Constitutional Hill

An unambiguous attack on constitutional democracy

In 1934 the Appeal Court in the case of Sachs v Minister of Justice; Diamond v Minister of Justice had to consider the validity of a banning order issued by the Minister of Police. Banning orders, which prohibited a person from being present in specific areas because the Minister was satisfied that the person “is in the area promoting feelings of hostility between the European inhabitants of the Union on the one hand and any other section of the inhabitants of the Union on the other hand”, was a powerful tool used by the authorities to restrict the political activities of those opposed to the policies of the government. In rejecting the challenge to the banning order, Stratford ACJ made the following statement about the nature of parliamentary sovereignty in South Africa:

[O]nce we are satisfied on a construction of the Act, that it gives to the Minister an unfettered discretion, it is no function of a Court of law to curtail its scope in the least degree, indeed it would be quite improper to do so. The above observation is, perhaps, so trite that it needs no statement, yet in cases before the Courts when the exercise of a statutory discretion is challenged, arguments are sometimes advanced which do seem to me to ignore the plain principle that Parliament may make any encroachment it chooses upon the life, liberty or property of any individual subject to its away, and that it is the function of courts of law to enforce its will.

Regardless of the spin later put on his words by presidential spin doctors, President Jacob Zuma’s latest comments about the judiciary reflect a yearning to return to this system of Parliamentary sovereignty. President Zuma said that there was a need to review the powers of the Constitutional Court because judges were not “special people”, but fallible human beings. As proof of this statement he pointed to the phenomenon of split judgments, saying:

How could you say that (the) judgment is absolutely correct when the judges themselves have different views about it? We don’t want to review the Constitutional Court, we want to review its powers. It is after experience that some of the decisions are not decisions that every other judge in the Constitutional Court agrees with… There are dissenting judgments. You will find that the dissenting one has more logic than the one that enjoyed the majority. What do you do in that case? That’s what has made the issue to become (one) of concern.

Judges were “influenced by what’s happening and who are influenced by you guys (the media)”, Zuma said. If the decisions of Parliament and the executive could be challenged, there was nothing wrong in questioning the decisions of the judiciary, he said.

Of course, President Zuma is correct that judges are fallible human beings and that different judges might view a legal question differently. (What he did not mention is that judges are usually slightly more intelligent than the average politician and usually far more honest. After all, as far as I know, no South African judge has ever faced bribery and corruption charges in court; no person has ever been convicted in South Africa for bribing a judge; and no judge has had to resign because he went to visit his drug dealing girlfriend in a Swiss jail on state expense.)

Reasonable lawyers often differ about what a legal provision or a judicial precedent might mean in a particular case. That is why lawyers take cases to court: most of them believe that they have some chance of winning their case or of getting a better deal for their client (even if they do lose the case). If they thought they had no chance of swaying the judge this way or that, they would not bother to submit papers and present oral arguments to court. They only believe that because reasonable people could differ on the correct interpretation and application of the facts or the law.

There is therefore nothing strange about different judges in the same court sometimes disagreeing with one another and writing a majority and minority opinion. Unlike some politicians, South African judges usually do not disagree with one another because they took bribes from different parties before the court or because they have another direct interest in the outcome of a matter. They do so because there is a genuine intellectual disagreement between the judges about the meaning of a legal rule or principle.

When this happens judges write different judgments in which they motivate why they took the view they took and these judgments can then be analysed and critiqued, thus keeping judges accountable for their decisions (unlike politicians, who are not held accountable for each decision they take, but are only held indirectly accountable by their party who might or might not gain more votes in the next election).

There is therefore also nothing wrong with criticising judicial decisions. Even sharp criticism of judicial decisions that engages with the legal arguments developed in a judgement must be welcomed, as such criticism and analysis ensure some form of accountability for the judiciary. (Of course, if a politician whose friend was convicted of bribing that politician argues that a specific majority decision handed down by the Constitutional Court is wrong, one might well take that opinion of the politician with more than a pinch of salt.)

But President Zuma’s claim that the powers of the Constitutional Court need to be reviewed because those judges sometimes hand down split decisions makes no sense whatsoever. Either the Constitutional Court has the power to interpret and enforce the provisions of the Constitution, or this power is taken away via a constitutional amendment. It is not possible to tinker with the powers of judicial review currently enjoyed by the Constitutional Court. Where a majority of judges, whose independence is guaranteed, are not allowed to review and set aside acts of Parliament or the executive, one does not have a constitutional democracy under the Rule of Law but a different system in which people enjoy rights by the grace of the majority party.

One can, of course, abolish the powers of the Constitutional Court to declare invalid legislation or acts of the executive, returning to a system of Parliamentary sovereignty which was in place during the apartheid years when the Sachs case was decided. This would mean that we would no longer live in a country in which the human rights of everyone is protected by the courts and President Zuma would then be free to act in accordance with even the most draconian legislation which would not be revieweable by the courts.

If one favoured a system, say, in which individuals could legally be arrested and detained without bringing them to trail, in which political opponents could be silenced with legally imposed “banning orders”, in which women or any unfavoured group (say, somebody who speaks Xhosa instead of Zulu or is disabled instead of able bodied) could legally be discriminated against by the government, then this system would obviously look particularly attractive.

But that is not the system on which the ANC had agreed years before the current Constitution was drafted. Recall that in 1989 in the Harare Declaration the ANC committed itself to the kind of system of judicial review that is currently in place in South Africa, affirming that in a democratic South Africa:

All shall enjoy universally recognised human rights, freedoms and civil liberties, protected under an entrenched Bill of Rights. South Africa shall have a new legal system which shall guarantee equality of all before the law. South Africa shall have an independent and non-racial judiciary.

There is no context which can explain away the words of the President about a need to review the powers of the Constitutional Court. Poor Mac Maharaj issued a statement in which he pretended that the President’s words could be interpreted to mean something completely different from what he actually said. But the statement about a need for a review of the Constitutional Court’s powers leaves no room for ambiguity or a different interpretation based on context. There is therefore no way to interpret President Zuma’s statement other than as an attack on the principles underlying a constitutional democracy.

In fact Maharaj’s statement added fuel to the fire by suggesting that the executive should be able to influence the judges. He stated that President Zuma’s statement that the powers of the Constitutional Court should be reviewed:

must therefore not be viewed as an attempt by government to undermine the independence of the judiciary and the rule of law which are entrenched in our Constitution. This is an exercise that falls within the mandate of the Executive of formulating and reviewing policies of government which seek to advance the transformative character of our Constitution. It is anticipated that the outcome of this exercise will not only assist in developing value-based solutions to address the legacy of the past but will contribute in shaping our evolving constitutional jurisprudence.

This statement does not only fail to explain away the shocking attack of the President on our constitutional democracy, but signals that the Presidency has a rather strange understanding of the principle of the separation of powers and the independence of the judiciary. How the study by the executive of the judgments of the Constitutional Court could “contribute to the shaping of our evolving constitutional jurisprudence” without an attempt by the executive to intimidate the judges is unclear.

Judges have a constitutional duty to be impartial and independent. They cannot be swayed or influenced by the views of the executive who might wish to shape their jurisprudence. So if the executive aims to “shape” the decisions of the Constitutional Court, then it is aiming to interfere with the independence of the judiciary and hence to undermine one of the pillars of the constitutional democracy. This means that even the spin by the Presidency trying to excuse the inexcusable, displays a shocking lack of respect for our system of separation of powers and checks and balances.

One cannot interfere – legally, at least – with the supremacy of the Constitution and the independence of the judiciary without changing various provisions of the Constitution, including the founding values in section 1 which states, inter alia, that the “Republic of South Africa is one, sovereign, democratic state founded on the values of … supremacy of the constitution and the rule of law.” Such an amendment would require a 75% majority in the National Assembly, something the ANC would not be able to muster – even if they managed to bribe a few small parties to support its anti-constitutional scheme.

This suggests that (in the absence of a coup d’état)  President Zuma’s wish that the powers of the Constitutional Court should be reviewed and amended is never going to fly. He will just have to take his chances in the courts (as he has done on many previous occasions, often with great success) when various cases that could affect his corruption and bribery prosecution comes before the judiciary. Meanwhile, he should really think before he talks.

  • Peter

    Again? Somebody really needs to lay it out and explain to dear JZ how this whole “constitutional democracy” thing works… this is all becoming just a little bit embarrassing.

  • Henri

    How goes that song about “true colours…..”??

  • Gwebecimele

    Aha, now we know why many politicians hire white lawyers if Juju is correct.

  • Mikhail Dworkin Fassbinder

    I am all in favour of the independence of the judiciary. I fact, I demand that our judges be independent.

    But it is those whitish (and even certain non-whitish), elements, that doggedly resist TRANSFORMATION that are to blame for the lack of confidence in the courts.


  • spoiler

    Lol – the song remains the same just the words change. I can imagine the cabinet meetings over copious amounts of Johnny Black that give rise to Zuma’s little clangers…. Man those Concourt judges need to be brought in line – they ruled against the ANC again…

  • Pierre De Vos

    “The complaint about lack of transformation is sometimes directed at the retention of power by those who held it under apartheid. That charge cannot be made against the leadership of the judiciary. The Chief Justice, the Deputy Chief Justice, the President of the Supreme Court of Appeal, the Deputy President of the Supreme Court of Appeal and all the Judges President of the High Court are Black; none held office under apartheid; all were appointed under the present Constitution.

