I see dear Comrade Gwede Matashe, Secretary General of the ANC, has been at it again. This weekend he attacked the judges of the Pretoria High Court who rejected the ANC assertion to have an exclusive claim to the name Congress of the People. Dear Gwede, who last wrongly claimed to have been misquoted when he called the Constitutional Court judges counter-revolutionaries (some people would call that lying), is not happy with these judges who had the bloody cheek not to ignore the law to assist the ANC in its political fight with COPE. According to The Star our dear Comrade said:
The two black judges who ruled that COPE could keep the name Congress of the People are “apartheid apologists”…. He said the ANC was paying the price for being “too apologetic… about who we are”…. on Saturday Mantashe said he could forgive Du Plessis – a white judge – for not knowing the “historical facts”, but described the two other judges – who are black – as “apartheid apologists”. He did not refer to their race though.
Our Dear Comrade is of course a bit misgiuded. He thinks (or claims to think) that cases are decided solely on facts as divined by the ANC (who were after all appointed by Jesus Christ to run South Africa), and not on the basis of applying legal principles. But the ANC lost its case because it could not show that the ANC owned the phrase Congress of the People as a trade mark because it had never registered this trade mark and it was not sufficiently similar to the ANC trade mark to constitute passing off.
Any child with an IQ of more than 70 would have been able to tell our Comrade Leader that the ANC would lose the case. It smacks of an extreme arrogance on the part of the ANC that it thinks judges should ignore the law to assist it in its fight with its brothers in COPE.
That said, Comrade Matashe is obviously not only ignorant of trade mark law but also has never read (or maybe he is not very bright and cannot remember to have read) section 165 of the Constitution which states that “No person or organ of state may interfere with the functioning of the courts”.
Given our history, calling judges apartheid apologists are incendiary and constitutes a direct attack on the independence and legitimacy of the Courts. It would have been fine to attack the judgment by referring to the relevant legal principles and then to argue that judges got it wrong. But to launch a personal attack on judges and to racialise that attack to boot, is extremely dangerous.
Its the kind of language I would have expected from our dear friend Julius Malema – who after all, only scraped through matric and could not even get a pass mark for wood work, so can be excused for saying extremely stupid things. Coming from Mantashe, it is scary. It reflects extremely badly on the ANC who one might now think does not respect the judiciary except when it hands down decisions favourable to it or its Dear Leader – who is having some serious trouble with the law and might well be convicted of corruption if he ever gets his day in court.
Watching Comrade Mantashe on TV I got the scary impression that he really was very cross with the judges and that he really thought the ANC owned South Africa’s history – including the history of the Congress of the Poeple. This means he must also believe the rhetoric that the ANC has a historic mission to transform South African society and that the masses of our people have a historic duty to support them. This is scary, messianic, stuff that I would expect from a gathering of reborn Christians praying for potatoes, but really not from one of the most powerful politicians in South Africa.
What is going to happen when the masses of our people reject the ANC and decides to say: “stuff your historic mission to steal our money, we are going to vote for another party?” Will Dear Comrade Mantashe then attack the people for being unpatriotic? Or maybe he will say that the people are threatening “national security”. Or maybe the people will become snakes and dogs to be taught a lesson?
Really Comrade, in a constitutional democracy one is supposed to respect the judiciary and not to launch personal attacks on judges. True democrats would never have done such a thing so I must assume you are not a democrat but a Stalinist revolutionary. Us counter-revolutionaries (including most judges and ordinary people) better watch out because who knows when we will be declared enemies of the state and “permanently removed from society”?
Shame on you Comrade, your slip is showing.
Between Gwede Mantashe and the person who (ill)advised that the name of the COPE should be challenged in Court, I am not sure who is more misguided!
Interestingly though, I was watching a broadcast yesterday about the ANC and the road that it has travelled so far on SABC 2 from 20:00 to 22:00. This reminded me of the words of one of the bloggers who said that SABC will broadcast ‘struggle’ programs on an increasing scale the more we near the election date to emotionally blackmail people, especially the black majority, to vote with their hearts and not their heads! Pathetic but effective!
I made the comment before COPE was formed that it is naive to compare MDC vs Zanu PF to Majority (ANC et al) vs Apartheid. This was during the debate on whether Zimbabweans should be left to resolve their own problems.
I said that we needed only compare how the ruling party would deal with a black opposition party threatening its hold on power. I am happy I did not have to wait long. Welcome to African politics. All reason will fly out of the window and we will see what others experience in their own countries. Men and Women of reason will use the most vicious means to fight a black rival. You will see more venom!
