News that Juliette Radebe-Khumalo, the Mayor of Lekwa Municipality in Mpumalanga, and her executive councilors were fired after meetings with an ANC delegation yesterday must come as a welcome surprise to all of us. The residents of Sakhile sure seem happy. As The Times report:
Following the announcement that Radebe-Khumalo and the entire executive committee has been axed, jubilant crowds gathered outside the city hall. Sakhile residents sang, blew vuvuzelas and popped champagne bottles in celebration. “Bye bye, Juliette Radebe-Khumalo. We have told you it has always been coming,” they sang. Residents had called for Radebe-Khumalo’s head months ago, saying a municipal finance report showed R30-million in municipal funds that could not be accounted for.
The one person who might feel aggrieved is Radebe-Khumalo. How could she have known that the disappearance of a paltry R30-million would prompt the ANC to act against her? It is not as if this is a common occurrence. If she had followed the ten year saga around the arms deal scandal – also fresh in the news (again!) – she might have been forgiven for thinking that the alleged theft of R30 million would not raise an eyebrow.
It seems to me the kind of unhappiness expressed by the Sakhile residents and by residents elsewhere in South Africa about poor service delivery resulting from nepotism and corruption can at least partly be blamed on the arms deal and the cover up of the corruption associated with the arms deal. Few have been left untainted by the arms deal scandal – including the NPA, former President Thabo Mbeki, current President Jacob Zuma, Trevor Manuel, Jeff Radebe, and Mosieu Lekota.
The arms deal and the way allegations about corruption in the arms deal was dealt with (or not dealt with), established the template later followed by many ANC politicians who thought that if Manuel, Modise, Lekota and Mbeki would not be held accountable, they also would escape any censure for nepotism and corruption. We are, after all, all innocent until proven guilty. There are many good people in the ANC, but only a few of them spoke up when it became clear that the arms deal was riddled with corruption. Many others actively supported the cover up. The question should be asked why they did not follow their conscience but remained sthum.
Back in 2001 then President Mbeki set the ball rolling when he announced that a formal legal opinion by the Attorney-General of the Western Cape, Adv Frank Kahn SC and the SIU’s own senior legal advisor, Adv Jan Lubbe SC, confirmed that no prima facie evidence of unlawful conducted existed concerning the Arms Deal. The truth was exactly the opposite as the two gentlemen had stated in their report to Mbeki:
[T]here are sufficient grounds in terms of the Special Investigating Units and Special Tribunals Act No 74 of 1996, for a special investigating unit to conduct an investigation, and, in our opinion, such an investigation is warranted.
And yesterday the DA released a damning report in which it provides further convincing evidence that the joint investigation arms deal report was doctored. Comparing a draft report with the final report, researchers demonstrate that:
- Crucial ‘Overall Conclusions’ reached by the Auditor-General are entirely omitted from the final version of the Report. Notable in this instance is the conclusion that “there were significant flaws in the selection of BAe/SAAB as the preferred bidder for the LIFT & ALFA programme”. This is omitted from the final Report. Following this page, the editor inserts a further note – that certain ‘additions’ need to be made to the overall conclusion. This includes the conclusion that “the joint investigation team found no evidence of impropriety, fraud or corruption by Cabinet [or] Government” and that “government co-operated with the investigation teams and assisted them with their endeavours”.
- Similar sizeable alterations on the Auditor-General’s findings regarding the ALFA/LIFT contracts are made later on page 57. Here, a passage reads “[t]here is an indication that the former Minister of Defence [Joe Modise] could have influenced the decisions of role players in the process”. Examples are then provided of where this is believed to have happened. This finding is entirely excluded from the final Report. Even the title of this section is earmarked for overhaul. The Auditor-General titles the section “Decisions of the Minister of Defence that could have influenced the process”, which is replaced by “The visionary approach of the former Minister of Defence”:
- Another crucial section that does not make it: the Auditor-General’s conclusion that “[d]uring the investigation is became apparent that … preference was given to BAe/SAAB”:
- A section that concludes that apparently preferential treatment given to some ALFA bidders was “not in accordance with good procurement practice” is scrapped. The editor notes that “No evidence of any preference awarded to any of the bidders during these visits were (sic) obtained”. This, of course, is not the point that the Auditor-General’s report was attempting to make. Further down, another passage concluding “fundamental non-compliance with good procurement practices” is also removed. Once more, the editor notes “No evidence” – though again this is not his/her call to make. On the page following this one, another section concluding further “noncompliance with good procurement practice” is also removed.
- All of the key conclusions drawn by the Auditor-General in one section of the report are removed. The A-G concludes that “deviations from the approval process occurred” and “good procurement practices were lacking”. These failings included “apparent attempts at exertion of influence towards certain subcontractors” and “amendment of the overall formula to determine the preferred bidder”. These crucial findings are not only omitted from the conclusions section of the chapter in the final Report dealing with submarine contracts, but in their place precisely the opposite conclusions are substituted.
- Throughout the section on submarine contracts, various other changes are made. For instance, the Auditor-General notes that because no minutes of a particular workshop were maintained, there is no evidence that the final NIP value system scores were agreed to by all members present – and that there was the possibility that some individuals may have influenced scores awarded. This is removed, and
does not appear in the final Report. - A section detailing problems experienced dealing with government officials is marked for deletion. The single sentence that appears earmarked to survive the cut is altered such that it reads “[the two attorneys] co-operated with investigating teams and assisted them ably”. Further down, another section on difficulties experienced with state attorneys is cut.