    That charge can also not be made against the judges of the Constitutional Court which is the highest court in the land and the guardian of the Constitution. Chief Justice Mogoeng was a judge of the Constitutional Court when he was appointed as Chief Justice following the retirement of Chief Justice Ngcobo. The vacancy caused by the retirement of Chief Justice Ngcobo has not yet been filled; prior to his resignation 8 of the 11 judges of the Constitutional Court were black; and all eleven had been appointed to the Constitutional Court by the President in accordance with the provisions of the Constitution.” – Former Chief Justice Arthur Chaskalson

  • Gwebecimele

    Our judges only have 3 options.

    They can either side with the people or elites or be on their own and enjoy the judges handbook.

  • Gwebecimele

    We can always count on the Chairperson of Portfolio Committee on Police to ask the right questions.

    This woman is a shining example of what an MP should be.

  • RickySA

    Great blog, PdV! Thanks.

  • Lisbeth

    Pierre –

    “As far as I know, no South African judge has ever faced bribery and corruption charges in court; no person has ever been convicted in South Africa for bribing a judge …”

    Well, there was once that little matter of John Hlophe JP and his relationship with asset management company Oasis. And didn’t that same judge try to influence a couple of CC judges in regard to corruption charges against the President? Of course, nothing happened to him, more’s the pity.

  • ozoneblue

    “Unlike some politicians, South African judges usually do not disagree with one another because they took bribes from different parties before the court or because they have another direct interest in the outcome of a matter.

    That is of course very hard to judge, since unlike politicians, it appears that the judges and “constitutional experts” who believe they govern the country do not have to declare their interests.

  • ozoneblue


    “The vacancy caused by the retirement of Chief Justice Ngcobo has not yet been filled; prior to his resignation 8 of the 11 judges of the Constitutional Court were black;”

    Yes – just because its “Black” doesn’t mean it has been transformed. Only extremely stupid people believe that bullshit. Except if you are a racist academic puppet with the very same ANC BEE arm planted firmly up your arse.

  • vuyo

    The reason for Zuma’s comment is obviously morrow’s hearing of DA and others v The Acting National Director of Public Prosecutions and others. This could prove a cataclysmic judgment .

  • ozoneblue

    And it is only in South Africa were politicians are all corrupt and untrustworthy and judges are all noble, honest and beyond reproach.

  • vuyo

    It’s a pattern. Prior to controversial political judgments, the government starts talking about the judiciary. It will soon end should a favourable judgment be delivered by the gents and ladies at bloem.

  • Mikhail Dworkin Fassbinder

    @ Ozone

    “just because its “Black” doesn’t mean it has been transformed. ”

    OB is right.

    I say that being “black” is a necessary, but not a sufficient condition, for being TRANSFORMED.

    [BTW, OB, the word TRANSFORMED should always be uppercased. Just a tip.]

  • Lisbeth

    vuyo –

    It may well be that the SCA will decide tomorrow that access to the ‘spy tapes’ and other relevant documentation should be granted to the DA.

    But as far as I am aware, those tapes are now lost. Futsch. Perduto. Probably destroyed ages ago. Or have I missed something?

  • Maggs Naidu –


    Zuma is just making loud farting noises – that’s an indication that more crap is about to emerge.

    He can fart and thunder all he wants but there’s nothing he can do about all this – he knows it, his advisors know it, parliament knows it.

    Only our resident mutant, Dmwangi, (and maybe CJ Moegeng) doesn’t.

    p.s. Zuma is perhaps just trying to get more attention than Malema – and he’s saying more stupid things than Malema said.

  • Mikhail Dworkin Fassbinder

    @ Maggs

    “[Zuma] can fart and thunder all he wants but there’s nothing he can do about all this”

    Maggs is right.

    I feel comforted in the knowledge that we have the Best Constitution in the World — no ANC majority would dare to mess with that!

    History shows that shows that, where judiciary and executive square off, it is the judiciary that wins. (Indira Gandhi’s state of emergency is what we constitutional scholars call the exception that proves the rule.)

  • Maggs Naidu –

    Mikhail Dworkin Fassbinder
    February 14, 2012 at 18:57 pm


    I’d really, really like to believe you.

    But you knowingly and deliberately lied about the track record of the DA led municipalities.

    Admit it, admit that you’re a scoundrel, then we can move on to your next tale!


  • Maggs Naidu –

    p.s. Nice to know that you are a “constitutional scholars”, Dworky. Like it was nice to learn that Dm went to graduate school (not any ordinary graduate school at that but one which will impress WHITE people)!

  • ozoneblue

    Mikhail Dworkin Fassbinder
    February 14, 2012 at 17:41 pm

    “I say that being “black” is a necessary, but not a sufficient condition, for being TRANSFORMED.”

    Naturally. Especially when you are an UNTRANSFORMED RACIST you tend to think like that.

  • Maggs Naidu –

    February 14, 2012 at 17:21 pm

    Hey Vuyo,

    Wanna bet?

    I say that the judgement will go against Zuma!

  • ozoneblue

    February 14, 2012 at 16:55 pm

    “The reason for Zuma’s comment is obviously morrow’s hearing of DA and others v The Acting National Director of Public Prosecutions and others. This could prove a cataclysmic judgment .”

    Agreed. It is the CC lending allowing themselves to be abused for narrow political purposes that is the turd in the drinking water. Everbody wanted Cde. Zuma to GOVERN – including Prof. Chameleon. They were moaning and bitching about it for years. And now that JZ has had enough of all this shit now all of a sudden he is a Stalin and a dictator and he has no respect for the CC – blah blah blah.

  • Maggs Naidu –

    “If they thought they had no chance of swaying the judge this way or that, they would not bother to submit papers and present oral arguments to court.”


    Lawyers are honourable, decent, ethical, reasonable, honest … people then.

    Impressive – so no more lawyer jokes!

    A Lawyer will do anything to win a case, sometimes he will even tell the truth. – Patrick Murray

    In almost every case, you have to read between the lies. – Angie Papadakis

    What’s the difference between a good lawyer and a great lawyer?
    A good lawyer knows the law. A great lawyer knows the judge.

  • Lisbeth

    Maggs –

    “I say that the judgement will go against Zuma!”

    If that happens, will he appeal to the CC?

    On TV tonight, some NPA bloke was rubbing his hands in glee, so sure was he that it will go in their favour. Besides, where are the tapes? It’s no fun if the tapes are missing.

  • Brett Nortje
    What is wrong with our country? – Mangosuthu Buthelezi
    Mangosuthu Buthelezi
    14 February 2012

    IFP leader says President Zuma shied away from identifying the cause of the afflication



    From this podium, I have said that the failure of Government is the failure of South Africa. What I have to say today, I say for the love of country. When I speak, I do so to be constructive.

    Mr President, we have heard your speech, your hopes and your plans, and we desire nothing more than to be able to have confidence in them. Yet, too much prevents us from doing so. How can we embrace hope when our leadership refuses to acknowledge the many problems confronting our country, or the causes that lie at their root? Year after year, the State of the Nation Address shifts the focus, without ever addressing previous failures.

    Mr President, in this debate we must analyze all that you said last Thursday. But increasingly I feel that the measure of your leadership can be taken less by what you say, than by what you do not say. Understandably the State of the Nation Address will touch on the high notes of Government, leaving much unsaid. But this year, we have been left with the impression that our attention is being redirected away from the elephant in the room. There is a danger in that, for elephants can be unpredictable and extremely destructive.

    It is therefore good and well to say that our Government is working with various provinces to improve governance, systems and administration. But the unspoken fact remains that two of our nine provinces have all but collapsed. Limpopo has been rendered bankrupt through corrupt activities and five of its departments have been taken over by National Government. The administration of the State is in shambles.

    It is fine to say that we are doing well with regards to treatment of HIV and Aids. But the unspoken fact remains that South Africa has lost some 5 million people to HIV/Aids because of our slow and hesitant response to the pandemic.

    One can say that we are expanding access to tertiary education by assisting students to pay off their debts. But the unspoken fact remains that students are so desperate to secure admission that they stampede universities, causing injury and loss of life. In the Eastern Cape, the education system has completely collapsed due to maladministration and corruption, forcing National Government to intervene.

    It is fine, Mr President, to say we will improve the movement of goods through a Durban-Free State-Gauteng logistics and industrial corridor. But the unspoken fact is that the KwaZulu Natal Department of Transport has had to halt all major road infrastructure projects, while Durban has notched up R1.3 billion in bad spending. The Free State has sought assistance from National Treasury after identifying financial mismanagement and non-compliance in supply chain management processes in its Department of Police, Roads and Transport.

    Gauteng has also sought assistance from National Treasury to address the challenges in its Health Department, which is on the verge of collapse. It faces 101 legal claims due to negligence, to an amount of R235-million. The IFP has called for an urgent Commission of Enquiry to investigate this debacle because we, like every South African, want to know: why is this happening, Mr President?

    Twenty years ago there were many people in this country who felt that we black people are not capable enough to rule a country and administer a democratic government. That was one of the major fears during the negotiation process. Some people felt that it is in the DNA of us Africans to be inefficient, inept and corrupt. I refuse to believe that.

    Yet how do we explain the many nurses in our public hospitals who just do not feel the inner duty to respond to the needs of suffering patients? And what are we to say about teachers who do not feel the calling to spare no energy and to double their dedication to teach our children so that, through better education, they may finally be emancipated from all that oppressed my generation?

    If the call of duty is not felt in these two fields, it should be no wonder that throughout the public service productivity and commitment is so low, which translates into poor delivery. What has disrupted the moral fibre and discipline of our people? We know the answer, but refuse to acknowledge it.

