Frequently Asked Questions

SOME COMMON REFERENCES

  • The terms “Cape” or “Capeland” refers in short to the United Cape States (UCS), the formal interim name for the seceding country and territories.
    Also see the map of the UCS on our website page describing ‘The Cape’.
  • The term “Capelander” refers to people who will have legal claim to citizenship of the United Cape States.
  • Reference to the “United Cape States” or “UCS” may, where applicable, in short refer to the United Cape States Transitional Authority (UCS-TA), the full name of the interim/emergency transitional authority for the United Cape States secession process.

THE PROCESS AND LEGAL ASPECTS

The process to gain self-determination and independence is obviously done BEFORE the country achieves independence and therefore there is no official country nor a citizenry, and no official voting can take place to decide on matters. During this period the secessionist group’s Transitional Authority (TA) has the responsibility to consult with, and are at the same time depending on willing participation and support from the organisations representing the various groups of Capelander people. The more organizations and individuals start to form part of this life-changing Cape independence moment in history, the better we can collectively prepare in a participative process and in the most effective, professional yet quickest possible way while holding the absolute liberties and freedom of the Capelanders as highest priority.

The United Cape States Transitional Authority (UCS-TA) acts on behalf of all the groups of people who collectively are called “Capelanders”. The UCS-TA therefore spearheads and facilitates the self-determination and independence of Capelanders through the international legal secession process. The Transitional Authority is an interim/emergency entity comprising of individuals representing their groups’ best interest while taking part in the decision-making processes relating to the new country’s laws, regulations and policies.

The UCS-TA will only serve up to the point when stability is achieved in the UCS, and as such it is not possible to predict a specific time frame. Once stability is reached, it is essential that the UCS citizens must elect their government officials through democratic processes.

After the horrors of World War 2 the need for the protection of the rights of people including their right to self-determination was formulated against the background of decolonisation. The United Nations was established in 1945 as international representative entity to formulate these rights. Specific covenants, conventions, resolutions and charters were sanctioned by the vast majority of the current 195 member states to secure the rights of people and the states.

Since the decolonisation era the legal parameters for self-determination and secession have been further developed through precedency of historical cases, much as would apply for any legal environment. As such, international law is a collection of the fundamental prerequisites applicable to a specific case of self-determination through a process called ‘secession’ or a ‘two-state solution’ in modern day terms.

Based on the various covenants, conventions, resolutions and charters, evaluation of the specific circumstances during historical cases of declarations of independence, the judgments of cases heard by the International Court of Justice (where applicable) and the multitude of supporting academic papers it is clear that specific proof is vital for a case of secession for self-determination.
These are mainly:

  1. Proof of provision made for self-determination and independence as a legal right in the current country’s constitution;
  2. Clear identification of the people (the Who) that will secede, as well as their specific reasons (their Why) to secede from the mother country;
  3. Proof of the group/s of people’s historical connection with a territory/the seceding area (the Where);
  4. Proof that the secessionist group have communicated internationally and locally their intention to secede;
  5. Proof that the secessionist group have exhausted all possible internal remedial options for self-determination with the government of the mother country;
  6. Proof that the people to be seceded have expressed their will to break away (“the will of the people”);
  7. Proof that the seceding country will have the capability to sustainably function as a sovereign self-governing state;
  8. The acknowledgement of the accountability of the new country’s interim transitional government to secure its borders and enforce its status of independence while protecting the human rights of the people.

When a case of secession for self-determination is initiated, the secessionist group has the responsibility to ensure, as far as is possible within their means, to exhaust all internal remedial options with the government of the mother country. This is the one opportunity where, as per international law, internal self-determination and independence can be achieved in agreement between the government and the secessionist group. However, when it is proven that the mother country’s government ignores or rejects the quest for internal agreement for self-determination, the secession process continues its course as an international legal process to obtain self-determination and sovereign independence.

Following non-compliance by the ANC government the UCS unabatedly continues on its legal path to claim and secure a sovereign Capeland.

Article 235, although not conclusive, makes provision (allows for) self-determination, and as such no prohibition is placed thereon. More importantly however, Articles 231 and 233 binds the government to international law including those rights relating to self-determination. It is especially significant since these international agreements have been ratified by the ANC government.

Not at all. Since the ANC government chose to ignore the requests to start a process of internal remedial solution for self-determination, they have ceded any further influence on the international right of Capelanders to claim self-determination through secession.

Preferably not! International law was formulated to avow the rights of any group/s of people to self-determine their own political, social and cultural status. The common definition of secession is “the act of withdrawing from a political entity”. International law was thus formulated resolutely so that people should themselves decide their future destiny without the fundamental rights and liberties being influenced by any external entity, whether of political or any nature.

Part of the secession process requirements is to inform the international community of the intention to break away, and this includes the UN. Although secessionist groups do have the choice to acquire the United Nations as legal intermediate/facilitator for their cases for self-determination, the UCS did not consider this option due to the modern day geopolitical environment where global organisations’ agendas and monopoly power have influenced their core function as neutral/facilitating entities, and proven to impact negatively on the lives and liberties of millions of Capelander people.

Membership of these international entities are not required, and the UCS will carefully determine if such membership will be essential or beneficial to the Capelander citizens’ liberties, inalienable rights and their quality of life.

Yes, the UCS have formulated a Bill of Rights. The South African Constitution being acknowledged as one of the best globally will allow the UCS to adopt its current framework pending outright scrapping/rejection of those articles and clauses impacting on the inherent rights of Capelander citizens. This revised constitution will serve during the interim transitional period until required to be re-evaluated.