- At the end of the document the editor of the document makes notes on a copy of the Public Protector Draft Document (Part A of the JIR) under the headings “Trevor Manuel” and “President”. It appears s/he is instructed by Manuel to emphasise the fact that government cooperated with the enquiry (point 8), and that government was not reckless (point 4). The president’s concerns appear to include “country emerging” (point 1); and “Defend integrity of inv. (investigating) agencies” (point 2). This could be problematic if what was implied was that government needed to be protected. A further section headed “Lekota” follows. This is almost certainly, then, ‘feedback’ received from Mbeki, Manuel and Lekota at a meeting in October 2001.
If one reads this report, it is very difficult not to conclude that the final arms deal report was a complete white-wash and that it was fundamentally changed after interference by Mbeki, Manuel and Lekota. Maybe now that many of those involved in the white-wash are out in the political cold winds and the new Zuma administration is trying to show that it is different from the Mbeki lot, the ANC will finally lance this boil and will come clean about the obvious corruption linked to the arms deal and the blatant cover up of that corruption.
If they do that many of us ordinary citizens will see the sacking of mayor Radebe-Khumalo as only the start of a wonderful new beginning. We will praise the ANC for returning to the values it held so dearly before taking power and before some of its members were corrupted by the old business elites – to the detriment of the poor and downtrodden in whose name it fought the struggle.
Pierre, I like your opening and closing paragraphs. How will the ANC handle the inbetween?
Hi Pierre, a few enquiries regards the below:
“Back in 2001 then President Mbeki set the ball rolling when he announced that a formal legal opinion by the Attorney-General of the Western Cape, Adv Frank Kahn SC and the SIU’s own senior legal advisor, Adv Jan Lubbe SC, confirmed that no prima facie evidence of unlawful conducted existed”
- The report commences with the statement: “too early to conclude whether criminal offences will be revealed”. Can that not be construed to mean that no prima facie evidence of unlawful conducted existed (at that point)?
“If they do that many of us ordinary citizens will see the sacking of mayor Radebe-Khumalo as only the start of a wonderful new beginning”
- A new beginning where audi alteram partem and similar trifle due process niceties, such as the presumption of innocence (even if only for decency’s sake), are not considered? (What of the unilateral removal of a democratically elected local authority’s powers in favour of a centralized provincial authority, on the basis only of the accusations of “jubilant” “champaign” popping crowds?)
“And yesterday the DA released a damning report in which it provides further convincing evidence that the joint investigation arms deal report was doctored. Comparing a draft report with the final report, researchers demonstrate that.”
- By the DA’s own admission it was a “draft” report. Draft is defined in “wiktionary” as meaning inter alia “An early version of a written work” or “A preliminary sketch, rough outline”. Is it therefore inconceivable that, firstly, it would not verily accord with the “final” report and, secondly, for non-nefarious reasons (particularly since its normal practice to circulate a draft to interested parties for discussion purposes as well as for fact verification purposes)?
PS: Interesting how DA interprets “Defend integrity of inv. (investigating) agencies” as possibly implying “that government needed to be protected”, when other more obvious meanings can be gleaned (such as the need to protect investigating agencies from political interference, public scrutiny, etc). Interesting how you similarly elect to choose to interpret that data in a manner that implicates the persons mentioned in the commission of some offense (a cover up or “doctoring” of the report) when the opposite could also be inferred.
We need closure on the arms deal. How can this country move foreward without such closure, the ‘deal’ unquestionably being the most divisive of all corrupt acts, in effect since 94 its the Mother of all Corruption in SA. The lack of clarity, inferences and conflicting opinions throughout all of it are as damaging and ever present as are the facts, whatever they are. As the public making assesment, one can only rely on the proven quality of individuals making statements; were that they were more individuals of uncompromised principles. Nothing has been more divisive and destructive in todays state of affairs. It likely even produced Zuma as our president, even Malema.
Sadest of all is that the arms deal has never come before the court or at the very least a respected and trusted Commission free of taint. Too many with too much to lose, were justice to prevail; yet so much for South Africa to gain were the truth known and justice or amnesty applied.
I also recall JZ stating at some point, that should he go to trial, he knew a lot and would reveal all. I viewed that as not so subtle blackmail. Imagine?
If anything has enhanced racism in recent years and brought us to where we are today thereby burying the rainbow nation, its been the arms deal corruption producing seemingly insatiable and dishonest greed. It paints the black elite as crooked role models which principled parents would plead with their children to avoid, but which the unthinking grasp with enthusiasm, viewing thieves as celebrities.
Try taking pictures of children and young people in the townships. They always give you a big smile and prison hand signing language.
Prof, I admire your ability to keep making noise about issues that are, at best, unlikely to change. I have in mind issues like the Shabir saga etc.
The way I see it, there can never be a full blown investigation into the arms deal, primarily for one reason and one reason only: The ANC, as the organisation, benefitted immensely from the deal – not even talking about the individual members of the ANC. On Prof Jansen’s logic, let’s forgive those who enriched themselves and move on, in the spirit of reconciliation. Afterall, it appears not to be a requirement for the wrongdoers to come out publicly and apologise for their actions.
What also concerns me today is the resignation of Joel Netshitenzhe and what this means and portends for South Africa. There were many radiating spokes stroking this decision.
@sirjay jonson,
“I also recall JZ stating at some point, that should he go to trial, he knew a lot and would reveal all. I viewed that as not so subtle blackmail.”
Do not forget that such ‘blackmail’, as you refer to it, did not achieve anything. Some intelligence tapes are what, in the end, ensured JZ’s has no charges against him. So I would infer that either he had nothing or a bluff was called by his so called ‘accusers’ – which he did not have the gut to see through and chose the national security route. If it was indeed a bluff on his side, what or who was he protecting by using national security tapes to break free? I doubt it was persons mentioned in Pierre blog. Of course, he could also have been protecting himself.
Mzo: well said, I got it. However, when standing before a judge at sentencing, U Edele, does he/she not consider, there is remorse from he/she before him/her.
