Lawyers for President Jacob Zuma and the NPA are deploying all the technical legal arguments at their disposal to try and prevent the DA from obtaining all the documents on which the Acting Natonal Director of Public Prosecutions (NDPP), Mokothedi Mpshe, relied when he made the decision to drop all charges against President Jacob Zuma. Their strongest technical argument – in-between the grandstanding and the irrelevant political broadsides – is that the DA has no standing in the case because no constitutional right is in issue and the DA has no direct interest in the case.
If one alleges that a right in the Bill of Rights has been infringed, then the very broad provisions of section 38 will kick in and the DA will clearly have standing to challenge the decision. This section allows anyone to approach the court, whether they are acting in their own interest; acting on behalf of another person who cannot act in their own name; acting as a member of, or in the interest of, a group or class of persons; acting in the public interest; or an association acting in the interest of its members.
That seems to be one of the reasons why the DA is alleging that the decision to drop charges against Zuma was reviewable in terms of the Promotion of Administrative Justice Act (PAJA). Section 33 of the Bill of Rights guarantees for everyone the right to administrative action that is lawful, reasonable and procedurally fair. If the decision to drop charges is reviewable under the PAJA, it would implicate section 33 of the Bill of Rights as PAJA “operationalises” this section. That would mean that the DA would clearly have standing, given the broad parameters of section 38 set out above.
However, if a court finds that the decision is only reviewable on the grounds that the NPA had not acted in terms of the law and the Constitution when it dropped the charges against Zuma (because it failed to adhere to its own prosecuting policy, which it is constitutionally required to do), then the question of whether the DA has standing to challenge the decision becomes legally more interesting.
That is not to say that one could not argue that the DA would have standing – even if this is a Rule of Law issue and not an administrative law issue. Where a supposedly independent institution like the NPA fails to uphold the Rule of Law and drops charges against the leader of the majority party on spurious grounds, one could argue that the official opposition would be directly affected. If such an opposition party, who professes to adore the Constitution (unless the abolition of the death penalty is involved, in which case all bets are off), cannot bring an application to uphold the Constitution, who can?
Besides, so the DA might argue, how could it compete fairly in the political arena if an independent constitutional body like the NPA fails to act without fear, favor or prejudice against members of the governing party? Surely minority parties have a direct interest in upholding the Rule of Law, because without respect for the Rule of Law, they stand very little chance of ever convincing the public that some leaders in the governing party are corrupt and may have abused the Constitution. And if they cannot do that, how will they get the majority of voters to vote for them?
Of course, whether it is in the interest of the DA to have President Zuma prosecuted is another matter. Cynics might argue that it is in that party’s interest to ensure that Zuma remains President for as long as possible – what with his family troubles, his inability to lead, and his apparent inability to impose his authority on the fractious tripartite alliance members.
And given the fact that the DA – like the ANC – contains its fair share of old National Party members and is generally perceived – unlike the ANC – to hold values that are not shared by the majority of South Africa’s voters, the DA is probably not going to convince too many ANC voters to vote for them – even if they can get the NPA to adhere to the Rule of Law, to act independently and to prosecute Zuma.
As yet I have no firm views on whether the President and the NPA will be successful with this technical argument about the right of the DA to bring the review application. There might well be a judge somewhere who finds the arguments of Zuma and the NPA persuasive. What I do know is that the assertion made by President Zuma’s lawyer that he cannot be charged because he is a sitting President, has no basis in law and is obviously not tenable. This assertion will only become true if the Constitution is amended to indemnify a sitting President from prosecution. This is because such an indemnity would constitute a fundamental breach of the principle of the Rule of Law and at present it would thus be unconstitutional.
More interesting for me is the question of whether there is any use in spending all this money in trying to have the original decision of the NDPP set aside. Given the fact that President Zuma has appointed Menzi Simelane as NDPP and Simelane is about as likely to prosecute Zuma as Bafana Bafana is likely to win the World Cup by beating Brazil 6-0 in the final, one may ask whether the DA is not wasting its time and money with this application. Even if it wins the case, it will be a pyrrhic victory as Simelane will almost certainly revisit the decision and will surely decide not to prosecute the President.
He will be able to point to a country like France, where articles 67 and 68 of that Constitution makes clear that the President of the Republic enjoys immunity during his term of office. In France the sitting President cannot be requested to testify before any court and cannot be prosecuted either. However, the statute of limitation is suspended during his term, and enquiries and prosecutions can be restarted, at the latest one month after he left office.
