Supreme Court for a temporary injunction to prevent the app from being banned while the court considers whether to take the case, saying that unless the justices intervene, the law will “shutter one of America’s most popular speech platforms the day before a presidential inauguration.” “The Constitution imposes an extraordinarily high bar on this kind of mass censorship,”said Patrick Toomey, deputy director of ACLU’s National Security Project. “The Supreme Court should take up this important case and protect the rights of millions of Americans to freely express themselves and engage with others around the world.” The brief argues that the D.C. Circuit failed to fully address the law’s profound implications for the First Amendment rights of the 170 million Americans who use TikTok. While the lower court’s decision correctly recognized that the statute triggers First Amendment scrutiny, it barely addressed users’ First Amendment interests in speaking, sharing, and receiving information on the platform. The court also perplexingly attempted to cast the government’s ban on TikTok as a vindication of users’ First Amendment rights, which it is not. The rights groups also explain that the law was intended to suppress certain content and viewpoints that many legislators believe could be amplified on TikTok, including the risk of foreign “propaganda.” But under the First Amendment, the government must meet a very high bar to restrict speech based on concerns about its “motivating ideology” or “perspective,” and the government has not come close to meeting that bar here. “The government should not be able to restrict speech, especially to the extent here, based on guessing about the mere possibility of uncertain future harm,” said David Greene, civil liberties director at EFF. “The Supreme Court should put the TikTok ban on hold while it considers the DC Circuit’s erroneous ruling.” Finally, the brief underscores that the government can’t impose this type of sweeping ban unless it’s necessary to prevent extremely serious and imminent harm to national security. But the government has not provided evidence of impending harm, or evidence that banning TikTok is the only available way to address its concerns. As the brief explains, the D.C. Circuit improperly treated the government’s invocation of “national security” as a trump card and failed to hold the government to its burden. “Restricting citizens’ access to foreign media is a practice that has long been associated with repressive regimes, and we should be very wary of letting the practice take root here,” said Jameel Jaffer, executive director at the Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University. “It would do lasting damage to the First Amendment and our democracy if the Supreme Court let this ban go into effect even temporarily.” You can find the brief online here: https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/24/24A587/335380/20241217144322392_24A587%20TikTok%20v%20Garland%20Amicus%20Brief%20pdfa.pdf -
Press ReleaseDec 2024
National Security
Religious Liberty
ACLU Statement on New White House Strategy to Counter IslamophobiaACLU Statement on New White House Strategy to Counter Islamophobia
WASHINGTON – The Biden administration today released the first-ever national strategy to counter Islamophobia and related forms of bias and discrimination, including hate against Arab, Sikh, and South Asian Americans. In advance of the strategy, American Civil Liberties Union and its partners had urged the administration to overhaul government programs that reflect anti-Muslim discrimination. In particular, we have called for urgent action to constrain governmental agencies from continuing to exercise their authorities and technology to wrongly surveil and investigate, watchlist, and question and detain Muslims at the border, as well as deny immigration benefits to people from Muslim-majority countries. While the White House raised expectations that many of these issues would be addressed, the final strategy ended up falling far short. The following is a statement from Hina Shamsi, director of the ACLU’s National Security Project: “While this strategy acknowledges discrimination and its harms, it does little to end them and is a squandered opportunity. For decades, American officials have invoked national security to pass laws and implement programs that disproportionately harm Muslims and people perceived to be Muslim. A serious anti-discrimination strategy would concretely address multiple bias-infused government practices that deny our communities equal participation in civic life and our democracy, like federal watchlisting, surveillance, and investigation. We’re profoundly frustrated that the administration didn’t take even the basic, overdue step of recognizing that anti-Muslim discrimination is uniquely normalized and embedded in government policies.” -
VirginiaDec 2024
National Security
Trabelsi v. Crawford, et al. – Lawsuit Challenging Unlawful Detention and Inhumane Treatment of Acquitted ManTrabelsi v. Crawford, et al. – Lawsuit Challenging Unlawful Detention and Inhumane Treatment of Acquitted Man
Our client, Nizar Trabelsi, is in the United States against his will. The federal government brought him here from Belgium more than a decade ago and charged him with terrorism-related crimes. At trial, the government’s case failed: a federal jury found Mr. Trabelsi not guilty. But instead of allowing Mr. Trabelsi to return to Belgium after his acquittal, the United States placed him in highly restrictive immigration detention and began an ongoing effort to force him to Tunisia, where he was born and where he will very likely be tortured. Mr. Trabelsi’s detention violates the Constitution, immigration law, and the extradition treaty between the United States and Belgium. Through this lawsuit, he seeks to return to Belgium, and he demands an immediate improvement of his detention conditions. -
Press ReleaseDec 2024
National Security
Immigrants' Rights
Federal Judge Rejects Acquitted Man’s Argument That His Immigration Detention Is UnlawfulFederal Judge Rejects Acquitted Man’s Argument That His Immigration Detention Is Unlawful
ALEXANDRIA, Va. — This week, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia ruled that the court does not have jurisdiction to decide whether the government can continue to detain Nizar Trabelsi, a Tunisian national who was brought to the United States against his will for prosecution and was cleared of all charges last year. The ruling means the United States will be able to continue to detain Mr. Trabelsi while it attempts to deport him to Tunisia, where he was born and where, as an immigration judge ruled earlier this year, he will likely face torture. The court also concluded that even if it did have jurisdiction over Mr. Trabelsi’s case, his claims challenging the government’s detention of him would fail. “Reviewing claims that the government is holding someone unlawfully is at the core of the judicial function, and we’re heartbroken for our client that the court got this so wrong,” said Brett Max Kaufman, senior staff attorney with the ACLU’s Center for Democracy. “The government’s arguments in defense of Mr. Trabelsi’s detention makes a hash of the Constitution, immigration laws, and its own extradition treaty.” In 2013, the United States forcibly extradited Mr. Trabelsi from Belgium to face criminal charges in the United States. In July 2023, after almost 10 years of highly restrictive pretrial detention, a federal jury cleared Mr. Trabelsi of all charges. But instead of releasing Mr. Trabelsi or returning him to Belgium, the U.S. transferred him to immigration detention, wrongly treating him as an applicant for admission and placing him in the deportation process. Over the years, the Belgian government has issued multiple formal diplomatic requests asking the U.S. to facilitate his return, but the U.S. has refused to send him back. Mr. Trabelsi filed a lawsuit challenging the government's authority to detain him. He also sought immediate improvements to his detention conditions. Those claims were not part of the court’s ruling today, and will continue to be litigated on a separate track. “Mr. Trabelsi only wants to return to Belgium after being illegally extradited to the United States, held for ten years, and then acquitted by a jury of any crimes,” said Nicole Hallett, clinical professor of law and director of the Immigrants’ Rights Clinic at the University of Chicago Law School. “He cannot be held indefinitely and we will continue to fight to make sure that justice ultimately prevails.” Mr. Trabelsi is represented by the American Civil Liberties Union, the University of Chicago Law School’s Immigrants’ Rights Clinic, the ACLU of Virginia, and Professor Jonathan Hafetz of Seton Hall Law School. The complaint in Trabelsi v. Crawford was filed against Jeffrey Crawford, warden of the Farmville Detention Center where Mr. Trabelsi is being held; Liana Castano, ICE field office director for the Washington Field Office; Alejandro Mayorkas, secretary of the Department of Homeland Security; and Merrick Garland, U.S. attorney general.