For reconciliation there must be remorse from all of us, including the ANC who corrupted themselves and this country. Without remorse which must flow from shame and a sense of skande, would there be a change or just an allowance to continue as they have.
Folks find apology difficult. That shouldn’t prevent feeling shame and expressing remorse. If the ANC could do this, feel shame and publicly express remorse perhaps they would become honest and principled, promoting honesty, integrity, truthfulness, and obvious pride in serving their country.
These words best describes what needs to be felt and expressed: Ek es jammer. I am sorry!
Kader Asmal, last night on E News, was adamant that the was no corruption around the arms deal involving government or any of the cabinet except maybe some “dead minister” – at least that is what I think I heard him say.
Eish!
khosi says:
October 22, 2009 at 19:28 pm
“Do not forget that such ‘blackmail’, as you refer to it, did not achieve anything”.
I respectfully disagree. It achieved everything which followed.
I will be the first to admit what I’m saying is to a large degree speculation, but here it is, for what its worth:
The reason given by the NDPP for not prosecuting JZ, namely the intelligence tapes, is so feeble that I cannot believe that was the real reason. Mokothedi Mpshe even used a case overturned on appeal as motivation. I think there was another reason that the DPP did not want to reveal.
I do not believe that the mayor of Lekwa Municipality was just removed “on the basis only of the accusations of ‘jubilant” “champaign’ popping crowds”. The decision only after Fikile Mbalula, Julius Malema and David Mabuza met the leadership of the ANC in Standerton. Some democratically elected leaders apparently thought that their election as public office bearers did not include certain responsibilities. Where the elected office bearers do not do their jobs, the Central Government has duty to intervene. For perhaps the first time, I do not see Julius Malema as a clown.
Chris: Just maybe we’re growing through all this drama. One can only hope, and pray.
I understaned Malema had a rigorous grilling of RSG this morning. Interesting.
If we just “move on” from the arms deal, without Sirjay’s remorse and shame, then we are doomed to continue doing this in future.
The Arms Deal was small fry in relation to the Eskom expenditures to come. Already the early Hitachi deals look tainted. How much political jostling and jockeying is motivated by a desire to be positioned to benefit for this?
Chris, if the stated reason for a decision is not rationally connected to the decision, then that is not the real reason (duh). As has ben discussed a few times, the NDPP is not allowed by law to take a decision for reasons other than those allowed by law, and those expressed. This would amount to acting either in “fear” or “favour”. His power to make decisions exists only by virtue of his position, and does not vest in his person. As Prof pdv has so eloquently shared with us, any motivation arising from outside of the confines of his duties is not lawful.
I feel that the PAJA aspect of the DA case is a little tenuous, but the inherent unlawfulness on the part of someone whose position is clearly outlined int he Constitution must be a violation of the Constitution.
Zuma: the new broom that sweeps clean!
No to Jansenist racism!
Motata was framed for transformative zeal!
And yet I am expected to give praise to my “leaders”!
http://www.timeslive.co.za/news/article163096.ece
Sorry for the diversion from the topic at hand…
It’s not even about the arms deal per se. It’s about corruption generally. When convicted fraudsters are carried on high to prison and protected by those in power (nothing to shaik a stick at after all) it creates an overall ethos of condonation in respect of such conduct. What did the ANC leadership expect? Did they think that they could fill their pockets and that the lower echelons would not see this and follow suit? But the truth is that ordinary people who suffer daily under the weight of corruption, incompetence and inertia are totally gatvol. Can you blame them? Apologising to the electorate isn’t going to change a damn thing. Sad to say, I also don’t believe the current government has any way of changing things either. They don’t have enough genuinely committed, competent and honest people to deploy (and they *do* have such people but not nearly enough) and now the fiscsus doesn’t have the money either. The whole system has broken from top to bottom by the ANC goverment. Almost everything they have touched has turned to broken. Whether you are talking education, healthcare, policing, defense or broadcasting. These are the wages of political nepotism and race issues being put ahead of issues of competence, commitment, honesty and delivery. This thing is going to get a whole worse before it gets better. And it’s going come with a heavy price for all of us.
I must state that Prof Asmal is perfectly entitled to express his views on any matters affecting our society. He had fought for this freedoms. In the ANC, were not averse to unremmiting polemical discourse, however it must go on attaking personalities.
Both Mbalula and Asmal do not deserve to attack one another in the manner that occured. We must focus our energy on strategic sunstantive elements of the debate such as openness and transparency in conducting the business of parliament.
I do not think the Veterans were correct on attaking Asmal as they did. Invariably, he never had any reason to attack Mbalula personally. He propably had historical unresolved disatisfactions with him. He must just articulate that politely. We will the frankly and openly contest his ideas. The kernel of democracy is unfettered meaningful engagement.
We need a strong and dynamic police force which can outmarch the criminals that are gaining confidence in our communities. Crime knows no ideology or social clall.
We must conttribute our diverse ideas on how best to combat the spectre of pervasive criminality. It is a valuable input that the designation of the police should not require amentment of the constitution. It is food for thought.
As for the arms deal, I will exercise self-restraint as this matters are subject to consideration in institution of which I am part. I would like professor and other legal experts to advise me free of charge.
Is a draft report susceptible to any alteration? in what circumstances should such changes, if any, be effected.
What crime has been committed when the alteration is unjustified, is it not defeating the ends of justice? Which branch or institution must be seized with the matter?
What remedy does the complainants seek ?
My article is riddled with typographical mistakes!
Anyone here that states things like the Arms Deal is “small fry” and we should move on is clearly just as arrogant as Prof. Jansen’s assertion for reconciliation.
The cost of life and reputation of not only players directly involved but also collateral damage caused in anticipation of the “trough-gorging” and well after must not be underestimated. This callousness is shocking and it seems to be conjured by so-called liberals and “constitutional values” proponents.