Simelane will be able to point to such provisions and will then be able to argue that it is not in the national interest to charge a sitting President. The President, so the argument might go, will spend all his time in court (or dealing with family trouble) and will have no time to govern the country and that would not be in the “national interest”.
But this does not mean that – from the DA perspective – this application is not worth pursuing. If the party can lay its hands on the report by the prosecutor in the Zuma case which sets out in great detail why he believes there is a winnable case against President Zuma, it will severely embarrass the majority party and its leader. Zuma would be weakened and this might benefit the DA in that many ANC voters will become (more?) disillusioned with the ANC and might stay home come the next election.
Zwelenzima Vavi, who turned a blind eye to the credible allegations of corruption against President Zuma and refused to admit that Zuma had a case to answer, might be forced to rethink his position as well. After all, he berated Zuma last week for not investigating far less credible claims of corruption leveled against some of the Ministers in Zuma’s cabinet. If Mr Vavi was consistent, he would have to insist that the very strong case against Zuma be brought to court so that a court could once and for all decide whether our President is corrupt or not.
I wonder whether that is not the real reason for the President and the NPA’s legal maneuvers. They would surely want to prevent the DA from obtaining documents that would remind the people of South Africa that prosecutors in the NPA believe the President is guilty of corruption. Now that Thabo Mbeki is no longer President (and hence, no longer a handy enemy to rail against to help rally the troops) and the Polokwane alliance is showing signs of disintegrating, this is the last thing that Zuma can afford.
Who knows? One thing is certain though, even if the NPA loses these preliminary skirmishes, they (along with the President’s lawyers) will surely go on fighting tooth and nail to stop the DA from obtaining the relevant documents. After all, as Bill Clinton found out during his second term in office: the truth can be a rather bothersome thing to deal with – even for a President.
enlightening analysis pierre, thank you !
let’s say for argument’s sake that, the NDPP is somehow (via this initiative) forced to review the case for prosecution;
would it mean:
a) that he has to review the entire merit argument ? (or just the basis for the erstwhile ANDPP’s cessation)
b) in either case (of “a”) might he not just after “applying his mind” come to the exact same conclusion as the ANDPP, and close the circle exactly where it is now ?
c) are there not perhaps circumstances under which the NDPP may be forced to make such decision under “supervision” of a judicial review panel ?
d) as i understand it, the NDPP is currently still under investigation (or such) himself; would it not be possible, if, at some point, he is found to not be “fit & proper” for the role of NDPP, to argue that all of his decisions might well be open to review themselves ?
Pierre de Vos says :
“And given the fact that the DA – like the ANC – contains its fair share of old National Party members and is generally perceived – unlike the ANC – to hold values that are not shared by the majority of South Africa’s voters, the DA is probably not going to convince too many ANC voters to vote for them – even if they can get the NPA to adhere to the Rule of Law, to act independently and to prosecute Zuma.”
It is concurred that ” the majority of South Africa’s voters ” do not share the values ( principles ) of advanced Western Liberalism . In fact the said majority reject” the tyranny of liberalism ” ( see James Kalb’s book ” The Tyranny of Liberalism ”
The term ” Liberalism ” refers to the “present governing consensus regarding the appropriate means and ends of government and social organization , to the abstract understandings behind the consensus, to the institutions and practices to which it gives rise, and to the liberal political and intellectual tradition that has led to all those things , at least when its history is recounted from anAmerican perpective .”
Whew Prof, what a mouthful in your posting this time, as in: “section 38 will kick in and the DA will clearly have standing to challenge the decision”.
It is the law, and only the law under our Constitution and legislation, which can save this country. Next:
“…the DA would clearly have standing, given the broad parameters of section 38 set out above.”
Not only standing legally, but morally and ethically and in the interest of society.
“Surely minority parties have a direct interest in upholding the Rule of Law…”
Obviously, is that not the role of the opposition in any Democratic government?
“What I do know is that the assertion made by President Zuma’s lawyer that he cannot be charged because he is a sitting President, has no basis in law and is obviously not tenable”
Thank Gawd!
“More interesting for me is the question of whether there is any use in spending all this money in trying to have the original decision of the NDPP set aside.”
What is the cost of true liberty? And what is our personal sacrifice?
“Simelane will be able to point to such provisions and will then be able to argue that it is not in the national interest to charge a sitting President. ”
And as an honest, sincere and uncorrupted judiciary, how would they respond to this…? And as for the non sycophantic ANC leaches, how would they feel? Well we know what their self interested self protective response would be….