    How, Mr President, do we explain the contamination of public service and commercial interests? It is fatal, and yet it is pursued relentlessly, from the lowest to the highest levels of Government. Too many, and I dare say the overwhelming majority, are trying to make money on account of holding public office, being in politics or exercising public power.

    Corruption is the bane of our country. It is a fundamental threat to our constitutional democracy. As former Secretary-General of the United Nations, Mr Kofi Annan, said, “Corruption hurts the poor disproportionately by diverting funds intended for development, undermining a government’s ability to provide basic services, feeding inequality and injustice and discouraging foreign aid and investment. Corruption is a key element in economic underperformance and a major obstacle to poverty alleviation and development.”

    Yet you shy away from this issue, Mr President. The unspoken fact is that corruption has seen the axing of two Ministers, Mr Sicelo Shiceka and Ms Gwen Mahlangu-Nkabinde. The National Police Commissioner, Mr Bheki Cele, is still suspended pending an investigation into corruption. The Speaker of the KwaZulu Natal Legislature, Ms Peggy Nkonyeni, and MEC Mr Mike Mabuyakhulu are facing corruption charges in court.

    The recently released Manase Report uncovers widespread and rampant corruption within the eThekwini Municipality. High-ranking eThekwini municipal officials and politicians, including former Municipal Manager, Mr Mike Sutcliffe, and former Mayor, Mr Obed Mlaba, have been fingered in a damning forensic investigation into financial irregularities, fraud and corruption.

    Last year, the former Head of the Special Investigating Unit, Mr Willie Hofmeyr, told the parliamentary Portfolio Committee on Justice that 20% of South Africa’s procurement budget, between R25-billion and R30-billion, is lost to corruption every year. According to Transparency International’s 2011 Corruption Perceptions Index, South Africa is perceived to be becoming more corrupt with each passing year. That perception is rooted in reality.

    On a scale of 0, being highly corrupt, to 10, being very clean, we have fallen from a ranking of 5.1 in 2007 to 4.1 in 2011. The unspoken fact is that we are on the verge of joining the ranks of dysfunctional states, as the effects of corruption debilitate all spheres of life.

    What went wrong, Mr President? How do we fix it? Surely not with more rhetoric, empty words and never-ending declarations of policy. We must have the courage to go to the root.

    It was you, Mr President, who on December 30, 2000, acting as the Chairperson of a Committee of the South African Government signed a formal agreement with traditional leaders in terms of which the local government powers and functions of traditional authorities would be preserved and, to this end, Chapters 7 and 12 of the Constitution would be amended. It was you who did not bring that Agreement to Cabinet for ratification, and it is you who bears the final responsibility for it having been breached and for the powers, functions, respectability, moral authority and social guidance of traditional leadership having finally been obliterated.

    What does this have to do with it? It is relevant because the core problem of the maladministration, inefficiency and corruption is the disintegration of the social cohesiveness, social values, rectitude, integrity, discipline and dedication to duty which traditional leadership has been entrusted to promote and inculcate within our communities. Once that disintegrates, as it unfortunately has, what ends up in our government offices, hospitals and schools bears the hallmark of no one willing to pay a personal price to make this country a better place.

    It was you, Mr President, who was charged by President Mbeki to champion and pilot the campaign for the moral regeneration of South Africa. I need not comment on that. It was also you, Mr President, who was equally charged by President Mbeki to bring about the reform of our labour legislation to increase the flexibility in the labour market. That too ended in naught.

    Why is that relevant? It is relevant because our labour legislation and the lack of flexibility in our labour market have not only been identified by your Government, Mr President, as one of the major impairments to real economic growth and real employment generation, but also a cause of the ongoing degeneration of the sense of duty and commitment in the workplace. Empowering trade unions the way you, Mr President, have been instrumental in doing, has eroded the culture of hard work, discipline, productivity, dignity and self-respect which people like me have promoted and instilled in our communities for more than sixty years.

    This has compounded problems with problems. It was your Party, Mr President, which for twenty years made it its main political policy in South Africa to undermine social cohesions within our communities. Your Party embraced and promoted the strategy of making our communities ungovernable, spreading a culture of lawlessness and rebellion and destroying the black education system.

    The black education system was far from perfect, but its destruction replaced it with the roots of a phenomenon which is the common denominator of most of our problems. It brings together our irresponsible nurses, our indolent teachers, our ineffective civil servants and all the youths with narrow-minded vision, distorted values and wrong hopes who were falsely lured into supporting the President of the Youth League of your Party.

    Mr President, everyone makes mistakes. Every government has faults and shortcomings. The wise acknowledge and correct them. The unwise ignore them.

    You correctly identify our sky-rocketing electricity prices as one of the factors which are thwarting all our efforts to develop an industrial basis and produce real growth in our economy. Yet, we did tell you that funding the build program of Eskom through tariffs was a mistake. We did tell you, Mr President, that it should have been funded by means of an international competition which would have brought into South Africa as much as R400 billion of direct foreign investment, while creating a much needed and healthy competition amongst producers and distributors of electricity. We were ignored.

    We further said that, if funded domestically, the build program had to be funded through the national budget and not through tariffs, so that the rich could pay more than the poor. The way it has been done is forcing industries and the productive middle class to bear a much greater burden for the investments than warranted by their actual taxable income.

    I am just giving this example as part of the same problem. That is the problem of doing things for the wrong reasons, including political reasons, and not for commitment to our country’s and our people’s best interests. I will add two more examples, because the magnitude of the mistakes there shows what happens when political thinking overrides national interest.

    Under your leadership, Mr President our country jumped into BRICS. Yet, to develop an industrial basis, we must manufacture export products which, in the final analysis, can mainly only be sold outside of BRICS and mainly in the regions which have been our traditional trade partners, namely Europe and North America. This shows how our priorities become confused and contradictory. Our priorities should be to ensure that the African Growth Opportunities Act of the United States is renewed and expanded so that we can export our products there without duties and quotas, and that similar agreements are entered into with other markets where we can sell our products.

    Another major policy mistake is maintaining the four retail bank policy and tolerating the collusion and other restraints of trade openly practiced by our banks. Because of lack of real competition, our banks are not forced to take risks they don’t want to take, and force all the risky business onto the Industrial Development Corporation and the Development Bank of Southern Africa. This means that they choose to live only by the business which makes money with no risk, and the government, the taxpayers and our communities must bear the risk associated with promoting economic growth. It would seem as if your Government, Mr President, has a greater commitment to serving the banks than the people we represent.

    Mr President, you praise the trade unions, and even SADTU, as if they should be thanked for doing less than the full measure of their destructive capabilities. Praising the South African Democratic Teachers’ Union for its diligent teachers was a step too far in placating the unions. Members of SADTU often abandon students nationwide to drive their own agendas. This ANC-aligned Union continues to act like an organization hell-bent on destroying the future of our children.

    SADTU should be rebuked, not praised, for their actions have aggravated and deepened the crisis in our education system. Instead of acting like responsible educators, some members of SADTU have, on numerous occasions, proven themselves irresponsible, unprofessional and unfit to educate South Africa’s learners. The recent go-slow in the Eastern Cape, where education came to a complete halt, is a case in point.

    Mr President, you mention that employment generation never recovered from the terrible knockout it received at the end of the seventies, but you fail to explain why that happened. You do not wish to remember that employment generation collapsed because of the call for sanctions against our country and for foreign divestment which your Party, Mr President, foisted onto South Africa and which I so vehemently opposed.

    This was because nothing destroys economic growth more than sanctions. Strangely, your Government and the ruling Party have adopted this policy against sanctions being imposed on Zimbabwe for the same reasons; that they destroy the lives of the poorest of the poor.

    History has proven me right and your Party wrong. You admit that we have yet to recover from that self-inflicted injury, the same way as we have yet to recover from the self-inflicted injury of having disrupted the moral fibre and discipline of our communities.

    But too much remains unsaid. You make no mention of small businesses and how they will be assisted by Government to help grow the economy and create jobs. You make no mention of the fact that the two sectors that should be in boom right now due to international demand, namely agriculture and mining, are in reverse, due to Government’s many policy failures.

    The unspoken fact is that the latest Global Competitiveness Rankings of the World Economic Forum highlight how, increasingly, corruption, wasteful expenditure and government red-tape is hindering business development, SMMEs and investment in our country.

    I want to have hope in our future. I want to have confidence in you, Mr President. I want to be able to believe that there is more than just words to your declaration of intent. But how much of what has been set aside by the State to achieve such lofty goals will actually fulfill its intended purpose? We know that when resources are made available, corrupt officials begin to salivate. One is galled that their consumption is so conspicuous.

    I fear there is a disconnect between Government and the reality of everyday life for South Africans. It is impossible to have hope while the ANC refuses to recognize, acknowledge and mend the error of its ways. We must start by correcting the terrible injuries inflicted by ourselves – not by Apartheid, not by the colonialists, not by foreign powers – but by ourselves, onto the minds, strength and discipline of our own people.

    We need to rebuild pride in our work. We need to build a sense of dignity in abiding by the discipline necessary to improve our conditions. We need to terminate the culture of dependency. We need to create a culture of real growth which must range from what young people do to build their futures, to how our enterprises understand they have to compete and survive without relying on government crutches. We need to re-establish the important role of traditional leadership throughout the country. We need to exact from each civil servant the full measure of dedication that one would expect from a soldier in a war for progress and development.

    We must have a complete separation between public office and commercial venture and change our mindset in this respect completely. And most of all, we must fire all those who do not comply with these imperatives, ranging from lazy civil servants to corrupt officials, to nurses who do not nurse and teachers who do not teach. If we fail to attend to this basic aspect of our country’s reconstruction and development, everything else is bound not to achieve its intended purpose.