The amount of people who sacrificed their livelihoods due to them allowing their conscience to dictate their conduct must not be shoved aside. To down-play their role in all this would be presumptuous and denying them the opportunity of future acknowledgment of their noble deeds. We speak of persons such as Kriegler as living saints when he hasn’t done a iota of dedicated service before and even after we attained democracy. I will not be as bashful as the “Veterans” who called on Professor Extraordinary Kadar Asmal to go to the nearest cemetery, but certainly hope he goes down in the annual of our history as someone who merely had a South African ID number.
“There is no cloud…”
Peter says:
October 23, 2009 at 9:55 am
Are you quoting something from the “MATRIX”?
About the “draft report”. The various agencies (AG, NPA, PP) investigated aspects of the arms deal and came to conclusions about it. AFTER the completion of the INVESTIGATION a DRAFT REPORT was prepared. This report was shown to members of the executive. After this fundamental changes were made to the report to sften it. These changes were not made after further investigation but after interaction between the executive and the investigating team. The irresistable inference is therefore that the report was fundamentally altered not because new evidence came to light during investigations, but because the executive was unhappy with the report and insisted on the changes. Legally it is unclear whether the report should have been shown to the executive. It could be argued that the independence of these bodies guaranteed by the Constitution and the constitutional prohibition on interference with these bodies were breached. The AG saw it differently. I happen to think he was wrong.
But as a practical and political matter it is clear that there was interference of the exective in the report, that it was drastically watered down after such interference without any further investigation having taken place. One calls this a white wash and a cover up. It was also potentially illegal as the NPA Act makes it a criminal offense to interfere with the work of the NPA.
Pierre De Vos says:
October 23, 2009 at 10:45 am
“fundamental changes were made to the report to sften it”. The foregoing is merely a supposition and not a statement of fact. The only fact is that you have not seen nor reviewed the changes that were effected and therefore have no way of knowing whether they were “fundamental” or even “were made to ….sften it”. Your “irresistable inference” is accordingly more (or less) a statement of belief and hardly a product of logical deliberation based on fact.
Vuyo, on the contrary, the belief is all yours. Its not very difficult, really: one compares the draft to the final version. Then one notes the substantial changes – all softening the original findings made after the investigation. Then one uses logic to conclude as a matter of fact that the report was doctored. The only way you can contradict my logic is if you make an argument that the chages we all know were made (there is no factual dispute about this) were of no significance. If one reads the DA report that would be rather hard to do but maybe you want to give it a try?
Harold – that was Zuma’s response to the question of whether the dropping of charges against him would forever leave a dark cloud of corruption hanging over his head. However, his response fits quite nicely into the blue pill alternative reality depicted in the Matrix – a reality where obviously corrupt leaders fearlessly tackle the problem of corruption without disappearing up their own poepalls.
Harold Ferwood says:
October 23, 2009 at 9:48 am
Anyone here that states things like the Arms Deal is “small fry” and we should move on is clearly just as arrogant as Prof. Jansen’s assertion for reconciliation.
———————————————————————————————————-
Any idea who the enemy or potential enemy were or are?
(Maybe the Eskom guys need to be nuked!)
Is there evidence you could share with as the prove that the Executive insisted on the changes?
I have worked for over seven years in the Public Service and intercoursed with the AG during the preparation of their reports. It is standard procedure that upon producing a draft report or so called preliminary findings, the affected parties are approached to rebut or confirm the preliminary findings.
Without expressing any specific view, would your irresistible inference be the only inference that could be drawn?
Is there any sort of evidence beyond the exclusion or additions in the final report to suggest impropriety on the part of the authors?
Pierre De Vos says:
October 23, 2009 at 11:35 am
“If one reads the DA report that would be rather hard to do but maybe you want to give it a try?”
Precisely the problem. As I stated earlier: you have not seen nor reviewed the changes that were effected and therefore have no way of knowing whether they were “fundamental” or even “were made to ….sften it”. You have rather chosen to rely on one source, the DA, as though their assertions are gospel truth. This can only lead to one of three conclusions, firstly, blind prejudice against the parties mentioned in your posting, two, absolute faith in all DA communiqués and, thirdly, old fashioned laziness to find both the draft and final report and to dispassionately compare them. Lastly, I believe (based on a perusal of both documents) that the changes were of no MATERIAL significance and therefore contradict your “logic”.
ISHMAEL MALALE says October 23, 2009 at 13:01 pm:
Thank you for your post, the contents of which I agree with. Perhaps PdV is either not aware of the standard practice of the AG (and the audit profession or even the NPA) when preparing reports or is simply being malicious and/or facetious in coming to his “irresistible inference”.
It has been stated before and perhaps the time is opportune to restate an incontrovertible request:
“If people have information that there was a criminal wrongdoing, bribes and corruption must report to the police,”
Why are people blogging and not doing that?
khosi says:
October 23, 2009 at 13:52 pm
Harold Ferwood says:
October 23, 2009 at 9:48 am
“the cost of life and reputation of not only players directly involved but also collateral damage caused in anticipation of the “trough-gorging” and well after …”
Go ahead and see what happens ….
Harold Ferwood says:
October 23, 2009 at 14:05 pm
I think you totally misunderstood my question.
Possibly … but I still will reiterate that one cannot protect those who are even willing do do what you propose, and those who ” have information that there was a criminal wrongdoing, bribes and corruption must report to the police” are so so aware of that fact.
khosi says:
October 23, 2009 at 13:52 pm
It has been stated before and perhaps the time is opportune to restate an incontrovertible request:
“If people have information that there was a criminal wrongdoing, bribes and corruption must report to the police,”
———————————————————————————————————-
If I recall correctly, Patricia de Lille did.
It ended up in file 13!
