PRESS STATEMENT: Phil Craig responds to calls for his deportation and denial of citizenship
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:
- 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.
- I am legally resident in South Africa, and I intend to remain here.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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).
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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