    Mr President, your address lacked accountability on the crisis in health, the crisis of education and the crisis of corruption. What you have said looks good on paper. But what you have not said can prevent the fulfillment of the best-laid plans.

    I am reminded of final lines of Robert Burns’ ode “To a Mouse” –

    But little Mouse, you are not alone,
    In proving foresight may be vain:
    The best laid schemes of mice and men
    Go often askew,
    And leave us nothing but grief and pain,
    For promised joy!
    Still you are blest, compared with me!
    The present only touches you:
    But oh! I backward cast my eye,
    On prospects dreary!
    And forward, though I cannot see,
    I guess and fear!

    Issued by the IFP, February 14 2012

  • Maggs Naidu –

    February 14, 2012 at 20:22 pm


    Appealing to the CC is a given – god’s other only son will try his damnedest but they will both lose.

    The NPA guy??? How often do they get things right?

  • Mikhail Dworkin Fassbinder

    @ Maggs

    “Nice to know that you are a “constitutional scholars”

    Maggs, not to be modest, but I am viewed across the breadth of the Balkans as a not insignificant constitutional scholar – notwithstanding that the war precluded me from attending any graduate school respected by whitists.

    Anyway, stop changing the subject, Maggs. When are you going to come out four-square against Zionist/U.S. terrorism in the Syrian Arab Republic?

  • Mikhail Dworkin Fassbinder

    @ Brett/Prince Mango

    “I am reminded of final lines of Robert Burns’ ode “To a Mouse””

    With respect did not Robbie Burns write rather of a “wee Mousie”?

  • Brett Nortje

    You’re thinking of Rabbi Burns.

    Could you stick to the subject?

  • ozoneblue

    Brett Nortje
    February 14, 2012 at 20:33 pm

    So your Boetielezi wants taxi breaks for the rich, traditional African values and the reintroduction of slavery. What a surprise.

  • Maggs Naidu –

    Mikhail Dworkin Fassbinder
    February 14, 2012 at 21:39 pm

    Eish Dworky,

    I see there’s more “constitutional scholars” who talk more crap than Zuma!

    Someone tell these clowns that “changes to the powers of the Constitutional Court” is no more than a pipe dream for Zuma Inc.

    Any changes to the powers of the Constitutional Court’s powers would signify a fundamental change in South Africa’s democracy and how it operates.

    This is the sobering view of legal experts in the wake of recent comments made by President Jacob Zuma, saying the powers of the Concourt need to be reviewed.

    And elsewhere [Former future President of SA, Julius Malema] said nothing about the judiciary being controlled by whites — nothing at all,” Magaqa told the Mail & Guardian.

    He’s so believable, isn’t he?

  • ozoneblue

    “”I have lawyers who are representing me on this case the Hawks are chasing me on. They are three white lawyers,” Malema said on video footage seen by Sapa on Tuesday.

    “Every time I sit in a meeting with them I get very irritated. This thing I’m doing is wrong, but there’s nothing I can do because the judiciary is controlled by these white minorities,” Malema allegedly said in the video.”

    LOL. Classical example of how these devious racist Whites operate to oppress the Black man. So I assume there are no Black lawyers around or are they all pretty shit because they studies under UCT-for-AA regime?

  • Brett Nortje

    ‘Hoekom mag ons nie weet?’
    2012-02-14 22:00

    Philip de Bruin
    Die presidentskap van mnr. Jacob Zuma is op die spel in ’n geding waarin die DA eis dat die ­nasionale vervolgingsgesag (NVG) en Zuma die oorkonde beskikbaar stel wat tot die terugtrekking van verskeie aanklagte teen Zuma gelei het, skryf ­Philip de Bruin.

    Vyf appèlregters hoor vandag mondelinge betoog aan oor die NVG se besluit in 2009 om nie voort te gaan nie met die vervolging op aanklagte van korrupsie, bedrog en verskeie ander klagte teen Zuma.

    Wat appèlregters L. Mpati, ­M. Navsa, R. Bosielo, Z. Tshiqi en C. Plasket gevra word, is onder meer of die DA enige bevoegdheid as gedingvoerder (locus standi) het om te eis dat die redes bekend gemaak word waarom die NVG besluit het om die aanklagte teen Zuma terug te trek.

    Hulle moet ook besluit of die DA daarop geregtig is om ingevolge die Wet op die Bevordering van Toegang tot Inligting (Paia) toegang tot inligting in die NVG se besit te vra om in ’n volgende geding te kan vra dat die besluit om die vervolging teen Zuma te staak, deur ’n hof hersien word.

    Die DA het reeds so ’n eis in die hooggeregshof in Pretoria ingedien, maar regter Natvariel Ranchod het beslis dat die DA nie geregtig is op die oorkonde van die verrigtinge wat gelei het tot die staking van die verrigtinge nie, onder meer omdat die DA volgens hom nie locus standi het nie.

    Dit is teen dié besluit wat die ­DA nou in die appèlhof appèl aanteken.

    Die NVG het geweier om die oorkonde aan die DA beskikbaar te stel omdat dit voorleggings van Zuma self aan die NVG bevat.

    Dié voorleggings is “vertroulik en sonder benadeling van regte aan die NVG verskaf”, is aan die DA gesê.

    Die DA is ontevrede met dié toedrag van sake, vandaar die hofgedinge.

    Die party se vernaamste betoog is dat dit in landsbelang is dat Zuma sy spreekwoordelike dag in die hof kry – om finaal te beslis of hy skuldig of onskuldig is aan korrupsie, veral na aanleiding van opsienbarende getuienis en bevindings in die verhoor van die veroordeelde Schabir Shaik.

    Die indruk is gewek, so betoog die DA, dat die regering in “private” gesprekke met die NVG betrokke kan raak om sodoende ’n vervolging te laat staak – sonder dat enigeen in Suid-Afrika weet waaroor die NVG se besluit gaan – en dit nogal in ’n saak waarin ’n gesiene politieke figuur ­(Zuma) en voortslepende twyfel oor die miljarde rande wat die publiek moes opdok vir die aankoop van wapens betrokke is.

    Hoe kan die NVG se besluit oor ­Zuma immuun wees van hersiening deur ’n geregshof, vra die DA.

    Wat gaan gebeur as ’n aangeklaagde ’n staatsaanklaer omkoop om ’n saak terug te trek?

    Gaan so ’n “ooreenkoms” dan ook nie onderhewig gestel kan word aan geregtelike hersiening nie?

    Omdat die geding ’n saak behels waarby die regering “op die hoogste vlak” betrokke is en waarin die publiek aansienlike belang het, twyfel die DA nie daaraan dat hy inderdaad locus standi het om die aansoek te bring dat ’n afskrif van die Zuma-oorkonde aan die DA beskikbaar gestel word nie.

    Zuma, daarteenoor, sê in sy betoog dat die DA se appèl gedryf is deur ’n sug na politieke punte ten koste van hom (Zuma).

    Insiggewend is sy betoog dat “sensitiewe en vertroulike inligting in die betrokke verrigtinge oor ander mense en maatskappye” ook bekend sal word as die DA sy afskrif van die oorkonde kry wat hy vra.

    Zuma glo dat die “waardigheid en privaatheid van ’n hele klomp mense” (insluitende homself) aangetas sal word as die hof hom en die NVG beveel om die oorkonde aan die DA te openbaar.

    Hy sê die DA se argumente dat openbaarmaking van die verrigtinge in belang van die publiek is, is baie power en ’n rookskerm van die DA om sy eintlike doel te bereik: sy eie politieke gewin.

    In ag genome die DA se “twyfel­agtige motiewe” met die appèl vra hy ­(Zuma) dat beveel word dat die DA inderdaad geen locus standi het om die aansoek en appèl te bring nie.

    Zuma se betoog is dat die vraag oor die regsgeldigheid van die NVG se besluit oor vervolging teen hom onder meer gegrond is op die vraag of die besluit “verband hou met ’n wettige doel van die regering”.

    “Ons howe se doel is nie om te beslis of die besluit wat geneem is deur ’n liggaam wat ingevolge ’n wet besluitnemingsregte het, reg of verkeerd was nie.

    “In hierdie geval glo ons dat die NVG sy besluit (oor Zuma) genoeg verduidelik het en gedemonstreer het dat daar ’n rasionele grondslag vir sy besluit is, wat prakties die hele saak tot ’n einde gebring het.

    “Al wat dus nou gebeur, is ’n duur en tydrowende oefening in nutteloosheid wat ongetwyfeld die beeld van die land, die NVG en ons president gaan benadeel,” lui Zuma se betoog.

    Prof. Marinus Wiechers, grondwetkenner, sê wat hom betref, het die DA volle locus standi.

    “Alles rondom die besluit om mnr. Zuma nie te vervolg nie, is in politieke geheimhouding gehul.

    “Dit gaan nie eens hier oor ’n nietige, gewone besluit van die NVG, wat in ieder geval oop en deursigtig moet wees, nie.

    Dit gaan om ’n strafgeding wat in ’n politieke sirkus ontaard het. Weens duidelike politieke redes is die vervolging gestaak – maar die publiek, wie se geld en wie se staatshoof betrokke is, mag nie die redes weet nie. Hoekom nie?

    “As daar ander mense by enige korrupsie, hetsy oor die wapenskandaal of nie, betrokke is wat benadeel kan word as die DA sy sin kry en ’n afskrif van die Zuma-oorkonde kry, so be it.

    “In byna elke strafsaak in die howe kry mense seer, word mense benadeel en word mense verneder. Hoe verskil dit van die Zuma-saak?