PdV writes: “It seems to me the kind of unhappiness expressed by the Sakhile residents and by residents elsewhere in South Africa about poor service delivery resulting from nepotism and corruption can at least partly be blamed on the arms deal and the cover up of the corruption associated with the arms deal.”
Now, and I suggest this respectfully, set aside for a moment all personal opinion and imagine, just imagine and possibly contemplate. “What if the arms deal hadn’t happened? Where would we be today?”
It will never leave us until its resolved.
And who is responsible ultimately for the arms deal? Without any doubt in my mind, it is the international community who proffered the bribes. They, the Germans, the British, the Swedes, those dealing in arms, they are responsible.
It has been well documented for far too many decades to make excuses, what arms deal corruption produces in a country, not to mention the deaths and misery produced; they know and they knew what devastation bribery in arms deals brings to countries. This isn’t a new gig on their part after all, its well established.
I would suggest a response by our questionable government participants, that they lay a suit against these companies for making the offer they couldn’t refuse, begging innocence, insisting they viewed these bribes as commisions, which is afterall how said bribes were described to them.
It was exploitation at its cruelist. It is those who offered the accepted bribes who are the true criminals. In our case, as in many of these cases where new governments are installed, their action was typically much like a paedophile offering a child candy. An international suit should be brought to bear.
File it at the UN.
khosi says:
October 23, 2009 at 13:52 pm
Why are people blogging and not doing that?
———————————————————————————————————
With the state agencies that are supposed to be defending our democracy, spying on citizenry, turning high profile criminal proceedings on its butt and acting in ways hardly likely to have been envisaged by our constitution, it’s more than likely that people no longer feel safe.
I don’t.
http://hades.mg.co.za/article/2009-10-23-jackie-selebis-big-gamble
And it seems almost that the rand is printed in bulk in some Chinese factory.
http://hades.mg.co.za/article/2009-10-22-billions-unaccounted-for-in-gauteng
Sirjay is right.
South Africans cannot be blamed for the arms deal.
A young democracy, we are impulsive and eager to please.
Foreigners should be that in mind, and take the consequences if they sow temptation in our path.
Maggs: Billions!!! I’m going to repeat here for those who might have missed my related comments in the past.
For R300k the organization I voluntarily worked with until recently produced a Victim Trauma Room, now in operation for 4.5 years, a school now continuing for nearly three years in December, a garden program with over 200 house gardens for five years, a self sustainable market garden producing seedlings for numerous charity and community agricultural programs and additionally numerous other projects and programs, too many to mention.
This is what corruption’s ramifications are all about, when funds are not utilized to service the people and their needs, needs which are desperate. Properly utilized, taxpayer’s funds and globally donated funds (of which there is much in SA) if placed with care and oversight, can produce miracles, amazing results and real benefits for the people.
Meanwhile we have the wabenzi crowd. Is it any wonder we are frustrated?
sirjay jonson says:
October 23, 2009 at 18:35 pm
“And who is responsible ultimately for the arms deal?”
I know it’s not what you intended but the answer to that is ultimately the people of South Africa.
Add to that the billions to SAA.
Add to that the billions to Eskom.
Add to that ….
Eish – never mind.
And where is the proceeds from the sale of state assets like Telkom, Iscor and the like?
And I know these costs are correct, as I was treasurer.
Really, think about it. These international companies, the arms dealers in particlar, they know their part, they know how to succeed and they don’t care a hoot, souless some spiritual giants would say. Think bantu education, think apartheid, think new boys and girls in town, all the temptations, all the anger and expectation, all the “I didn’t join ANC to be poor’.
Easy mark, and these companies walked all over them.
sirjay jonson says:
October 23, 2009 at 20:32 pm
It’s not that easy to point fingers elsewhere.
Many of our leaders who made or were party to making the decision were schooled in some of the world’s best institutions.
And these have proved to be among the finest negotiators in the world – bear in mind that South Africa was a negotiated settlement and the peace in ireland was negotiated largely by a South African team.
We’re not dealing with rank amateurs by an stretch of the imagination.
@ Magg
“The peace in ireland was negotiated largely by a South African team.”
Not only that.
Were it not for South African diplomacy, the DRC would still be at war.
I respectfully disagreed Maggs: And my opinion is not racist. SA was under sanctions for years, there is no way a bantu educated new government coming into power in SA cold be anything other than easy pickings. Anyway, that’s my view.
Yes, actually on an international level, even those leaders educated in Europe, you were rank amateaurs and ripe for exploitation. Nothing to lose sleep over, just reality.
I am quite serious when I say that South Africa should consider a suit before the UN for our exploitation by the international arms dealers and the damage their criminal actions have produced in this most wonderful and promising of countries.
Far better and more mature for South Africa than to threaten world war over a sports issue.
I would suggest damages of $100 billion for the devastation that the arms deal has created here. And by the way, I think the international community would welcome such a suit. There’s much unhappiness about the arms dealers world wide.
Now I’ve said enough. Goeie Naand.
Mikhail Dworkin Fassbinder says:
October 23, 2009 at 21:50 pm
Hey Dworky.
The notion that South African politicians are ignorant, rank amateurs is without foundation.
South Africa in general and the ANC in particular has extremely formidable skills.
The Arms Deal was a bad (even horrid) decision (as was 40 casino licences and a host of other nasty actions).
Denying that on the back of the tremendous gains that we have made post 1994 is disingenuous at best.
_It’s instructive to extract the Prof’s inference and Vuyo’s attempted
rebuttal — from the twiittering noise of other writers
The Prof alledges that since the update from the draft report to
the final report ‘moved the implication from guilt to innocence’
one can infer a biased transformation from draft to final report.