His attack on the judiciary is just so predictable and true to form. When they win then the judges are right, lose and there is something wrong with the judges. The ANC leadership is clearly so scared, corrupt and morally bankrupt that they will do anything to further their own ends, even if it means destroying the institutions that it agreed to put in place to protect our freedoms. I can’t wait for the elections.
Well done Advocates for Transformation and the BLA for condemning the attacks on our black Judges.
Good postings Prof and everyone else here. I agree with everything. One simply cannot have your cake and eat it, like the ANC and ANCYL cadres are doing with the judicial system.
How do you fail wood work? I got a distinction for woodwork and I don’t know which side of the screwdriver goes into that thingy that screws thingymabobs together. That’s like failing finger painting in kindergarten.
Garg the Unzola // Dec 15, 2008 at 12:27 pm
……………………………………………………………………..
Dont get distracted by something that was merely meant to keep the blog interesting… Focus on the important issue(s) at hand…
So what is worse to be: A counter-revolutionary or an apartheid apologist?
(Sounds like the opening line to a joke. Wonder what the punchline is).
I recommend the freethinkers and religious draadsitters on this forum watch Religulous (Noveau at Rosebank). Topical to recent posts are the observations around how religious leaders use religion to promote nationalism, but how the two are not compatible.
@Garg: Since it was probably an apartheid school they might not have had screwdrivers or thingymabobs.
I wonder what the just deserves of a counter-revolutionary are? Whatever the answer would have been pre-1994, I hope it changed. What is the difference between ascaris and “apartheid apologists”?
But first you’d actually need to define counter-revolutionary, and that gets really tricky. Especially when you try to define the current revolution. Is it new? A revival of the old one? Are there more than one (JZ vs Mbeki and communist/socialist vs capitalist)?
From a section of the current leadership in the ANC we have seen:
- a revival of struggle songs
- revival of militant vocabulary
- threats of destabilisation
- threats of and actual mass protests
- threats of taking up arms
- rooting out or calling out and branding of “sell-outs”
Sounds like revolution. Looks like revolution. Smells like revolution (hehe couldn’t resist). But against whom, and by whom? A government engaged in revolution? A revolution inside a party? Both? And will they be able to steer such talk in a non-violent direction? Could they control it if a spark starts a fire? Maybe instilling fear is enough?
ANC should just accept defeat .
but why Cope choose the name instead of distancing themselves completely from ANC with a unique name.
Good points, z. Perhaps the vehement ANC supporters (I am aware that this might be tautology) can enlighten us. Cos I sure don’t understand it.
Does anyone know where I can get a COPE T-shirt..?
Bongani // Dec 15, 2008 at 1:28 pm
……………………………………………………….
LOL! Are you crazy? You will be skinned alive here!
If someone were to ask:
“Does anyone know where I can get a COPE T-shirt..?”
And I were a COPE member, and COPE was counter-revolutionary and I was in a country with many revolutionaries I would have to ask:
“What do you want to do with it? Or with the person selling it? Would you need to meet in a dark place?”
As long as COPE does not put Madiba or OR Tambo’s face on that shirt , because apparently only the ANC is allowed to quote or use these people in their politicking (based on some opinions I heard on 702 this morning). This ties in with the case and the ANC’s reaction to the judgement…Apparently the fear is that the “ordinary people” are being confused. Why? Because for once they have an alternative? It’s madness.
Lol!!!!!!! I’m serious though, where can I find one?
Nothing on the website about t-shirts.
Bongani – A “COPE T-shirt” will more or less mean to the current ANC what a “Che Guevarra T-shirt” meant for the apartheid government. It would be like flashing something red to a Bull; but, I must add, the ANC is currently a lame one, so I don’t think it’ll even cause a (legal) ripple. You’d however have to watch out for fanatics like Malema and Vavi and their ilk, who would “kill” for Zuma (and the ANC?). Nevertheless, you would be able to buy (design your own) such a t-shirt at any place that does silk-screening / fabric-printing. You’d need a (colour-optional) photo copy of the coat of arms, the name of the party and, who knows, of Terror Lekota’s and Sam Shilowa’s faces, for the job. Otherwise, why don’t you go to Bloemfontein (note that the name has not yet changed to Mangaung like Pretoria has changed to Tshwane – is it because the COPE members, previously of the ANC, are strongly represented there, and they can even sing “Suikerbossie” at the COPE conference / congress?) and buy one at the venue? Tomorow there’ll be plenty available there, I can assure you.
