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 ????!

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.

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

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.

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 ?

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?