    Die laaste vuil bladsy van die ­Zuma-sage moet nou omgeblaai word sodat ons op ’n skoon bladsy kan begin.”

  • Maggs Naidu –

    Well done to the people of Mamelodi!

    A man who stood up to make his submission accused the eight-member panel of MPs of treating the public with disdain, questioning whether the NCOP would take their concerns about the bill seriously.

    “Some of our people here cannot read this. There are terms which we don’t understand. They have not been explained to us. Are you serious about hearing what the public has to say or is it just something you want to do to show that you took the bill to Mamelodi?” said a man who was cheered by locals. …

    “You must clearly explain to us what kind of information you want to classify and whether people are penalised for being in possession of the information or distributing it,” said the man who told the committee not to pass the bill if there were perceptions that it could lead to politicians and public servants hiding corruption.

  • Maggs Naidu –

    @ President Zuma,

    “You will find that the dissenting one has more logic than the one that enjoyed the majority. What do you do in that case?

    Well dear President, speak nicely to Dworky.

    He will arrange a weekend course at the Milpark Holiday Inn on logic for those judges without LOGIC.

    JR will lead the course.

    Maybe if you speak nicely, Dworky will arrange for Prof Fagan to be a guest lecturer – Prof Fagan is an expert on LOGIC.

    @ Dworky – will you help our President with his awful dilemma?

  • ozoneblue

    However Malema might have a point about a “White mafia” still attempting to controlling our democracy by abusing the courts playing politics.

    This is our first campaign as the DA Supporters Abroad Network.

    Interesting that they base their assumptions on the findings of the Ginwala Commission – Frene Ginwala who’s credibility they questioned and they described as a “party hack” at the time.

    And here is Prof Chameleon’s confused and typically contradictory rambling on about it.

    “If one follows the logic of the judgment, the Ginwala Commission must surely be considered to be dead in the water. It was asked to investigate something that was constitutionally and legally none of its business and its very activities have been called into question by this judgment. One could even say that the judge has suggested its mere function – under the terms of reference given to it by the President – breached the Constitutional requirement safeguarding the independence of the NPA.”

  • Mikhail Dworkin Fassbinder

    @ Ozone

    “Malema might have a point about a “White mafia” still attempting to controlling our democracy by abusing the courts playing politics.”

    Ozone has a point about Malema having a point.

    Yes, Malema is young. And he has a lot to learn. But he has helped us solve the mystery of so many African men brief white counsel when they are in deep trouble. It is because they are masters of the whitish “logic” that appeals to the largely UNTRANSFORMED bench. I speak, of course, of elaborate Eurocentric syllogisms, beloved of people like Fagan and Benatar, that give rise to logical anomalies, like the puzzling split judgments about which our President has complained.

  • ozoneblue

    And back at the ranch what is supposed to be real TRANSFORMATION (instead of RACIST head counts and “demographics”) quietly gets squashed by the tentacles of the beast.

    High Court finds Minerals Act did expropriate – AgriSA


    “The High Court judgment issued in Pretoria by Judge Ben du Plessis today to the effect that the Mineral and Petroleum Resources Development Act (Act No. 28 of 2002), the “Act”, in fact implies the expropriation of mineral rights as of 1 May 2004, serves as a direction-giving ruling following Agri SA’s many attempts over the years to protect property rights,” says Agri SA president Johannes Möller.

    Agri SA’s intention with this test case was to prove expropriation of mineral rights, which would oblige the state to pay compensation.

    The judge found that “for the reasons stated the objects of the MPRDA could not be achieved without depriving mineral rights holders of their property and without vesting in the state similar rights. While not expressly stated, expropriation was one of the purposes of the MPRDA.”

    This welcome ruling follows a previous judgment by Judge Hartzenberg in March 2009 that it was indeed possible for holders of ‘old order’ mineral rights to prove expropriation.”

    Judge Hartzenberg – now where did I hear that name before?

  • Brett Nortje

    If you’re wondering where you heard the name ‘Judge Ben Du Plessis’ before -he is the Judge who accepted the Central Firearms Register’s assurances in 2004 that they stood ready willing and able to implement the Firearms Control Act.

    Six year backlogs for licence renewals later….

  • Maggs Naidu –

    Mikhail Dworkin Fassbinder
    February 15, 2012 at 8:46 am


    “I speak, of course, of elaborate Eurocentric syllogisms, beloved of people like Fagan and Benatar, that give rise to logical anomalies, like the puzzling split judgments about which our President has complained.”

    These are complex issues which you speak about – understandable coming from a “constitutional scholar” even one who did not attend graduate school which impresses WHITE people.

    Please take some time to help me translate my simple understanding of this into a more sophisticated context so that I may impress my friends.

    Our DCJ Moseneke, like the mythical Icarius, flew too close to the sun and melted the wax wings which ought to have carried him to a higher place thus drowning out any chance of ascending to the hot seat.

    The dignified and distinguished judges, if media reports are to be believed, refused to get involved in President Zuma’s warped games to undermine one of South Africa’s finest.

    Of course now CJ Moegeng² jumped to the chance to be “the third most powerful person in the country” claiming that god told him to do it – that made him the anti-Hansie who famously claimed that “the devil made him do it”.

    Even though PdV has made some very sweet generalisations about lawyers and judges (which goes to show that he does not know any real, living ones), any sane person will know that the the CJ lied about god telling him stuff – god does not speak with anyone without an appointment. And when god does speak it only does so through crazy people, crooks, drunkards or drug addicts.

    But here’s the thing I want you to help me with – the CJ having done the “judicial equivalent” of stabbing his respected colleague in the back, would he, in non-judicial language, be regarded as Zuma’s scab labour?

    If so could President Zuma load the CC with more “scab labour” seeing that some vacancies are on the horizon?

    If so could they, the scab labour, then ignore the provisions of the Constitution in order to rule the way that Zuma wants them to?

  • Gwebecimele

    @ OB

    Very interesting indeed. Does that mean “there can be no expropriation without compensation”?

  • ozoneblue

    Maggs Naidu –
    February 15, 2012 at 9:42 am

    “These are complex issues which you speak about – understandable coming from a “constitutional scholar” even one who did not attend graduate school which impresses WHITE people.”

    Ah now I get it. MDF and doctor Katumba studied in the same school then? The Ugandian Academy of Black science, Brain operations and the Epistologies of law.

  • Gwebecimele
  • jeffman

    Our president , the cattle herder, clearly , simply does not know that he does not know how the constitution and legal system works. And he will probably never know that he does not know…

  • ozoneblue

    February 15, 2012 at 9:52 am

    I think it means that there are those who still believe that they “own” the Mineral wealth of South Africa and that the government must pay them compensation for its benefaction. I don’t know for sure yet because as you know the chattering classes don’t write blogs full of analyses on the Internet when it is not about RACE.

  • Maggs Naidu –


    Bring back Andrew Coleman, the guy who sold off the fleet in the first place (and pocketed over R200 million for doing so – thanks then President Mbeki)

    SA Airways has asked the government for a recapitalisation of about R6 billion to fund operational costs, growth strategy and fleet renewal, according to a report on Wednesday.

  • Gwebecimele

    @ Maggs

    We forgot to include this detail in the SONA.

    Did you listen to Gigaba’s response (Parliament Channel, yesterday) to SONA?

  • Gwebecimele

    By: Carien du Plessis

    2012-02-15 09:05
    Public Enterprises Minister Malusi Gigaba has torn into the DA’s top dogs, playing off party leader Helen Zille against parliamentary leader Lindiwe Mazibuko during the first day of the state of the nation debates.

    While he made a point of wishing MPs a happy Valentines Day, there was no love lost between him and Mazibuko as he called her “grossly inexperienced” and “hopelessly clueless”.

    As the last speaker in the debate yesterday – a task the ANC caucus only entrusts to its politically more astute members – and acting as the “sweeper” of all the arguments, Gigaba pointed out that Mazibuko and Zille took different positions on President Jacob Zuma’s state of the nation address (SONA), delivered last Thursday.

    Shortly after Zuma’s speech, Mazibuko told eNews channel that it wasn’t good for government to get involved in infrastructure development. But yesterday, her speech was more aligned with Zille’s original view on the matter, and Mazibuko said state investment in infrastructure, “coupled with a sound financial strategy and real capacity in implementing agent, is the best way the state can create the economic enabling environment for growth”.

    In reference to her remarks to the television news channel, Gigaba said: “Failing to curb her inexplicable eagerness, the camera-prone honourable Mazibuko had to please her constituency eager for doomsday news and criticise the SONA,” he said.

    On the contrary, Zille “applauded the President’s focus on the infrastructure and correctly challenged the government to ‘cut the red tape in order to create jobs’,” he said.

    Gigaba said there was “quite clearly” a contrast between Zille, “whose stint as premier has exposed her to the challenges and intricacies of running a government”, and Mazibuko “whose only experience is as an opponent who has never had to lift a finger to do anything”.

    He said she “amended” her “ill-informed remarks” made shortly after SONA, “in a haste” during yesterday’s debate, but still, her speech was a “pipe dream and incoherent wish-list that reminded me of where we were in 1994”.

    He said Zuma’s speech “on the contrary, built on the proud edifice of 1994, and took South Africa into the future where the economy grows, people work, the youth are skilled”.

    Mazibuko, who also read parts of her speech in Zulu, said she believed “we should be talking about how the South Africa we live in differs from the South Africa we dream about”.

    She said South Africans didn’t have to accept poor living conditions.

    “I don’t want to live in a South Africa in which you are locked into a particular kind of life forever, simply because you were born into it. And I believe there can be an alternative; another country of our making,” she said.