Vuyo accuses PdV of never having read the report personally; which I couldn’t
see from the text was the case or not, but is irrelevant, because this is NOT
a trial it’s just a thought experiment in exercising reasoning. Ie. I think I
read that PdV read that DA read the reports?! And the reasoning logic
is carried over in each stage. So 2 zops plus 2 zops are ‘logically’ 4 zopss,
even if there are no zops in reality. So, Vuyo’s argument should be
restricted to the logic and inpependant of the facts/concrete-reality.
Besides PdV wrote that were not in dispute.
OTOH ISHMAEL MALALE says:
] It is standard procedure that upon producing a draft report, the
] affected parties are approached to rebut or confirm the preliminary
] findings.
So then, THAT step could move the report ‘away from guilt’.
It’s like an answering affidavit. No step in the procedure can move
the accused closer to ‘guilty’ than the submitted facts and logic of the
accuser. All the elements pointing towards guilt must be FIRST collected
by the accuser; and later steps can only reduce the argument towards
guilt. Or am I wrong?
Sne says:
October 23, 2009 at 8:24 am
“Sorry for the diversion from the topic at hand…”
—————————————————————————————————–
Dr Mamphela Ramphele in a thought provoking piece (http://www.timeslive.co.za/sundaytimes/article164689.ece) says :
“The culture of impunity with respect to the abuse of power and public resources in our public institutions has reached alarming levels. Even parliament is not immune.”
“Our nation is confronted by crime and corruption, failing education and health systems, growing poverty and inequality. Poor people bear the brunt of the insecurity that flows from this state of affairs. Substantive equality and equitable access to our nation’s resources are not yet a reality for most citizens.
We have this on the for example http://www.timeslive.co.za/sundaytimes/article165042.ece
And, from what I hear, there’s a whole lot more to come.
Then we have Joel Netshitenzhe, the departing government policy chief, explaining it away thus
“On the lure of corruption, he said the ANC was having difficulty finding cadres who would resist this, despite the fact that the party had spoken against corrupt practices at national conferences and had even resolved to give birth to a ‘new person’ – the cadre whose only interest was to serve the people.
“The difficulties faced by the ANC stemmed from the fact that the party was being used by its members to escape poverty. ”
http://www.timeslive.co.za/sundaytimes/article165052.ece
Eish.
I remain unconvinced that the ANC does not have sufficient corps of disciplined and skilled cadres within its ranks who can be deployed to reverse this tsunami of corruption and raiding of the state coffers.
The ANC can and must do better.
Maggs wrote: “Denying that on the back of the tremendous gains that we have made post 1994 is disingenuous at best.”
According to The Economist’s Human Development Index published earlier this month, South Africans are worse off now than they were in 1990. One may therefore be forgiven for asking “What tremendous gains?”
Maggs Naidu says:
October 25, 2009 at 14:09 pm
Thanks for your post Maggs. It seems like we all know what is wrong with our society. What is lacking now is a person who will be brave enough to pull the bull by its horns. Instead of having such (a) person)s), we have people who are hell-bent on covering up.
However, as long as we have people like you Maggs, I will not despair…
Sne says:
October 26, 2009 at 12:10 pm
How on Earth do we reconcile the following?
“Nzimande took a swipe at public hospital managers, saying their corruption should be exposed.
“He said that his party would act against hospital managers who “collude” to steal public money.
“‘The capitalists who run these hospitals … don’t care if we get better or not. Their immorality is that, the more people get sick, the happier they become’”.
http://www.timeslive.co.za/news/article166136.ece.
With :
“The ANC on Thursday welcomed the decision by the National Prosecuting Authority to withdraw charges against its provincial treasurer and speaker of the KwaZulu-Natal legislature, Peggy Nkonyeni”.
http://www.news24.com/Content/SouthAfrica/News/1059/ac7821577fc04b03adbd31f1a31ca890/14-08-2009%2008-19/ANC_welcomes_Nkonyeni_decision
Maggs Naidu says:
October 25, 2009 at 14:09 pm
“The ANC can and must do better.”
……………………………………………….
You said it Maggs… I need not say more…
Sne says:
October 26, 2009 at 16:51 pm
I need not say more…
—————————————————————————————————-
“In these circumstances it’s crucial that MECs adopt a hands-on approach… and assume direct political responsibility for financial management in their respective departments,” Cachalia said.
http://www.iol.co.za/index.php?set_id=1&click_id=13&art_id=nw20091027110602315C349985
LOL at Cachalia.
It seems that what’s been happening in the last ten years, many were hands on the money.
LOL Maggs. Very true indeed…
“Controversial departing public protector Lawrence Mushwana has received a golden handshake of nearly R7-million, raising a storm about his entitlement to it.
“He is also suspected of taking punitive action against the chief executive of the public protector’s office, Themba Mthethwa, for questioning the payout.
“Mushwana suspended Mthethwa and the contested R6.8-million payout was deposited into Mushwana’s account 48 hours later”.
http://constitutionallyspeaking.co.za/arms-deal-chickens-coming-home-to-roost/
“Sweet deal for minister’s pal
“An old ally of cabinet minister S’bu Ndebele was awarded millions of rands’ worth of contracts by the KwaZulu-Natal Department of Transport – which Ndebele headed at the time.
“A damning report, which has never been made public – commissioned by minister of transport Ndebele when he was MEC – was compiled by the Public Service Commission (PSC) in 2005.
“But, despite recommendations that a forensic probe be conducted, nothing was done”.
http://www.timeslive.co.za/sundaytimes/article174677.ece
And some more
“The embattled KwaZulu-Natal Department of Agriculture will not be able to recover some of the R80-million unaccounted for, because essential supporting documents have gone missing”.
http://www.iol.co.za/index.php?set_id=1&click_id=13&art_id=vn20091102102320358C710134
Sne says:
October 27, 2009 at 13:03 pm
“LOL Maggs. Very true indeed…”
I am almost convinced that we bought a lot of high speed money printing machines.
http://www.sowetan.co.za/News/Article.aspx?id=1087407
When is it going to get under control?