Waiting to board a plane in a few minutes for a well deserved holliday. Good wishes for the Festive Season everyone!
@ Heidi
You vsee how boring the conversation gets when only cope people comment,sometimes you need sagacious inputs.If cope starts using ANC leaders like Mandela and OR Tambo, what alternative are you talking about Heidi?
Tell you what cope is doomed, and I will remind you after the elections, saw PE yesterday, cope’s stronghold? hehehe….
Told them the same thing prior to Polokwane and they wouldn’t listen!
@Heidi:
Malema is 27. Apartheid segregation already ended in 1991. You do the maths, because Julius clearly can’t.
OK back on topic. Clearly, attacking the judiciary (which is largely appointed by the ANC, according to my understanding. I stand corrected) is silly. Especially since the judiciary is largely the reason why Jacob Zuma isn’t in prison yet.
@ Garg: I didn’t realise that Malema was that young. I thought he was 35. No doubt that apartheid argument will be used nonetheless though.
@ Mdu: Are you arguing that because party A refers to the same icons as party B party A cannot be an alternative to party B? That does not follow. What is important is what the party stands for and hopes to achieve and who they wish to target. That is what makes it an alternative. For the record, I am not going to vote for COPE, but I am supportive of what they aim to achieve.
In any event,wise words resonate with most people and the ANC can’t have sole rights to what the icons said, did or represent just because they were affiliated to the organisation.
The attempts by the ANC to protect their support base is laughable and for the most part illegal.
@ Garg: I didn’t realise that Malema was that young. I thought he was 35. No doubt that apartheid argument will be used nonetheless though.
Prof you are spot on. The mentality of these so called “leaders” are scary. It’s sad that we tolerate this blatant arrogance and disregard of the law.
Ah, I finally figured it out. A counter-revolutionary is someone who knows which side to turn a screwdriver on a thingymabob. That means you do in fact turn the screws counter-clockwise (lefty loosy, righty tighty) to loosen them, and clockwise (ie counter-revolutionary from Malema’s standpoint) to tighten them.
Way deep inside that angry young man is a carpenter, just waiting to happen. If only he could stop bruising his thumbs. Both thumbs bruised means you have to put your foot in your mouth to alleviate the angst-ridden screams instead. Since then, he’s just gotten used to opening his mouth only to release a string of expletives and to change feet.
I’m also glad that Malema and I grew up in the same scholastic milieu, because Matric was the best 3 years of my life too.
I find it somewhat interesting…the comments seem to be quite sparse on this topic. I cannot help but wonder if it is because everyone is so used to the ANC scolding the judiciary when verdicts go against them that nobody even really pays attention anymore?
Having re-read that sentence, should we be concerned that the ruling party and it’s members spend so much time in court cases?!
When will the ANC stop playing politics like spoilt children – when they’re winning it’s all good, but when they’re losing it’s unfair? How did the people of this country ever let the ANC believe that they should always be right, even when the law says otherwise? How did we get to a point where senior ANC members can blatantly accuse members of the judiciary of being defenders of apartheid (apologists) with impunity? And at the same time patronise white judges by saying they wouldn’t understand things about the ANC in aparthied?
Eish angazi.
The Big slipper, have you heard of the boiling frog syndrome? The slide into anarchy is so subtle that by the time you realize what is happening, it is too late. Now is the time to make a really massive noise about the blatant misuse of power by the ANC. It’s now or never.
Big slipper hit the nail on the head. I bet Big slipper can pass wood work!
What gives me hope is that nobody really takes the ANC seriously when they label a judge they appointed themselves an apartheid apologist. I mean, really. If that were true, then it implies that the ANC are hiring apartheid apologists on purpose. This means it’s a case of the pot calling the kettle black. It suggests that somewhere behind the scenes the ANC is keeping the entire apartheid government in a box to secretly run things from behind the scenes in the interest of national security.
The foundation of every democratic country is strengthened by its judiciary, thefore it is imperative for our politicians to respect the judges and their judgements anyone not satisfied with the findings of the courts is allowed to apeal , these unwarranted ,uncalled for tendency to label judges every time they pass judgements is disgusting to say the least, the secretary general should know that he is the public face of the ANC and has an obligation to represent the organisation like a true ambassador, instead what we have seen is an SG who limps from one disaster to another in terms of his utterances and to me he seems like a loose cannon, i agree whole heartedly with the sentiments expressed by Proff.
