PRESS STATEMENT: Phil Craig responds to calls for his deportation and denial of citizenship

PRESS STATEMENT: Phil Craig responds to calls for his deportation and denial of citizenship

(Afrikaans onder)

A number of inflammatory comments and articles have been published recently concerning my immigration status and my public advocacy for Cape Independence. I do not wish to engage in any extended debate focused on me personally. That would be utterly disrespectful to the thousands of people also fighting for a better life for the Western Cape people. My immigration status has nothing to do with them or their desire for a better life.

Instead, I wish to place the following comments on record, after which I will focus on my work at the Cape Independence Advocacy Group and the Referendum Party, which is to promote Cape Independence:

1. I am a husband and father fighting to provide a better life here in South Africa for my wife and children. I have no ulterior motives, I am not executing anyone else’s agenda, and I have never worked for any arm of government, domestic or foreign.
   
   
2. I am legally resident in South Africa, and I intend to remain here.
   
   
3. I am British by birth, proudly so, and I have never made any attempt to conceal this fact. On the contrary, it has been common knowledge since the commencement of my advocacy work.

4. The campaign for Cape Independence began in 2007, and I became involved in 2020. My current prominence in the movement is a function of its evolution and not by design.
   
   
5. South Africa is a constitutional democracy, and as a legal resident, the rights I enjoy and the obligations I hold are enshrined in the Constitution. They cannot be derogated by a lynch mob on X (formerly Twitter), a hostile media, or opportunistic political leaders.

6. By any objective measure, South Africa as a country is performing abysmally, to the great detriment of its people. This is a direct result of terrible government policies, further exacerbated by gross incompetence and corruption. I will never apologise for wanting to change this and, in doing so, to improve people’s lives.

7. The Western Cape province faces a unique situation in South Africa. The majority of its voters have never once voted for the national government but, because of our current system of government, they have borne the consequences regardless. It is a statistical fact that they cannot democratically remove that government in elections because they comprise only around 12% of the national electorate.

8. The majority of the Western Cape people are drawn from ethnic and cultural minorities and are actively discriminated against by the national government according to their race. International law requires that minorities be afforded a special level of protection, as they are, by definition, vulnerable to domination by the national majority.

9. Self-determination is a jus cogens right (meaning it is obligatory that all states honour it without exception) of international law. It is a right which South Africa has repeatedly sworn to uphold, and it is a right recorded in Section 235 of the South African Constitution.

10. The purpose of the right to self-determination is to prevent groups of people (often minorities) from becoming trapped in a system of government where they cannot determine their own destiny and where they cannot vote themselves out of that system. This is precisely the situation the Western Cape people find themselves in.

11. It is common cause that the Western Cape majority favour greater control over their own decision-making. This has been definitively established through election results and polling. The only contention is the degree to which it is desired, with the DA-led Western Cape Government calling for increased autonomy at one end of the scale, and the Cape Independence movement calling for full independence at the other. There has been active collaboration between these entities and others, including via the Western Cape Devolution Working Group.

12. Secession is one established and widely recognised means through which to exercise the right to self-determination, and Section 235 has an open formulation. This means that the manner in which self-determination can be exercised in accordance with the Constitution remains open and can include secession.

13. The often-advanced argument that, as a unitary state, secession is not possible in South Africa is legally flawed. In report A/HRC/37/63, the UN Human Rights Council clearly stated that the principle of territorial integrity has only external application (i.e., between states) and cannot be used internally to hollow out or deny the right of self-determination of peoples.

14. Section 15 of the Constitution establishes the right of everyone to freedom of thought, belief, and opinion. As a legal resident of South Africa, I am fully entitled to believe that Cape Independence represents the optimal solution for the people of the Western Cape.

15. Section 16 of the Constitution establishes the right of everyone to freedom of expression, including, in subsection 1(b), the freedom to impart ideas. As a legal resident, I am therefore also fully entitled to advocate for the notion of Cape Independence.

16. Section 127(2)(f) of the Constitution makes provision for provincial premiers to call referendums to establish the democratic will of the provincial electorate on specific issues.

17. The Western Cape is the only province that has enacted its own constitution, and the right of the Western Cape Premier to call a provincial referendum is reaffirmed in Section 37(2)(f).

18. It is therefore inconceivable that a legal resident holding and promoting an idea in accordance with Sections 15 and 16 of the Constitution - where the desired outcome is that the Western Cape people exercise their rights under Section 235 of the Constitution, having first established that this is their democratic will in accordance with Section 127 of the Constitution - can be an egregious action deserving of extreme sanction.

19. In light of the above, the conduct of certain political parties and individuals has been despicable, malicious, undemocratic, and coercive. Ironically, this conduct underscores the importance of Cape Independence. It is clear from their comments - including those of senior members of parliament representing several political parties, some of which are in government - that they are unwilling to accept the terms of the Constitution when they are legally exercised by certain political minorities.