@ Maggs
We need to take comfort in the fact that all of this is coming out of the closet in this Zuma governancy. Let us hope there is indeed an honest purging of corrupt people and not a political ploy to paint a picture which is intended to vilify Mbeki and his erstwhile government.
Furthermore, let us hope that steps will be taken against the people involved.
Sne says:
November 12, 2009 at 8:27 am
@ Maggs
We need to take comfort in the fact that all of this is coming out of the closet in this Zuma governancy. Let us hope there is indeed an honest purging of corrupt people and not a political ploy to paint a picture which is intended to vilify Mbeki and his erstwhile government.
———————————————————————————————————–
Indeed.
Yeah – while Mbeki was not my favourite person and as much as I would like Mbeki bashing, the picture is really messy.
I would really like to see this administration have the balls and do something that about this.
So far we have seen a lot of talk with a sprinkling of action – that’s getting really frustrating!
We need Robocop!
Sne says:
November 12, 2009 at 8:27 am
@ Maggs
We need to take comfort in the fact that all of this is coming out of the closet in this Zuma governancy. Let us hope there is indeed an honest purging of corrupt people and not a political ploy to paint a picture which is intended to vilify Mbeki and his erstwhile government.
———————————————————————————————————-
Hey Sne,
read this
http://www.timeslive.co.za/news/article199177.ece
“Prisons corruption shocks politicians
“‘Some of the statements you made or findings are horrific,’ committee chairman Vincent Smith said after a briefing by Special Investigations Unit head Willie Hofmeyr on corruption in the department yesterday.”
I dunno what parliament thought would be the result of a damaged Scopa or appointing Themba Godi as chairperson.
But being “shocked” that there is serious corruption makes me wonder which planet these okes are living in.
@ Maggs
WOW! The criminals are getting bolder and bolder and the scandals are getting bigger and bigger.
Yet I am required to pay tribute to them as they are “my leaders”. Hell no!
Sne says:
November 18, 2009 at 10:01 am
Let’s hope former Minister Balfour gets to explain his role and the “sacking” of Peterson now that the truth behind this is coming out.
I dunno if the ANC is has sufficient courage though, to do what is right.
I wish it has – I need to find comfort enough to justify my continued support for it!
@ Maggs
“… I need to find comfort enough to justify my continued support for it!”
Same as your reason for supporting democracy; ANC may not be the best party in South Africa but it is the best amongst its alternatives. Until such time as a party which will be and appear to be, better than the ANC, then people will start to vote for that party.
@ Maggs: 08:33 am
The corruption stories which have mushroomed since the advent of the ANC governance in our country remind of the following quote;
“Moral principle is a looser bond than pecuniary interest.” — Abraham Lincoln (1809-1865)
Once again, I guess we have to be glad that at least these stories do surface and the perpetrators can be named and shamed even though they are hardly ever brought to book. It is amazing how many laws the ordinary citizen is obliged to abide by and actually does, as opposed to the select few elites most of whom are involved in the law-making process or can influence same but never abide thereby.
It makes one to wonder whether the idea of mutual equality is after all not just a good idea which will never materialise. It makes one to wonder, how deep is our belief in our mutual equality?
@ Sne
“ANC may not be the best party in South Africa but it is the best amongst its alternatives.”
Sne, why exactly do you say the ANC is the best amongst the alternatives?
It cannot be by virtue of your policy preferences. (In substance, the platforms of the ANC, COPE, DA, ID and UDM differ little.) And it cannot be because many opposition party leaders are arrogant, incompetent clowns. (This is true; but the ANC itself has more than its fair share of party clowns.)
No, I suspect that even independently-minded people would not vote for any opposition party is because they are all seen as no-hopers. A vote for any party but the ANC is a wasted vote, so goes the thinking.
But that kind of thinking generates an insidious circularity that will leave the ANC secure in power forever: “I will not vote for X party because I know that not enough other people will ever vote for X party.”
Doesn’t someone have to break the cycle?
P.S. I should add that I realize that most South Africans would never consider voting DA, irrespective of its policies, simply because it is white-led. But that is a different debate.)
@ Michael Osborne
Lets make it easier shall we;
Michael, why exactly do you think the ANC is NOT the best amongst its alternatives?
Sne, I did not say that the ANC is not the best amongst the alternatives. I was merely contesting your assurance that it WAS the best.
I am quite agnostic between the parties as they now stand.
But where there is a rough equivalence, and no strong ideological appeal one way of another, a good tie-breaking principle is usually to vote for the opposition.
I propose that based upon the philosophy that it is healthy for the institutions of democracy either that:
(a) power actually change hands every few years; or
(b) at least the majority party know that there is SOME prospect that it will lose its hold on power in the next election.
I think that a lot of the flaws we see in the government now stem precisely from the complacency generated by the fact that there is no prospect that the ANC will lose its hold on power.
I emphasise that this is not a genetic trait of the ANC in particular; ANY political party anywhere in the world will become corrupt, incompetent and contemptuous of voters if it believes that it has a lock on power for the foreseeable future.
So, Michael–you think that politicians will only refrain from enriching themselves at the public expense if there is a likelihood that they will be caught and prosecuted by a successor administration/political party?
So your theory of justice depends on the probability of being caught and prosecuted–ie, punishment is essential for compliance?
@ PM
No, that was not my primary point — although the threat of future prosecution under a new govt may indeed be important.
I had in mind rather that genuine political competition is healthy, and that permanent incumbancy breeds complacency.
Sne says:
November 18, 2009 at 12:39 pm
@ Maggs: 08:33 am
The corruption stories which have mushroomed since the advent of the ANC governance in our country remind of the following quote;
“Moral principle is a looser bond than pecuniary interest.” — Abraham Lincoln (1809-1865)
Once again, I guess we have to be glad that at least these stories do surface and the perpetrators can be named and shamed even though they are hardly ever brought to book.