Patriotic South Africans must rise and defend the constitution for if not Mzansi will be turned into a banana republic by our liberators.
I’m pleased to see that the reports from the NEC meeting show a bit of introspection from the ANC (Ishmael, any insider’s info) and that the criticism of Mantashe’s comments appear to have squarely hit the target. I feel that the intelligent criticism, especially from black lawyers associations, rather than just bold ANC bashing has helped bring the ANC to its senses.
But the leadership have to appreciate that this incessant running through the courts on every single issue must stop! It shows an unwillingness to deal with political matters which are harmful to the ANC via political solutions (ie why Western Cape Provincial Leaders can’t comply with the Electoral Act is a political leadership issue), whilst simultaneously demanding that political solutions be found for blatantly legal problems of the leadership.
But one thing really seems obvious from all that has happened post-Polokwane:
THIS ANC LEADERSHIP IS NOWHERE NEAR READY TO GOVERN.
Ishmael, what do you all plan on doing about this?
anyone know where to get the judgement?
I had some wine and do not want to spoil the debate. I think we do not have to attack the judiciary for an unfavourable decision. We should embrace their decision and hope to challenge it in higher courts if we strongly hold that they hade erred.
We should find solace in the fact that many youth really know less about Congress of the People. Prof and all of us must not be so hard on the stance that Mantashe has taken. He is just so sad about the decision and he is honent about hisa feelings.
I must be bashed for not being deeply reflective. I have had enough of the wine. I will recover tommorow.
Good debates. Greetings to Mashego. There are great many debaters to come on the blog. I had promised to lobby more debaters!
Ishmael this has nothing to do with COPE, it has everything to do with the party which currently has a two-thirds majority to govern the country spewing abuse towards anybody who decides something against them, even if they are judges. Whether it be the ANC, COPE, DA, IFP, PAC or whoever, no political party should be allowed to ridicule judges.
As the prof pointed out, if Gwede had said “I am sad, because the judge ruled XYZ, and the ANC believes ABC, and therefore we shall appeal”, that’s absolutely fine. If judges could never be wrong there would be no need for an appeals process. However, to stand up and insult the black and white judges themselves for making the judgement they did, that is madness.
If my father came to me and told me I wasn’t allowed to go out, and I told him it was because he was stupid that he said that, he would’ve given me a solid hiding. But if I told him that I disagreed with his decision because I believe he didn’t intepret the facts correctly, he would listen to me, because he would know I respected him even though I was unhappy.
Ishmael, do you realise that Gwede basically said that the black judges were pro-apartheid? What kind of ridiculous statement is that?! What if Nelson Mandela had stood up and said he thinks there is nothing wrong with COPE’s name – would he also (by implication) be an apartheid apologist? I’m not sure what the black judges experienced in Apartheid, but I can’t imagine Mandela longing for his comfy cell on Robben Island.
And then, to boot, he basically told the white judge “You don’t understand how important this is for us because you’re white, and therefore don’t understand Apartheid properly.”
I’m sorry, what?
Does this mean that white people are incapable of understanding Apartheid because of their skin colour? That’s generalisation based on skin colour, which is racism. Does it mean that white people don’t care about what happened in Apartheid? Again, this seems to be fairly discriminatory to white people. What about the white people in the ANC? Do they have some ‘special’ understanding of Apartheid because they are in the ‘right’ party? What about white people in the IFP? Do they get the same understanding, or does one have to be white AND in the ANC to be granted the title of “Understander of Apartheid”?
All in all, those comments were just plain stupid at best, and completely unacceptable racism and defamation at worst. Gwede is entitled to be sad, but he should be sad about the fact that the ANC has lost everything it fought for from the inception of the Freedom Charter. COPE is not stealing the ANC’s history (aside: I thought the history of SA belonged to ALL South Africans, not just the ANC), the ANC is systematically destroying it’s own history and legacy through continued corruption, ridiculous public statements and appointing completely ineffective and uncaring leaders.
Ishmael, my point is that the Prof is not being hard on Gwede and the ANC because he thinks they shouldn’t be sad and/or be allowed to express this sadness. He’s giving them grief (rightfully so) because instead of acting like a mature ruling party, they act like spoilt 5 year olds and throw temper tantrums whenever something doesn’t suit them, even if it happens to be the law.
THAT is the crux of the issue, THAT is the continuous problem, and THAT is the single biggest assault on our democracy. It’s an affront to any reasonable person with a brain, irrespective of race or political ideologies or affiliations.