In closing: there is no path to true freedom without the power of the law, all men and women equal under the scales. Me thinks Lady Justice is on her feet and rising.
corrections:
“What I do know is that the assertion made by President Zuma’s lawyer that he “…cannot be charged because he is a sitting President, has no basis in law and is obviously not tenable”
Thank Gawd!”
Correction: Thank Gawd this argument holds no water.
Then:
“…non sycophantic ANC leaches”
meaning those still with integrity in the ANC, who however, worry about their standing.
Testing Time for the courts
http://www.timeslive.co.za/local/article494400.ece/Malema-incites-people-to-rape-kill-Afrikaners–Affidavit
“Mister Julius Sello Malema in his capacity as leader of the ANCYL, through and by his illegal actions incites his followers to get support for the violent nationalisation of the farm land belonging to private Afrikaner individuals and through intimidation in the national media by cruel criminal acts of murder, rape and torture in contravention of General Assembly Resolution 1803 (XVII) of 14 December 1962 of the United Nations,” the document says.
Was Hugh Glenister wasting his money? All the people fighting the Arms Deal in the Courts?
Those are the building blocks of the Rechtstaat we are privileged to watch being laid.
What I hope to see come out of the DA’s application is a rule regarding:
1. In this Act, unless the context indicates otherwise—
(i) “administrative action” means any decision taken, or any failure to take a
decision, by—
(a) an organ of state, when—
(i) exercising a power in terms of the Constitution or a provincial
constitution; or
(ii) exercising a public power or performing a public function in terms
of any legislation; or
(b) a natural or juristic person, other than an organ of state, when exercising
a public power or performing a public function in terms of an
empowering provision,
which adversely affects the rights of any person and which has a direct,
external legal effect, but does not include—
….
(ff) a decision to institute or continue a prosecution;
Pierre writes that the DA:
“[P]rofesses to adore the Constitution (unless the abolition of the death penalty is involved …)
And there I was thinking that the DA was not in favour of the death penalty.
Thanks for clearing this up, Pierre!
THE GULLIBILITY OF A POLITICAL DILETTANT ?
Pierre De Vos says:
May 28, 2010 at 14:51 pm (Not the South of France)
“In any case I do not agree with your statement that “Bolshevik Communism” is “propounded by many leading lights in the ruling party and SACP” so I cannot really answer a question whose basic premise I think is completely misguided and wrong. The SACP, who used to support the USSR rather blindly, has had a change of heart and is far more embracing of pluralism and democracy than some of the race-nationalists in the ANC who see them as enemies. ”
So the SACP has renounced Bolshevism in the manner of an Eric Hobsbawm , has it ? ( see the following book review excerpt )
“His lack of a sense of irony, at least when it applies to himself, is illustrated by an anecdote (a very good one, for Christopher Hitchens has a good ear for an anecdote) about the way the historian Eric Hobsbawm came to leave the British Communist Party:
Running into him shortly after the fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989, I asked him if he’d retained his membership and was told “no.” What had finally precipitated the separation? “They forgot to send me the form asking me for the annual renewal of my membership,” he said with perfect gravity, “and so I decided not to write to headquarters and remind them.” Just like that, then.”
Source : http://www.firstthings.com/article/2010/05/the-brothers-grim
Correction of previous posting : Dilettante
@sirjay: “What is the cost of true liberty”?
Priceless, I should imagine. But then again, wouldn’t it be preferable for the DA to spend all that money on more water closets (fully enclosed, of course) for the pooah?
@Mikhail: “And there I was thinking that the DA was not in favour of the death penalty.”
You were thinking correctly: while some DA members like the idea, the party has taken no firm stance on the death penalty. But you know how it is with Prof: he doesn’t pass up an opportunity to take a swipe at our Official Opposition. But make no mistake – deep down inside, he’s truly, magnificently, happy that the DA is going ahead with their application.
Quote from James Selfe, chairperson of the DA’s federal executive:
“Broadly speaking, the DA’s case is not about whether Zuma is innocent or guilty of the charge. We are asking the Court to review, correct and set aside Mr. Mpshe’s decision to discontinue the prosecution. We are doing this in the interest of equality before the law, and we ask that the Court declare this decision to be inconsistent with the Constitution and invalid.
“Our responsibility to all South Africans is to ensure that the NPA conducts its business without fear or favour and with due regard for justice. This is the reason that we are taking up this matter in the High Court.”