20. Specifically, the unwillingness of parliamentarians to recognise the right of all peoples to self-determination is hugely problematic. If parliament is unwilling to respect the fundamental human rights of minority groups, including the Western Cape people, contravening both international law and the Constitution in the process, then the need for those minority groups to democratically, peacefully, and legally reject that parliament and instead seek to govern themselves becomes compelling.

21. The question of Cape Independence can only be solved in one way: by Premier Alan Winde calling a referendum and allowing the Western Cape people to be heard. If, as many would claim, there is no support for this idea, then both I and the movement will be humiliated, and the matter will be settled. Polling consistently shows that a majority of Western Cape voters favour such a referendum being held. The lengths to which Winde and the DA have gone to avoid a referendum, including breaking an agreement to hold one, suggest that they expect a very different outcome.

DATE: 27 March 2025
‍

MEDIAVERKLARING: Phil Craig reageer op oproepe vir sy deportasie en afkeuring van burgerskap

Verskeie ontvlambare opmerkings en artikels is onlangs oor my immigrasiestatus en my openbare steun vir Kaapse Onafhanklikheid gepubliseer. Ek wil nie in ’n persoonlike debat betrokke raak nie – dit sou oneerbiedig wees teenoor die duisende mense wat ook vir ’n beter toekoms vir die Wes-Kaap veg. My immigrasiestatus het niks met hulle of hul strewe na ’n beter lewe te doen nie.

Ek plaas graag die volgende op rekord, waarna ek sal voortgaan met my werk by die Cape Independence Advocacy Group en die Referendum Party om Kaapse Onafhanklikheid te bevorder:

1. Ek is ’n eggenoot en pa wat vir my gesin ’n beter toekoms in Suid-Afrika wil verseker. Ek het geen versteekte agenda nie, werk nie vir enige regering, plaaslik of internasionaal nie, en volg niemand anders se opdragte nie.
   ‍
2. Ek is wettiglik in Suid-Afrika en beplan om hier te bly.
   ‍
3. Ek is ’n gebore Brit en het dit nooit weggesteek nie. Dit was nog altyd openbare kennis sedert ek met my voorspraakwerk begin het.
   ‍
4. Die veldtog vir Kaapse Onafhanklikheid het in 2007 begin. Ek het eers in 2020 betrokke geraak. My huidige prominensie is te danke aan die beweging se ontwikkeling en nie omdat ek dit beplan het nie.
   ‍
5. Suid-Afrika is ’n grondwetlike demokrasie, en as ’n wettige inwoner het ek regte en verantwoordelikhede wat in die Grondwet vasgelê is. Hierdie regte kan nie deur ’n internetboewery, ’n vyandige media of opportunistiese politici ontneem word nie.
   ‍
6. Volgens enige objektiewe maatstaf presteer Suid-Afrika uiters swak, tot groot nadeel van sy mense. Dit is ’n direkte gevolg van swak regeringsbeleid, wat verder vererger word deur ernstige onbevoegdheid en korrupsie. Ek sal nooit om verskoning vra vir my strewe om dit te verander en mense se lewens te verbeter nie.
   ‍
7. Die Wes-Kaap verkeer in ’n unieke situasie in Suid-Afrika. Die meerderheid kiesers in die provinsie het nog nooit vir die nasionale regering gestem nie, maar weens die huidige regeringsstelsel dra hulle steeds die gevolge. Dit is ’n statistiese feit dat hulle nie daardie regering demokraties in verkiesings kan vervang nie, aangesien hulle slegs ongeveer 12% van die nasionale kieserskorps uitmaak.
   ‍
8. Die meerderheid van die Wes-Kaapse bevolking behoort tot etniese en kulturele minderhede en daar word teen hulle deur die nasionale regering op grond van ras gediskrimineer. Internasionale reg vereis dat minderhede spesiale beskerming geniet, aangesien hulle, volgens definisie, kwesbaar vir oorheersing deur die nasionale meerderheid is. 
   ‍
9. Selfbeskikking is ’n jus cogens-reg (wat beteken alle lande is verplig om dit sonder uitsondering te eerbiedig) volgens internasionale reg. Dit is ’n reg wat Suid-Afrika herhaaldelik belowe het om te handhaaf en wat vervat is in Artikel 235 van die Suid-Afrikaanse Grondwet. 
   ‍
10. Die doel van die reg op selfbeskikking is om te verhoed dat groepe mense (dikwels minderhede) vasgevang raak in ’n regeringstelsel waar hulle nie hul eie toekoms kan bepaal nie en waar hulle nie deur stemming uit daardie stelsel kan ontsnap nie. Dit is presies die situasie waarin die mense van die Wes-Kaap hulle bevind.
    ‍
11. Dit is algemeen bekend dat die meerderheid in die Wes-Kaap groter beheer oor hul eie besluitneming verkies. Verkiesingsuitslae en peilings het dit duidelik bevestig. Die enigste debat is oor die mate van selfstandigheid: aan die een kant vra die DA-geleide Wes-Kaapse regering vir groter outonomie, terwyl die Cape Independence Advocacy Group volle onafhanklikheid nastreef. Daar is aktiewe samewerking tussen hierdie groepe en ander, insluitend deur die Wes-Kaapse Devolusie Werkgroep.
    ‍
12. Afstigting is 'n erkende en wyd gebruikte manier om die reg op selfbeskikking uit te oefen. Artikel 235 van die Grondwet is oop geformuleer, wat beteken dat die wyse waarop selfbeskikking uitgeoefen kan word, nie vooraf vasgestel is nie en afstigting dus ingesluit kan word.
    ‍
13. Die argument dat afstigting nie moontlik is in Suid-Afrika omdat dit 'n eenheidstaat is nie, is juridies gebrekkig. In verslag A/HRC/37/63 het die VN se Menseregteraad duidelik verklaar dat die beginsel van territoriale integriteit slegs eksterne toepassing het (d.w.s. tussen state) en nie intern gebruik kan word om die reg op selfbeskikking van volkere te ondermyn of te ontken nie.
    ‍
14. Artikel 15 van die Grondwet waarborg elkeen se reg tot vryheid van denke, geloof en opinie. As 'n wettige inwoner van Suid-Afrika is ek ten volle geregtig om te glo dat Kaapse Onafhanklikheid die beste oplossing vir die mense van die Wes-Kaap is.
    ‍
15. Artikel 16 van die Grondwet waarborg elkeen se reg tot vryheid van uitdrukking, insluitend, in subartikel 1(b), die vryheid om idees oor te dra. As 'n wettige inwoner is ek dus ook ten volle geregtig om die idee van Kaapse Onafhanklikheid te bevorder.
    ‍
16. Artikel 127(2)(f) van die Grondwet maak voorsiening vir provinsiale premiers om referendums te belê om die demokratiese wil van die provinsiale kiesers oor spesifieke kwessies vas te stel.
    ‍
17. Die Wes-Kaap is die enigste provinsie wat sy eie grondwet aangeneem het, en die reg van die Wes-Kaapse Premier om 'n provinsiale referendum te belê, word herbevestig in Artikel 37(2)(f).
    ‍
18. Dit is dus ondenkbaar dat 'n wettige inwoner wat 'n idee het en bevorder in ooreenstemming met Artikels 15 en 16 van die Grondwet – waar die verlangde uitkoms is dat die mense van die Wes-Kaap hul regte uitoefen ingevolge Artikel 235 van die Grondwet, nadat dit eers bepaal is dat dit hul demokratiese wil is ingevolge Artikel 127 van die Grondwet – beskou kan word as 'n afskuwelike aksie wat uiterste sanksies verdien.
    ‍
19. In die lig van die bogenoemde, is die gedrag van sekere politieke partye en individue veragtelik, boos, ondemokraties en dwangmatig. Ironies genoeg beklemtoon hierdie gedrag die belangrikheid van Kaap Onafhanklikheid. Dit is duidelik uit hul kommentaar - insluitend dié van senior lede van parlement wat verskeie politieke partye verteenwoordig, van wie sommige in die regering is - dat hulle onwillig is om die bepalings van die Grondwet te aanvaar wanneer dit regmatig deur sekere politieke minderhede uitgevoer word.
    ‍
20. Spesifiek is die onwilligheid van parlementariërs om die reg van alle volke op selfbeskikking te erken, grootliks problematies. As die parlement onwillig is om die fundamentele menseregte van minderheidsgroepe, insluitend die mense van die Wes-Kaap, te respekteer, en terselfdertyd internasionale reg en die Grondwet te oortree, dan word die behoefte  onmiskenbaar vir daardie minderheidsgroepe om demokrasie, vreedsaam en wettig daardie parlement te verwerp en eerder hulself te regeer.
    ‍
21. Die vraag oor Kaapse Onafhanklikheid kan net op een manier opgelos word: deur Premier Alan Winde om 'n referendum te roep en die mense van die Wes-Kaap die kans te gee om gehoor te word. As, soos baie beweer, daar geen ondersteuning vir hierdie idee is nie, sal ek en die beweging verneder word, en die saak sal afgeskaf word. Peilings toon konsekwent dat 'n meerderheid van die Wes-Kaap kiesers so 'n referendum wil hê. Die lengte waartoe Winde en die DA gegaan het om 'n referendum te vermy, insluitend die breek van 'n ooreenkoms om een te hou, dui daarop dat hulle 'n baie ander uitkoms verwag.

DATUM: 27 Maart 2025