And no Garg, I happen to be an accountant – because I suck at manual labour
Manual labour – heheheh, you got that right, Slipper. Funny, I have the same problem with screwdrivers as garg. Clockwise … counter-clockwise … trouble is, they don’t make any of the damn things specially for lefthanders.
I believe that any child with an IQ of more than 50 would realize that COPE are in fact attempting to “pass off’ as a sort of “reformed” ANC but reading the Freedom Charter of the real Congress of the People and comparing it to Shikota’s hodge podge of new liberal, elitist policies shows them up for the phonies that they are.
I read somewhere that approximatly 10% of earth’s poplation are sociopaths. Of these only 1% commit crime. The other 9% go on to become Captains of Industry, Presidents or take up other leadership roles. Looking at Mugube, Bush, Charles Taylor, (even Mbeki to a lesser estent (to name but a few) and now the rhetoric of the new leaders of the ANC, it would appear that this theory is valid.
@Ozoneblue: That may be true, but they have the right to do so and people have the right to vote for them if they so choose. I don’t think the attempt is to be a reformed ANC, but rather an authentic ANC.
Regardless. The ANC’s attempts to hinder COPE is really silly. If the ANC believes COPE to be phonies, why not let them get on with it and see what transpires with the election. But no, they can’t do that. Apparently the ANC thinks the “masses” are so idiotic and gullible that they will be confused when they see both “ANC” and “COPE” on the ballot paper and then “accidently” make a cross next to the “incorrect” one, because COPE is misleading them. Tut, tut. I wonder if the masses realise how patronizing the ANC is towards them.
Spot on Big Slipper!
You can read the ANC vs COPE judgment on http://www.saflii.org under the Gauteng High Court judgments.
http://www.saflii.org/za/cases/ZAGPHC/2008/411.html
Thank you Samaita…
Thanks Samaita!
There is nothing in that judgement to suggest that any of the Judges were ignorant of South African history, or that they were apologising for Apartheid.
Mpho,
I could not agree more. I think the ANC needs to review the role of the Secretary General or maybe deploy additional support like was done with Duarte’s office (of course, it appears not to pay any dividend). In any organisation, it is the office that should give more light than thunder. A short report from the ANC lawyers on the decision would have guided the comments of Cde Gwede! Remember when Vavi failed to articulate what was zero-rated and what was not?
heidi
“That may be true, but they have the right to do so and people have the right to vote for them if they so choose.”
Sure they may have usurped the technical legal right to use the name but what they have done reeks of cynical opportunism and abusing the history of all South Africans for their own cheap political gain. Dumb and ethically deprived people may fall for that but what will we have next : the AWB calling itself die Genootskap van Regte Afrikaners ?
Naughty, naughty Kommissar Mantashe. Argumentum ad hominem AND argumentum ad ignorantiam. Seriously, to say that his attack on the judges was “very dangerous” would be overstating the case. This was merely what we would expect of the Kommissar, and his cronies, when things don’t go their way. I for one would have been surprised if nothing had been forthcoming. He could have been a bit more imaginative, though. “Apartheid apologists”: how hackneyed is that?
Pondering it a bit more, an apologist is a defender. How on earth does a finding relating to the history of the country as a whole constitute defense of Aparthied? It’s not like the black judges were ruling in favour of the legitimacy of the dompas system!
Mpho // Dec 17, 2008 at 4:17 pm
………………………………………………….
In fact, the judges took a very easy and logical way out, something they should teach Judge Chris Nicholson. The way taken by the Honourable Judges renders redundant Gwede Mantashe’s ignorant utterances (Clara // Dec 17, 2008 at 6:22 pm; I fully concur with you in this regard!)
If the the AWB started calling itself die Genootskap van Regte Afrikaners I seriously doubt that the other “Afrikaner” parties would make such a fuss or drag the AWB to court, so I am not really following your argument, ozoneblue? People didn’t really fall for the whole NNP thing either, but as far as I know there wasn’t litigation or intolerance (but I am speaking under correction).
On a different note, anyone catch JZ on 702 this morning? He stated that he has never said he wanted his day in court. He said that Mbeki once made reference to the fact that “Zuma has not yet had his day in court” and that the media at one point started reporting that JZ said this. So what do you make of that???
To my mind this makes him lose more credibility. He often says that the media et al is out to get him and that he is the victim. Why would an innocent person then not want his day in court to prove all and sundry that they have persecuted him for nothing??