Let the mayhem begins. The next month is going to be fun. Lots of tourists to rob, rape and maim. And it started even before the kickoff:
http://www.iol.co.za/index.php?set_id=6&click_id=4&art_id=nw20100609112537256C344995
Welcome to SA, then hands up mothaf$cka!!
Yep! The DA allows a free vote on every contentious issue that might push some voters away. Principled bunch, are they not?
Death penalty, abortion, gun control…
That is why we have to use our own money in the Courts (or, rather, rely on the generosity [and sheer principledness] of people like John Smyth and Peter Hodes and Anton Katz) to get the SAPS to pay compensation for surrendered firearms 10 years after the passing of the FCA as required in S137, why my sister is still waiting for her license renewals 5 years after handing them in [btw, when is the second round of license renewals due to start? LOLOL!], why Terrence Nombembe has not been forced to get his finger out and subject the implementation of the Billion-Rand black hole FCA to a forensic audit…
One wonders what Maggie Sotuy and Anneliese Van Wyk do in the PPC’s? Their nails? But, with notable exceptions like Dianne Kohler-Barnard (she who told the ANC to F.O. LOL!) the DA cannot exactly hold public seminars on parliamentary oversight, now can they?
Brett, I must admit that I have at times secretly thought you might be a “liberal,” viz, a typical, racist, DA supporter.
But your stern rebuke of the official opposition has earned you maximum credibility!
Thank you.
Dworky – thats me! My major failing. Considerate. Polite to a fault. I really ought to have inflicted my support of the ACDP on everyone here, much more, would you not say?
Thank you for asking though. I shall try to be more forthright about my political convictions.
One tries to be nice to the DA, no doubt many of them have the best of intentions. Sometimes, though, it is hard not to write them off in exasperation as a bunch of dumbasses, beyond me. Never before in the history of democracy has a party had more ammunition to use against the government of the day than in the last general election. Did they use it?
No doubt it is not a bad election strategy to consolidate power first in one electoral stronghold. But, so much ammunition wasted? Why? And, do the DA realise that THEY need to take the lead, show a cynical audience that THEY are the vehicle to a better life for all by showing it, first, in the province they control, to be able to sell that business plan to the rest of the country?
You’ll think we will be better off ruled by a white man, don’t you? Dont loose your cool(s) now just be honest. The DA is honest enough by having demonstrated numerously when given a chance to show a bit of transformation, they simply failed. I m on record saying WE WONT BE UNIFIED BY THE 2010 World f#*+n Cup, it elitest bloody project anyway, not to mention the biggest rip off to our country after sunset clause and our so-called “perfect” constitution. I mean how does one explain the charge laid with the ICC by some paranoid white “boer” and his little Van der Walt lawyer, while our courts are still to adjudicate on the matter? It is a clear right wing publicity stunt which need to be condemned strongly by especially legal scholars from the white community, nie so nie you (white lawyers and legal academics) are equally guilty of rediculing this country intentionally.
Before the 2004 election Tony Leon came out of the closet (not in THAT way) and said he favoured the reintroduction of the death penalty before the 2004 election. He said that if there was a vote to change the Constitution in this regard DA members would have a free vote. I am pretty sure the majority of DA MPs would support the death penalty if it ever came to a vote.
Spuy is right.
Liberal racist white lawyers are to blame for the World Cup.
They should apologise – now!
Pierre, I think you are being slightly disingenous:
1. You will recall that it was made clear at the time that Leon was speaking for himself, not the party.
2. It does not help to say that most DA MP’s would freely for the Death Penalty; the same might be said of the ANC.
Prof, off-topic, yet very relevant is this soccer business. Your thoughts on our chances on Friday? I bet you a beer we’ll win!
Clara: “What is the cost of true liberty”? Toilets? I think not.. rather it is choice.
You have probably heard the term, don’t give a man a fish, give him a fishing rod instead.
That is in fact what I refer to and what I believe the DA did with respect to this toilets nonsense, especially to those who have no idea how expensive and detailed is the delivery of 3,000 sewage outlets.
The DA had an excited agreement that instead of one enclosed toilet for every five shacks, they could supply one toilet for each shack, if they, the shack dwellers were willing to enclose them. 97% cooperated and affected the enclosures. Even that amount is amazing, knowing shack dwellers as I do.
Its political shenanigans, nothing less. I work on and have for years, a program whereby tools, seedlings, irrigation, etc is supplied (paid for by international donors no less) for food security garden development, but they the people have to do the work to grow their own vegetables. Its up to them.