Definitely. These unassailable rights will be incorporated in the constitution to be upheld by the United Cape States Government.

THE CAPE TERRITORY

Within international law an area earmarked to secede can only be defined based on where there is proof that the uniquely identified people have a historic connection to such territory to be claimed. Any other determination of a territory due to other motivation or preference is against the principles of international law, as was often evident in cases of self-determination and declaration of independence.

Proof of historical connection with the territory is derived from the 2011 census statistics, the legal official proof where the uniquely identified groups of people prove to be in a majority. It should be noted that, as for any legal case, the existing proof (snapshot of conditions) will apply throughout the case for secession, irrespective of the changes in demographics that occurred after 2011 and whatever motivated such changes.

The borders need not be final. Similar to the case when Israel claimed its independence the borders will depend on the circumstances during and after secession.

The naming of the country and the states, or any other symbols currently serve as references during the transition period until the citizens will, through democratic processes, determine appropriate naming or approve of the current naming conventions or symbols such as flags, anthem, coat of arms, etc.

CAPELANDER CITIZENSHIP

The process to identify the group or groups of people that have the right to claim self-determination involves identifying these people as distinct, therefore firstly in terms of at least one of their characteristics of culture, religion, language or ethnicity and secondly, inclusive of their motivation why they need to break away from the mother country or the larger population group.

It is clearly proven that these groups of people are primarily those people of the minority groups of white and brown, excluded from meaningful participation in all facets of the South African country and where, despite the SA Constitutional law and international law their human rights are blatantly ignored or demolished. Draconian B-BBEE laws and related regulation directly ensures that these groups of people are oppressed, while blatant, open racial hate speech is one-sidedly allowed to fuel incidents of farm attacks and other serious race-based crimes.

A person and their immediate family (spouse, and children under the age of 21) will receive automatic citizenship of the Cape at secession if one of the following criteria are met:

Criteria 1: Legally and Permanently Residing in the Territory.
The person is at the time of secession legally and permanently residing in the territory, AND was a legal resident within the independent territory before May 10, 1994, or is the direct child or grandchild of a person that was a legal resident in the territory before May 10, 1994.

Criteria 2: Ancestral Citizenship.
The person is a member of the majority group or is a direct child or grandchild of a member of the majority group. A member of the majority group is by definition a descendant of either one or more of the following:

  • The region’s First Nations (Khoi or San), excluding any person who is a member of any predominantly Ba’Ntu Tribe (e.g. Xhosa).
  • Slaves and other indentured persons who arrived in the region before 1806.
  • European settlers who arrived before May 10, 1994, OR who has, OR whose family have resided in Southern Africa for at least 20 years.

The immigration policies will place an absolute emphasis on cultural assimilation within one generation.

Citizenship will only be granted if the individual meets the following criteria:

  1. Passes the character test;
  2. At least one member of the immediate family (parent, spouse or children) was in paid employment for at least three of the 4½ years, have adequate means of financial support and is unlikely to rely or become dependent on the government for financial support;
  3. The person has not relied on any direct government support during the term of Permanent Residency;
  4. Passes the following Integration Tests: a) Citizenship Test; b) Afrikaans Language Standard Test (ALST); c) English Language Standard Test (ELST).

Yes, to qualify as a legal citizen is not dependent on where you currently reside.

The same immigration rules will apply as for other countries, where legal permanent residence status will be granted to a spouse. An application for full citizenship will have to be made by the spouse.

Yes, holding dual citizenship status will be possible.

Firstly, international law is clear that no person who legally inhabits a territory may be displaced. This also means that persons who are not legal citizens may not inhabit a country’s territory. Many illegal citizens and people who historically occupied areas outside of the borders of the United Cape States, but have moved there since after May, 1994, or have been motivated politically to move there would have to return to the country where they hold legal citizenship. The usual immigration regulations will apply should they wish to become a legal citizen – the same as for any country who does not have an open border policy.

Not at all, and despite propagandists playing the card. As per the requirements for citizenship there is absolutely no reference made to race or ethnicity, and zero discrimination or racism will apply in the UCS. While the legal foundation was determined by identifying those groups of minority people of the greater SA population that are directly subjected to many oppressive circumstances and therefore possess the motivation to break away, ANY legal Capelander will qualify for citizenship irrespective of ethnic, language, religious or cultural group. Thus, whether a natural person is from any of the vast cultural groups is irrelevant while the legal claim to citizenship of the UCS remains the only focus.

GOVERNMENT MODEL

The UCS-TA proposes a Federal government model, BUT with limited powers of central government so as to prevent central government to dictate to the separate states and its people with different cultures on how they should be governed. One may say that this federal system is a hybrid as it has some elements similar to the canton system of e.g. Switzerland.

Not at all. The government officials will be elected from the people and by the people whether it is on central state level to municipal level of governance, and will be based on best person for the position. Additionally, government officials will have to act on behalf of the people as public servants and not self-enriching individuals or dictators, and in accordance with the will of its people. The people will have the inalienable right to veto any legislation that negatively affects their citizenship quality plus the right to replace non-performing officials with alternative candidates by means of the voting system.

Very simply: Maximum liberties with minimum governance will apply.

It must be understood that with true democratic principles restored and where ‘the people shall rule’ applies, contributions that traditional political parties could make to justify their existence would ultimately be trivial. However, it may well be possible that new political parties will form should they wish to represent certain groups of people, specific needs and objectives. Ultimately, being a politician in the UCS would not be a lucrative career.