I wasn’t impressed with the interview. His responses were vague at best. But I do understand why he is well-liked. He has a warm and engaging manner when he speaks.
“If the the AWB started calling itself die Genootskap van Regte Afrikaners I seriously doubt that the other “Afrikaner” parties would make such a fuss or drag the AWB to court”
I assume you are speaking for yourself then or you clearly don’t understand what I’m saying. Abusing important national events /symbols that are part of our collective heritage for narrow and manipulative party political purposes is obscene in my opinion.
Yes, it may be obscene, it is still not illegal.
Ozone, when the ANC claims that they have sole right to use the original Congress of the People (the actual Congress back in the day), because they are the ANC, is that not obscene? That is part of our collective heritage, yet only one political party has a claim to it?
If the ANC said white people shouldn’t be allowed to use that name (for whatever reasons) it would make a LITTLE more sense (although still be completely offside), but the fact that the ANC doesn’t want a predominantly black party using the name indicates that they think that they have exclusive right of use of important historical events of South Africa because they are the ANC – does it not?
Your word “collective” is important there – this history is collective, it belongs to all of us. So how is it that the ANC can claim the Congress of the People as their own?
If I started a party called the Freedom Charter party would they take me to court too? It is a national historical document, should I not be allowed to make use of it too, or is it only the ANC?
The ANC has a high opinion of itself when it can claim that it has the right to decide who uses pieces of our collective history and how – how long before we start re-writing history books?
the big slipper
“Ozone, when the ANC claims that they have sole right to use the original Congress of the People”
Where did the ANC claim they have the sole right to that claim or were did they attempt to register it as a “trademark” ? They were objecting to COPA abusing that name in a manipulative and frankly dishonest manner for their narrow purpose of winning votes for their new political party.
From the judgment:
“[7] Before I deal with the ANC’s contentions, it is perhaps useful to state what this case is not about. First, the ANC does not contend that it has any proprietary or similar real rights in the name Congress of the People. In the second place, while the historic event and its name, being part of the history of this country, belong to all the people of South Africa, the ANC does not contend that use of the name Congress of the People is for that reason per se unlawfut. Put differently, the ANC does not contend that simply because Congress of the People refers to an important historic event. people and organisations are not free to appropriate the name.
[8] Counsel for the ANC contended that Cope’s use of the name Congress of the People constitutes the delict of unlawful competition. That is so, counsel contended, because Cope’s use of the name conveys to the public a false message through which Cope will unfairly attract votes to the detriment of rival political parties. It will in particular cause harm to the ANC because the 1955 Congress of the People lives in the hearts and minds of the people and. due to its involvement in the historic event, forms an integral part of the goodwill that the ANC has.”
And the ANC are of course entirely correct.
The ANC did originally imply that COPE was a trademark (do a google search on “ANC COPE trademark” to find several reports), but gave up this argument when they realised that a trademark had to be registered under the relevant legislation.
They gave up the argument because they would never have won the judgement on this premise – a trademark is only a trademark if registered. The way I see it, they did not give up the argument because they felt that they were wrong in stating (effectively) that the history was theirs to appropriate as they saw fit. If I am wrong in deducing this, please feel free to point me to a source where the ANC admits as much (other than above, where the admission was made purely in pursuit of winning a technical legal argument).
Pierre, I can’t cope with your ignorance. Why are you trying to give Constitutional Law lessons to the ANC?
Having done your Constitutional Law class at UWC – and passed it well (Thanks) – I think that you are the most outstanding lecturer. (Did Criminal Law with you too. Also passed, just (Thanks). You were an outstanding lecturer and I am sure that you’re probably better at it now than you were some fifteen years ago.
Why try to give lessons to folk who simply don’t want to know? The 1994 transformation was merely a ‘get me into power’ exercise.
The ANC do not want the Constitution and Bill of Rights to prevail unless it suits them. They want Africanism, perhaps even African Socialism to prevail.
Analyse what they say and I am sure that you will agree?
You must be disillusioned, my friend.
Snowman: you mean the ANC are … counter-constitutionaries?
The way I see it is that the ANC is like the heartburn in your constitution and COPE is like the antacid.
[...] ANC, know your Constitution (II) [...]
Pierre, your opinion is a similar to that of a person who has seen Gwede Mantashe’s script from he spoke from. You read media reports and you shoudl be treating these reports as such. The ANC or the public has a right to comment on the attitude of judges – this does not suggest disrespect for the judiciary. You are not well positioned to give the ANC a lecture – please spare us!