The toilet issue is political, ANC negative spin, nothing less, and unfortunately weakening those who are trying to help. Rather think of human nature, or lack of decent and appreciative recipients thereof. Its exactly this type of nonsense that drives those of us who really care to eventually become apathetic. And it such a disappointment that the easily fooled fall for it…
@ Sirjay Johnson,
I agree wholeheartedly with you.
On the toilet issue – those whose toilets have been removed (and who supposedly used the toilets in the open-air) have access to enclosed communal toilets. So, it is not as if they have never had a choice and were subjected to this “inhuman” treatment that the ANCYL continue to bemoan.
In Helen Zille’s letter last week, she stated that of every R 3.00 spent on infrastructure in the Western Cape, R 2.00 of that is spent in fixing infrastructure that has been destroyed and vandalised by the very people complaining about lack of service delivery. I find that absolutely appalling, especially given that as a taxpayer, that is my money being wasted by ingrates.
I organised a R 500 000 sponsored programme to upgrade the literacy and numeracy of our local school which has had an 18% and 28% matric pass rate in the last two years. The Chairperson of the Governing Body of the school “forgot” to write a letter requesting permission from another school to make use of their computers for the programme. The other school would have received a complete upgrade and new network for their computers, but would not proceed without the letter. After repeated telephone calls and faxes requesting the letter, it was finally written 2 weeks after the final date provided by the service provider. Having already spent over R 36000 on this project, the service provider felt that there was a lack of commitment from the school community and withdrew their sponsorship.
290 learners will not get the literacy and numeracy support they so desperately need, purely due to the lack of interest from the schools involved.
How does one not feel a strong sense of frustration or apathy?
pierre,
according to the M&G, kemp j kemp argues that:
“the DA could not have any legal standing “to seek an order that a state organ must act unconstitutionally by reinstating the prosecution [against Zuma]“.”
supposedly because:
“”Mr Zuma is the head of the executive and of the armed forces … One arm of the executive cannot act in a manner that paralyses another arm of the executive,” he said”"
is this just kemp j kemp grabbing at straws, or is this particular argument sustained by some or other article in the constitution ?
Etienne marais, no Kemp J Kemp is obviously conjuring up a principle not to be found in our Constitution. In fact section 1 of the Constitution states that ours is a democracy based inter alia on the Rule of Law and a basic tenet of the Rule of Law is that the law applies equally to everyone. Kemp J Kemp is arguiontg that despite any provision in the Constitution to this effect, a sitting President is above the law for as long as he remains the sitting President. This is an extraordinary and scary argument. One wonders whether these people actually believe this or whether they are just cynically trying to trow their weight around.
What interests me is Kennedy’s submission. Looks like he is happing bubbles and should dig out his Steyn?
Hersien besluit oor Zuma se korrupsiesaak, vra DA
BEELD 2010-06-07 22:28
Jeanne-Marié Versluis
Daar was ’n verdoemende saak met kragtige afmetings teen pres. Jacob Zuma ná Schabir Shaik se skuldigbevinding. Om Zuma se vervolging te staak was ’n irrasionele en arbitrêre besluit.
So het adv. Sean Rosenberg SC, namens die DA, gister in die hooggeregshof in Pretoria betoog.
Die DA doen aansoek om die verkorte dokument te kry van die besluit om Zuma se strafregtelike vervolging af te las. Dié besluit is in April verlede jaar deur die destydse waarnemende nasionale direkteur van openbare vervolging geneem.
Die DA vra in sy hoof-hofaansoek dat dié besluit hersien word.
Rosenberg het gesê dit blyk fundamenteel “onlogies” te wees dat Zuma se vervolging deur twéé nasionale direkteure van vervolging afgelas is.
Luidens die DA-hofstukke is Zuma “se beweerde misdade van korrupsie misdade teen die publiek”. Elke Suid-Afrikaner word “geraak deur dié soort misdade”. Dus het die DA regtens gronde om die aansoek in te dien.
Rosenberg het gesê die besluit is hersienbaar onder die Wet op die Bevordering van Administratiewe Geregtigheid (Paja). Die DA sê ook Zuma is verkeerd as dié sê die president kan, kragtens Suid-Afrikaanse reg, nie strafregtelik vervolg word nie. “In Suid-Afrika word geen grondwetlike beskerming aan die president verleen teen strafregtelike vervolging nie.”