    Mazibuko said the DA as a “government-in-waiting” would prioritise the economy and education.

    Planning Minister Trevor Manuel earlier also criticised Mazibuko’s “dreaming”. Speaking about the national planning commission’s development plan towards 2030, he told Mazibuko, “it is not about dreams, but about making sacrifices”.

    He quoted Peter Tosh’s lyrics to her, saying “everybody wants to go to heaven, nobody wants to die”.

    Gigaba’s criticism of speakers went beyond Mazibuko, and he gave newcomer Johan Steenhuisen, DA MP, a baptism of fire.

    Steenhuisen made his “virgin” speech to the National Assembly yesterday.

    Gigaba said the opposition “should not limit the understanding of their being in this House to be purely for the sake of opposing. If this be the case, I can assure them that they do not need so many seats just perpetually to say ‘no’.”

    He slammed Steenhuisen’s example of good governance in the Western Cape, and listed the province’s problems with race and gender transformation, as well as the R1 billion communications tender, which has been widely questioned.

    Gigaba also dismissed Steenhuisen’s call for Zuma to side with the poor. “What cheek!” he said. Zuma sided with the poor when he joined the struggle, “long before you became even an idea in your parents’ minds!”

    Cope leader Mosiuoa Lekota was Gigaba’s next target. Gigaba said Lekota spoke “so eloquently about job losses and people taking others’ jobs”, but the way former Cope leader Mbhazima Shilowa was sidelined, reminded Gigaba of “who took (Shilowa’s) jobs and why is he jobless”.

    The second part of the debate is set to start at 2pm today.

    Zuma is expected to give his reply tomorrow. City Press

  • Gwebecimele

    Be careful of FDI it has a potential to suprise you.
    Vodacom & ABSA profits are going back to UK.

  • Mikhail Dworkin Fassbinder

    Gwebe, thanks you for posting the account of events in the Assembly.

    I say Gigaba’s harping on about Mazibuko being less “experienced” than Zille is a pure self-hating RACISM. We are all tired of the old argument of lack of so-called “experience” as a pretext for keeping African in their place!


  • Gwebecimele

    IF we ever needed a Chief Whip here is one.
    All is not well in the CAPE.

  • Brett Nortje

    It is really disappointing that the same gremlins characterising much of the civil service are at play in the public protector’s office.

    I have just been told the PP’s office never received my complaint about the Joburg billing crisis emailed Jan 6 – yet, I have a read receipt?

  • Henri

    This was a beautiful way of implying that the JSC consists of a bunch of dumb-asses:
    “If it is not to lose its credibility, the JSC needs to strengthen its internal procedural rules so that its decisions are consistent and rational, and there is no uncertainty as to how the system works. Stronger procedural rules would also bolster the JSC’s ability to step up and make difficult decisions while avoiding perceptions of political bias.”

  • Maggs Naidu –

    February 15, 2012 at 11:08 am


    Like Alice said “Interestinger, and interestinger”!

    Now everyone wants to be a Malema.

    p.s. The Minister should be told that he is wrong in “whose only experience is as an opponent who has never had to lift a finger to do anything” – being a TEA-GIRL does require an experienced finger-lifter.

    p.p.s. “Zuma sided with the poor when he joined the struggle” – indeed he did. But that was long before he was initiated into the FUCK THE POOR brigade.

  • ozoneblue

    Brett Nortje
    February 15, 2012 at 11:45 am

    You would be happy to know that the office of Genocidewatch eventually responded. Looks like you are not going to need that fire arm license anymore.

    “Genocide Watch continues to be alarmed at hate crimes committed against whites, particularly against Boer farmers, an important early warning sign that genocide could occur. Those who commit such crimes must be promptly brought to justice, and denounced by the political leaders of South Africa. Genocide Watch’s first six stages do not constitute genocide. Genocide Watch does not believe that genocide is currently underway in South Africa. Nevertheless, Genocide Watch will keep a watchful eye on the situation.”

  • ozoneblue

    “After upgrading South Africa to stage 6 “preparation” in September 2011 due to the increasing power of Julius Malema, then the Marxist racist President of the African National Congress Youth League,”

    Yep. Juju also studied “Marxism” with doctor Katumba and MDF. He graduated with honors including a C for woodwork, a G for constitutional studies and an F for open brain surgery.

  • Heywood Jubleauxme

    When you take a fool seriously, you run the risk of the fool taking himself seriously. This is precisely what has happened and it will continue to happen unless we remind this fool of the words of Frantz Fanon when he wrote about “stupidity masquerading for leadership”.

  • Mikhail Dworkin Fassbinder

    “Genocide Watch does not believe that genocide is currently underway in South Africa.”


  • Mikhail Dworkin Fassbinder

    OB, it is said that Verwoerd wanted blacks to be no more than “hewers of wood and bearers of water.” That being so, if, as you claim, Mr Malema scored only a C for Woodwork, how did he score in Water Bearing?

  • ozoneblue

    Mikhail Dworkin Fassbinder
    February 15, 2012 at 14:09 pm

    “OB, it is said that Verwoerd wanted blacks to be no more than “hewers of wood and bearers of water.””

    I think Verwoerd was a man ahead of his time. He certainly would have fitted in well with Max Price at the CRT school of AA at the UCT.

    “The second type of explanation concerns “cultural capital”. The South African school system, like all educational systems, favours those who share the cultural capital of that system. The particular cultural knowledge, values and histories, and even the particular valorisation of some ways of knowing over others (for example, science and empiricism over religious, mythological or traditional authorities) and ways of acquiring knowledge (for example, individual achievement and competitiveness over shared knowledge and collective achievement) may all advantage those students whose cultural capital is aligned with that of the school system.

    The South African school system favours children who have been brought up with an intimate familiarity with Western culture, inculcated early through books, stories, theatre, film, family activities, museums, international travel and much more. This is not to value Western culture above others. It simply recognises the reality that in South Africa, and throughout much of the world, this culture dominates education systems and places at a disadvantage students with different cultural capital often linked to class, language, ethnicity and geography.”

    As you can see it is Western “cultural capital” that places students at a disadvantage. Almost just like it is Juju’s very own white lawyers who are in fact screwing him.

  • Henri

    The Malema video where he confuses the Hawks and SARS with the “judiciary”:

  • Andresj

    Straight to the point as always Prof. the tragedy is that we are led by insensitive, un-empathic former Guerrillas and so-called Freedom fighters turned politicians with no iota of an idea what they are doing. Their leadership speaks volumes, the top six in the ANC is led by an unlettered man in Zuma and the only person with notable and credible academic achievement is Matthew Phosa. So what can we expect from a man and leadership that is trying their damnest to appear, sound and look intelligent when they are not. it looks like this Zuma character is trying to look like a thinker his predecessors were. Thabo Mbeki was an undisputed thinker who had a vision for South Africa and a plan for Africa. We have seen the results of his stature and statesmanship except of cause for his HIV/AIDS blunders, he was a thinker nevertheless compared to thi current president who is all over the place with no vision or plan. Justice Malala put it nicely when he said the man is a “…total flop…” but the man who hit it on the head was Lord Acton: “power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely…” some one also said : “you can fool some of the people some of the time but you can not fool all of the people all of the time…” I recently read on a letter to the ANC, maybe the Guerrillas should take heed

  • Gwebecimele

    Can someone teach this MEC how to crack a whip?

  • Dmwangi

    ‘An unambiguous attack on constitutional democracy?’

    Hardly. Though the alarmism here is not without amusing elenents.

    Why is that whites get all up in arms about the dangers of ‘majoritarian tyranny’ when the majority is African but seem to have no problem with checks on judicial usurpation when the majority is white?

    Canadian constitutional rulings are allowed to be legislatively overruled without an amendment. Are we really asserting that Canada is on the brink of despotism?

  • Gwebecimele


    “She said the public had shown overwhelming support for the protest against the toll booth by donating money, flowers and even massage oil.”

  • Gwebecimele

    This is what happens when the “inexperienced” Mazibuko does not clear her statement with the Madam.

  • Gwebecimele
  • Maggs Naidu –

    February 15, 2012 at 15:17 pm

    Hey Dm,

    “Canadian constitutional rulings are allowed to be legislatively overruled without an amendment. Are we really asserting that Canada is on the brink of despotism?”

    Canada is an interesting place – but Sirjay’s stories are more interesting than yours.

    As a “Pan Africanist” you really ought to be telling us about Constitutional Courts in Africa.

    Somalia, North Sudan, Nigeria, Eritrea, Swaziland, CAR, Sweden and the like.

  • Zoo Keeper


    Interesting point you raise about Canada. But I think our model is much better where there is a Grundnorm against which all political decisions have to be weighed. Even in the UK constitutional activists have been getting up and about because of our model.

    We should be setting the example.

  • RickySA

    Dmwangi, you write that “Canadian constitutional rulings are allowed to be legislatively overruled without an amendment. Are we really asserting that Canada is on the brink of despotism?” Where did you read this? As far as I can see, this is totally incorrect and misunderstood.

    If the Canadian Supreme Court finds that an act is contrary to the charter of rights in the 1982 Constitution Act, then this is final. Of course, the legislative can try to change the Constitution or can enact a similar new provision that is as close as possible to the provision struck down BUT not violating the Charter of Rights. So this is EXACTLY like in South Africa.

    However, if a provision is struck down because it has been enacted by the wrong authority, e.g. by the provincial legislature while it should have been enacted by the federal legislature, the federal legislature can of course enact the provision. Again like South Africa.