Adv. Paul Kennedy SC, namens die vervolgingsgesag, het gesê die besluit om Zuma se vervolging af te las is nie hersienbaar kragtens Paja nie omdat dit nie ’n administratiewe aksie is nie. Boonop het die DA regtens geen gronde (locus standi) om die saak te in te dien nie. As hierdie aspekte in ag geneem word, “stop die saak hier”, het hy gesê.
Adv. Kemp Kemp SC, namens Zuma, het ook gesê die DA se locus standi is vierkant in die visier. Die DA wil die dokument met bybedoelings hê, het hy bygevoeg.
Luidens Zuma se hofstukke is dit onprakties om die president te vervolg. Tronkstraf sal dit vir hom onmoontlik maak om sy grondwetlike pligte na te kom.
“Die stigma en skande tydens die verhoor sal ’n president nie net striem om sy pligte uit te voer nie, maar sal openbare en buitelandse betrekkinge plaaslik en internasionaal benadeel. Die vernedering vir dié land, veral tydens WB 2010, sal ongekend wees.”
Zuma se hofstukke lui voorts die president word nie soos enige ander litigant behandel nie, selfs nie eens in siviele hofgedinge nie. Die DA se doel is “sekere politieke gewin” deur die verkorte dokument te bekom.
Oor dié dokument lui Zuma se hofstukke: “Sy hele lewe moet nou beskikbaar word deur finansiële en ander dokumente en verklarings… en die gevolglike publikasie daarvan in die media is werklik en gewigtig.”
Die saak duur voort.
thank you for the clarification pierre
in a comment on one of your previous posts i asked the rhetorical question “who will be the champions of our consitution?”
i think it is safe to say that kemp j kemp is NOT one of them [anymore] (even though he might just be “acting under client instructions”)
his argument seems more than just a cynical attempt to throw their (his and his client’s) substantial weight around; it is either an attempt to change the de facto operation of the equality principle as it relates to the president, or perhaps he is just testing the edges of constitutional interpretation as an academical exercise ? (nah, i doubt it)
this, from an (very rare) interview with kemp j kemp
- i think it was sourced from legalbrief.co.za originally -
“Kemp believes the country’s Constitution is cast in broad principles ‘and thus has a sufficiently sound balance between elasticity and rigidity of content to remain effective’.”
and
“He believed there was always cause for concern regarding the future of a legal system, ‘for the temptation to tamper with it is always there. However, if we continue to foster merit and a spirit of independence to decide according to the law, the system will survive the tinkering necessary to keep it abreast with societal changes’.”
ok, so maybe he’s just testing the water (fat chance)
i remember, as a young boy, taking apart, “servicing” and reassembling, a perfectly working swiss wallclock…it was a beautiful and elegant piece of engineering, kept perfect time, but had a very slight whirring sound when passing the hour mark; i just had to “fix” it
post-operation, the whirring sound was gone, but it was never able to keep perfect time again
We must all condemn Mr Simelane for briefing counsel with clear white tendencies (Unterhalter S.C.), to represent him in resisting the legal challenge to his appointment.
Mpho, Maggs, et al, will you assist me in funding a mass movement to protest the RACIST briefing practices of Mr Simelane (as well as Hlophe JP, Zuma, Nthai, Selebi, Motata J and Yengeni)?
Thanks so much.
That’s not very ayoba, Dworky!
Unterhalter must be on everyone here’s handful of top trial-lawyers. On every intelligent crook’s wish-list.
I must say I resent you lumping in Mpho with a bunch around whose honesty and integrity there are huge ????!
Dear de Vos. Ever heard of Robert Scahffer’s book called Resentment against Achievement – An Assault against Ability. If not, may I suggest you get it, because it speaks directly to your crooked mindset. It’s not law or any of the other related fields you believe you are an expert on, but it may actually help you. For South Africa’s sake!
Kay, I am not sure what that book has to do with the post above. As far as I can tell its a bit of a Ayan Rand kind of rant against everybody who is not rich and successful – on the basis that they are not rich and successful because they are either lazy or stupid. This does not seem to accord with reality as I see it in SA and many other parts of the world. Prince Charles is rich and successful. As is George W Bush. They were born into success because of their class and their status and the wealth of their parents. In any case, what this has to do with the post is really beyond me.
I read some thing related to your post while browsing google news… I became interested and then started looking around, then somehow landed at this page… anyhow, I feel that I somewhat agree with what you cover here. However I am going to go check what else I can locate too.