  • sirjay jonson

    “Canadian constitutional rulings are allowed to be legislatively overruled without an amendment. Are we really asserting that Canada is on the brink of despotism?”

    Being a Canadian of long standing I cannot recall when a decision of the Supreme Court of Canada was overruled by the standing government. Perhaps the Prof with his interest in Canadian law might know better.

    As for your rhetorical question, Dmwangi, whether Canada is on the brink of despotism, I suggest only that Canada today, under far too many years of conservative governments, is no longer the country of principle and ethics that it used to be. American influence and greed, et al.

  • RickySA

    Sirjay, as I wrote, Dmwangi is wrong.

  • ozoneblue


    Lol. That white messiah speaks the truth. Doesn’t he make a lot more sense than juju? perhaps Juliass and friends needs a couple of years in a political re-education camp.

  • Dmwangi


    You are wrong:

    To my knowledge, SA does not have a legislative override mechanism like this.

  • sirjay jonson

    Gigaba’s comments today to Mazibuko were not only rude and demeaning, they exhibited his immature and chauvinistic school boy bullying nature, something so many black women complain about in their black men.

    Gigaba should be reminded that a real man, a gentleman, never demeans a woman whether in private or public. The ANC men react to Mazibuko as they do for no other reason than that they fear her. They both sense and see her superior worth and are threatened by it, threatened by a strong woman. Witness the hysterical reactions of our web’s not-beloved trolls towards her. Tea girl indeed, they should be so fortunate to be served by her, although tea is shared with equals.

    I note there has been certain respect offered to Gigaba recently, though his obsession with China is telling. I suspect he has lost some of this respect with his infantile tirade today. We now know the colors he flies, if you will pardon the pun.

    Time to be a man Gigaba, a gentleman, and not just a child amongst children.

  • sirjay jonson

    And as for Manuel’s comments about dreaming, he’s obviously unaware of Martin Luther King’s: “I have a dream”. How time and self serving expediency promotes forgetfulness.

  • Chris (Not the right wing guy)

    SA does not have such an overriding clause. I believe that Isreal is the only other country with a similar clause.

  • Dmwangi

    ‘Isreal is the only other country with a similar clause.’

    Correct. Although other countries have some variation of an override clause. More evidence that Africans are competent enough for majority-rule and do not need sententious judges and lawyers dictating to us right and wrong.

  • Maggs Naidu –

    February 15, 2012 at 19:48 pm

    Hey Dm,

    “More evidence that Africans are competent enough for majority-rule and do not need sententious judges and lawyers dictating to us right and wrong.”

    You funny man!

    p.s. Just a couple of days ago you were waxing lyrical about being killed in your “home country” for doing the right thing.

  • Dmwangi

    Exactly. Because my native land is now ruled by a minority of parasitic rent-seeking Indians.

    That is a problem of corruption not majority-politics.

  • Lisbeth
  • Brett Nortje

    sirjay jonson says:
    February 15, 2012 at 18:42 pm
    “ whether Canada is on the brink of despotism, I suggest only that Canada today, under far too many years of conservative governments”…

    Now. Sirjay. Is that not the fault of the pinko progressives who cannot keep their cotton-picking hands off other folks’ guns?

    Who forced whom to internationalise our struggle?

  • Maggs Naidu –

    February 15, 2012 at 20:13 pm

    Haibo Dm,

    “Exactly. Because my native land is now ruled by a minority of parasitic rent-seeking Indians.

    That is a problem of corruption not majority-politics.”


    You sure are one confused clown.

    In South Africa we have a term that is appropriate to describe the likes of you – “that oke doesn’t know his asshole from his elbow”.

    But then we don’t know much cos we did not go to graduate schools which impresses WHITES!

  • Mikhail Dworkin Fassbinder

    @ Sirjay

    “Gigaba’s comments today to Mazibuko were not only rude and demeaning,”

    With respect, Mazibuko is just too physically bulky to be lead a credible opposition in the Assembly. I say Mr Gigaba is to be commended for his restraint in not making more of an issue of her appalling obesity. (Is it possible that Mazibuko packed on all those kilos by sytematically filching the creamy cupcakes she was supposed to serve the Madam at “tea time”?)

  • Dmwangi


    Am familiar with SA vernacular, umsunu wakho!

  • Maggs Naidu –

    February 15, 2012 at 21:02 pm

    LOL Dm,

    “Am familiar with SA vernacular, umsunu wakho!”

    Now get familiar with living in a Constitutional Democracy – a real one, not the fonk-kong one which you abandoned.

    And despite what you make have learned at THAT graduate school, it not true that “bullshit baffles brains”!

  • Maggs Naidu –

    Chris (Not the right wing guy)
    February 15, 2012 at 19:41 pm

    Hey Right Wing Guy,

    You raised the IZE just to needle Dworky, didn’t you?

  • Maggs Naidu –

    And while Zuma is trying to wrest attention from Malema …

    Employment has increased among higher-income groups in South Africa, while many of the country’s lowest earners have lost their jobs, according to a transformation audit released on Wednesday.

    “The complexion and character of the labour market had not changed much since 1994, despite many legislative gains for workers’ rights,” it said.

    “Educated and affluent citizens, on the other hand, have been the major beneficiaries of a skills-biased economy.”

  • Gwebecimele


    “something so many black women complain about in their black men.”

    As if it is not enough to claim our constitution as yours now you seem to know our women better.

  • Brett Nortje

    Don’t try to clip the ConCourt’s wings – Kenneth Meshoe
    Kenneth Meshoe
    15 February 2012

    ACDP leader warns President Zuma against doing what Mugabe did to the courts

    Response by ACDP President, Rev. Kenneth Meshoe MP in debate on President Jacob Zuma’s State of the Nation Address, National Assembly, February 15 2012

    “The ACDP commends President Zuma on his State of the Nation address, with its focus on growing the economy, with huge expenditure on a number of infrastructure projects, such as rail, road transport and ports. These ambitious plans undoubtedly bring hope to the nation faced with high levels of poverty and unemployment. The challenge will be to finance and implement these huge projects. It is crucial for government to create a sufficiently enabling environment for investors, entrepreneurs and manufacturers, rather than creating an obstruction to doing business.

    Government will have to ensure that we have the necessary skills for these projects, that endemic state corruption and incompetence is addressed.

    Equally important, Government will also have to guard against tenderpreneurs from unlawfully exploiting the rich pickings that these massive infrastructure projects present. Being politically well-connected must not be allowed to replace honest hard work, such as we’ve seen in Limpopo.

    We also welcome the undertaking to reduce the cost of doing business by addressing high port and electricity costs. Reserve Bank governor Gill Marcus has already expressed concerns about the impact of administered prices such as electricity tariffs, warning that above-inflation electricity price increases should not be allowed to inhibit growth and investment. Addressing such costs will go some way to ensure that South Africa becomes more competitive globally. Increased productivity remains the key, however, for increased competiveness.

    The ACDP welcomes Mineral Resources Minister Susan Shabangu’s confirmation at last week’s Mining Indaba that nationalisation was not a viable option for the country. Regrettably, Honourable President, the debate on nationalisation and regulatory uncertainty has curbed investment in the mining sector in South Africa . South Africa has mineral wealth equal to that of Australia and Russia combined, yet the sector is declining due mainly to regulatory uncertainty, government capacity, infrastructure constraints and a lack of suitably skilled persons.

    We need to ensure that other challenges facing the mining sector such as increased costs, and now alternative proposals such as increased taxes, resources rent and more state intervention don’t further damage the mining sector which is so crucial to growing the economy and creating jobs, not only for South Africa , but also for the SADC region.

    We agree with Planning Minister Trevor Manuel that research and development is key to unlocking the potential of South the mining industry. We regret that more was not said regarding the crucial role that small businesses play. This is the real place to grow the economy and create jobs. Honourable President, more needs to be done to support small businesses by, for example, reducing regulatory bottlenecks and red tape to reduce the cost of doing business and to facilitate easier access to soft loans.

    What was surprising from the President’s speech though was to hear the President praise teacher unions, who he claimed, heeded a call to teachers to be in school, in class, on time, teaching for at least seven hours a day. I believe most parents and school children would dispute the President’s claims.

    If teachers were teaching at least seven hours a day, then South Africa would not be regularly be finding itself at the bottom or near the bottom in international rankings for literacy, numeracy and science. If the President’s claims were true, then Graeme Block, a so-called education expert at the Development Bank of Southern Africa , would not be saying that 80% of schools are “dysfunctional” and that half of all pupils drop out of school before taking their final matric exams. SADTU that usually calls for strike action during schools hours must take some responsibility for the fact that only 15% of our students get good enough grades to qualify for university.

    If the President is truly concerned about the education of our children, then he should challenge members of SADTU, who have called for schools to be shut in support of Cosatu’s protest against the e-toll system to stop their planned action to down chalk. The ACDP does not want our children to be prejudiced any longer because of striking teachers during school hours.

    Speaker, despite evidence that corruption is increasing in South Africa, the President did not say much about the government’s plans to fight this scourge, save to welcome Cosatu’s launch of Corruption Watch.

    Yesterday, members of the Portfolio Committee on Police were stunned by what was revealed during a presentation made by the Police’s top management regarding leases by the SAPS. While it was made clear to us that SAPS does not negotiate the leasing of any building, as the department of Public Works (DPW) does so on their behalf, we were, nevertheless, shocked by the top management’s ignorance of the terms and conditions of the leases they are paying for. By way of example, they could not explain why they were paying exorbitant rates for leasing space, such as R1, 292.00 per square metre for a period of 99 years! This, we believe, is wasteful expenditure by the police and should be investigated. It was, therefore, not surprising to hear the Public Works Minister say that his department is in chaos and dysfunction with no hope of achieving a clean audit at the end of this financial year.

    We were informed that police officers who dealt with the department of Public Works regarding the leases in question have since resigned or gone on early pension, and we can’t help but wonder why.

    The ACDP believes that both department of SAPS and DPW should be investigated. Those found guilty of corruption and benefiting illegally from State tenders should not only be punished and taught that crime does not pay, but should also make restitution by paying back what they have stolen, with interest. If such drastic action is not taken, then I believe the cancer of corruption will never be uprooted in our country.

    It is shocking that the Special Investigating Unit admitted, in response to an ACDP question during a parliamentary briefing last year that the level of fraud and corruption in the state procurement process is between 25 and 30 billion rand per year.

    Honourable President, we must ensure all crime-fighting units such as the SIU and the Hawks have sufficient capacity and funding to successfully investigate and prosecute incidents of corruption in the public sector, and where necessary to recover the stolen or misappropriated funds. It is imperative that the SIU’s enabling legislation is amended to give it full legal standing to bring civil cases to recover stolen state funds.

    The ACDP questions the President’s argument for wanting to review the powers of the Constitutional Court after he said and I quote: “It is after experiencing that some of the decisions are not decisions that every other judge in the Constitutional Court agrees with.”

    The President further asked, and I quote: “how could you say that the judgment is absolutely correct when the judges themselves have different views about it?”

    The ACDP questions the logic of a President who questions the logic of having split judgments. Does he expect judges to become rubber stamps of government’s decisions, or to sit on the bench just to endorse rulings that they may not agree with?

    I want to remind the President that decisions by the Constitutional Court need not be unanimous – a simple majority prevails if there is a legal quorum. In a split decision, the will of the majority of the judges is binding, and one member of the majority delivers the opinion of the court itself. One or more members of the minority can also write a dissent which is a critical explanation of the minority’s reasons for not joining majority decision. This is standard practice in democratic states.

    While the ACDP welcomes a healthy debate around the powers of state bodies and their effectiveness, we nevertheless reject what appears to be the President’s encroaching and attempts to interfere in the work of the Constitutional Court. If he succeeds in reducing the powers of the Concourt, he might begin targeting our other courts, just as his comrade, President Robert Mugabe, has been doing for a number of years. We would therefore appeal to you, President Zuma, to be very cautious when considering reviewing the powers of the constitutional court as this can be seen as a direct threat to the independence of the judiciary”.

    Issued by the ACDP, February 15 2012

  • Gwebecimele

    It seems as if private sector is dishing out parachute packages better than govt.

  • Gwebecimele

    The poor were milked and the economy was suffocated.
    Why wages and bonuses of the responsible Execs are left untouched?

    Needless to say a significant cut of this ill gotten gains were taken to US by Americans( SBC ) and sucked this giant to dry.

    Viva FDI

  • Mikhail Dworkin Fassbinder

    @ Brett

    “ACDP leader warns President Zuma against doing what Mugabe did to the courts”

    I must say, I am very happy the Rev. Meshoe has finally spoken out in defense of the CC. This is the kind of statement that will really make Pres Zuma wake up and pay attention!

    Maggs, are you as hopeful as I am?

  • Maggs Naidu –

    Mikhail Dworkin Fassbinder
    February 15, 2012 at 22:56 pm


    Tell Rev. Meshoe not to worry – god is now the “Commander-in-chief” of the Concourt – he did some cadre-deployment of his own and sent his other only son to be in charge.

    Is that nepotism?

  • Chris (not the right wing guy!)

    Maggs Naidu – says:
    February 15, 2012 at 21:11 pm

    Do they discuss IZE in the Balkans?

  • Maggs Naidu –

    February 15, 2012 at 19:48 pm

    Hey Dm,

    The quote of the week says “Mr Zuma simply does not ‘get’ the constitutional democracy concept”.

    The Business Day editor was talking about YOU (and blaming Zuma).

    Zuma got it, has it and is keeping it – he’s just pushing boundaries and getting people, like the “experts” who think that our Constitution (the real one, not the fong-kong one from the country which you abandoned) is not robust enough to withstand a purile onslaught from an oke who does not know “what is a crook”.

    But credit to Zuma – he’s got the raggedly lot running about like frightened rats that were spooked by a mouse.

    Juju was more entertaining – at least he put real issues on the table much of which would have been Constitutionally valid.

    p.s. I’ll give you a little example in terms which you probably will understand. In a soccer game, offside is offside – exceptions are not made for nice guys, brilliant goals or anything else which the defaulting player, his team and supporters may want to use to flex the rules a wee bit in their favour.

  • Maggs Naidu –

    Chris (not the right wing guy!)
    February 16, 2012 at 9:39 am

    Right Wing Guy,

    “Do they discuss IZE in the Balkans?”

    No – that’s why Dworky abandoned them and came here with Matilda.

  • Maggs Naidu –

    February 16, 2012 at 9:40 am

    Zuma got it, has it and is keeping it – he’s just pushing boundaries and getting people, like the “experts” who think that our Constitution (the real one, not the fong-kong one from the country which you abandoned) is not robust enough to withstand a purile onslaught from an oke who does not know “what is a crook”, to pee in their pants!

  • Pingback: De Vos ‘An unambiguous attack on constitutional democracy’ 14 Feb 2012 | Socio-Economic Rights()

  • Gwebecimele

    Now that Malema is fading, we will hear more of the hidden feelings.

  • Pingback: Constitutional democracy | Statutory Interpretation()

  • sirjay jonson

    Ah shame Gwebecimele
    February 15, 2012 at 22:16 pm

    I can only suggest this realization comes from the many various black women I know who refuse to marry a black partner stating they have no wish to be owned or oppressed. Mind you, these are educated women. But then you are probably not aware that these women are controlled through violence both by their husbands and their culture. I recall a radio interview a few years back as well where the black female celebrity was suggesting that her sisters should try a white man if they want respect in a relationship.

  • sirjay jonson

    February 15, 2012 at 22:16 pm

    May I also suggest you review Gigaba’s comments re Mazibuko yesterday, in case you don’t understand some black men’s attitude towards women.

  • sirjay jonson

    @sirjay jonson
    February 16, 2012 at 18:24 pm

    And if you still doubt, do a study of rap music.

  • Maggs Naidu –

    February 15, 2012 at 19:48 pm

    Hey Dm,

    “More evidence that Africans are competent enough for majority-rule and do not need sententious judges and lawyers dictating to us right and wrong”

    It seems that the BLA also think you are a bit slow on the uptake.

    Are they Coconuts?

    Pah – they did not study at THAT graduate school so they probably know zilch.

    The executive and the legislature do not have the power to amend or review the Constitutional Court’s powers, the Black Lawyers’ Association (BLA) said on Thursday.

  • Maggs Naidu –


    Zuma has finally lost it.

    South Africa has to increase the number of graduates in engineering and sciences as it rolls its R300 billion infrastructure programme over the next seven years, President Jacob Zuma said on Thursday.

  • Maggs Naidu –

    Eish – these people should have joined the struggle.

    Otherwise FUCK THE POOR!

    Johannesburg – Carolina residents in Mpumalanga who cannot afford bottled water have resorted to drinking the town’s polluted water to quench their thirst.

  • Maggs Naidu –

    February 15, 2012 at 19:48 pm

    Hey Dm,

    “More evidence that Africans are competent enough for majority-rule and do not need sententious judges and lawyers dictating to us right and wrong”

    I see what you mean!

  • Dmwangi

    ‘It seems that the BLA also think you are a bit slow on the uptake.

    Are they Coconuts?’

    Unimpressive. I’ll-informed, yes. Coconuts? No.

    Any pupil that has spent years studying under PdV and his ilk can be excused from making sapient jurisprudential judgements.

  • Mikhail Dworkin Fassbinder

    No doubt, we have the finest constitution in the known Universe. But let’s not valorize the thing. The Constitution is there to serve our People. Our People are not there to serve the Constitution.

    Or, in language M-squared would understand, the letter killeth – but the spirit giveth life!

  • Maggs Naidu –

    February 17, 2012 at 0:01 am

    Hey Dim,

    “Any pupil that has spent years studying under PdV”.

    That’s for that update – now we know what studying under Pierre really means!

    p.s. Recall that Juju said to Cronin that “we do not need a White Messiah”.

    “Unimpressive. I’ll-informed” – BLA will be pleased to learn that we now have a Black Messiah.

    All the BLA okes out there what say you guys – should we nominate Dm as the “Impresser of the unmpressive, Informer of the ill-informed”?

  • Gwebecimele

    @ Sirjay

    So Sirjay we are not even capable of loving our women and the white men will show us how its done. May be you have your own MBAU? Is your bank manager aware of that? What are Rappers wives/girlfriends have to do with real SA women?

  • Chris (not the right wing guy!)

    Maggs Naidu – says:
    February 16, 2012 at 20:41 pm

    I actually thought he had a lucidum intervallum.

  • Maggs Naidu –

    There are none so deaf as those who will not hear!

    “I did not hear [President Jacob Zuma] refer to reviewing the powers of the Constitutional Court,” Pandor said.

    So in other words, Ms Minister-with-the-“fake accent”, President Zuma was talking kak?

    Pandor said the government was committed to upholding the Constitution.

    “We are responsible for ensuring that we act with regard to it; we swear oaths to ensure it is implemented; [and] that we uphold it,” she said.

  • Pingback: Questioning the role of the judiciary? | Human Rights & Social Justice()