——————————————————————————————————-
I am mildly pleased that these criminals are being exposed and I understand that this is much bigger than we thought – I understand that the “tsumani” is on it’s way.
Be that as it may, I am dismayed at the rate of action – we keep hearing about the investigation process (which it seems is likely to take forever and a day).
Maybe Hofmeyer and the Hawks need some steriods.
It will be wonderful if we can start to see some serious action and some of these swines thrown in jail in the near future.
Michael Osborne says:
November 18, 2009 at 13:06 pm
“Sne, why exactly do you say the ANC is the best amongst the alternatives?”
I would say that it is the only party that connects with the people, while other parties expect people to connect with them – it develops its policies and strategies from the ground up.
The best that the DA, for example, could come up with in two successive elections was “Fight Back” and “Stop Zuma” – who in their sane mind would take them seriously if that is at the centre of what they stand for. Sarah Palin almost did better with her “Palling around with Terrorists” and “I can see Russian from my veranda”.
The challenge that the ANC has, and must address soon, is that it has been infiltrated, even been usurped by in some cases, some seriously criminally minded thugs. Hunger in many instances has turned to greed – that has to be turned around.
All that notwithstanding the ANC is truly a party of the people – if the criminals go, it will be creating a better life for all.
I am just not seeing the political will to get rid of the criminals with the haste that is required.
@ Maggs
“I would say that [the ANC] is the only party that connects with the people, while other parties expect people to connect with them – it develops its policies and strategies from the ground up.”
Maggs, what part of the ANC’s policies have been developed “from the ground up”? AIDS denialism and Mugabe-cuddling? (Under Mbeki.) Privatisation? Voting against human rights in Burma at the UN? Massive movements from one province to another, without consultation (Matatiele). The arms-deal? Pro-corporate macro-economics? Crony capitalism under the guise of BEE?
But please note I am not saying the UDM or COPE would have done any better. They too would have, more or less adequately, represented the post colonial elite in South Africa.
I just think it is naive to think the ANC will do any better than many other parties. And all other things being equal, some form of inter-party competition is good.
Michael Osborne realistically evaluates that: “the UDM or COPE would have NOT
done any better..& ANC will NOT do any better than many other parties & some
form of inter-party competition is good.” ———-
Yes, that’s how it is and must be in Sub-saharan-africa, because it’s evolved
into the genes. And Zanzi is transforming, from it’s un-natural/unstable post
colonial condition to a stable [in the sense that when the milk is spilled on
the table, it's not at "rest" until it's run down the leg on to the floor - the
indesputable force of gravity "wants" it to be on the floor] Congo-like
naturalness, via the Zim.-> Zambia -> Zaire steps.
Michael Osborne says:
November 19, 2009 at 0:40 am
“Maggs, what part of the ANC’s policies have been developed “from the ground up”? AIDS denialism and Mugabe-cuddling? (Under Mbeki.) Privatisation? Voting against human rights in Burma at the UN? Massive movements from one province to another, without consultation (Matatiele). The arms-deal? Pro-corporate macro-economics? Crony capitalism under the guise of BEE?”
None of the above!
Michael Osborne says:
November 19, 2009 at 0:40 am
I agree with “(a)nd all other things being equal, some form of inter-party competition is good” entirely.
But as we all know, there is no competition to the ANC – partly for the reasons that I stated above and a whole lot more, partly because the opposition are a useless lot (in terms of winning elections on the scale required that is).
“I just think it is naive to think the ANC will do any better than many other parties” – as a thought which party do you think has sufficient people to govern our country?
Which party other than the ANC is able to connect with people across the country?
I think it was Oscar Wilde who famously said at dinner party to a woman who called him a drunk “Madam, I am drunk and you are ugly. In the morning I will be sober”.
I think the woes of the ANC is from being “drunk” from which it can recover.
The others – eish!
@ Maggs
“But as we all know, there is no competition to the ANC – partly for the reasons that I stated above and a whole lot more, partly because the opposition are a useless lot (in terms of winning elections on the scale required that is).”
Maggs, this is the self-confirming circularity I referred to earlier:
Why do you not vote for party X?: “Because they are a bunch of losers.”
Why do you say they are a bunch of losers?: “Because no one votes for them.”
[Continue ad infinitum ...]
Maggs is right.
Who is their sane mind would vote for a party with a slogan like “Stop Zuma?”
I would be the last to claim that the ANC is perfect.
But I would personally be more prone to support a party with a simple but highly attainable slogan like “Jobs for All.”
One good reason for the ANC is that, for better or worse, it is the only party with a degree of legitimacy. In a fractured and diverse country like SA with vast discrepancies in wealth and lots of frustration on the part of poor and marginalised communities, the ANC is the only party that can keep the show on the road and provide the relative stability required for upper middle class people to make money and relax around their swimming pools. All those white people voting for the DA should really be voting for the ANC while poor people who want a revolution should vote for the DA!
Pierre, yes, you identify a crucial paradox: the ANC has been, and remains, the bulwark of white economic security in post-apartheid security.
It is the great irony of South African politics that neither ANC-hating whites, nor white-hating ANC people, can ever quite get their silly heads around this.
But is it wise for prosperous whites (and nouveau-riche blacks), to rely upon the ANC in the long term? Perhaps the long-suffering masses will some day wake up to the ruse, then rise up and smash both the ANC government and its wealthy beneficiaries, unleashing an orgy of genuine redistribution.
But I suspect that the revolt, while momentarily traumatic to the ruling classes, will quickly be hijacked by a new generation of faux populists, and sold out yet again. And so the cycle will continue.
[P.S. Maggs, how are you today?]
“post-apartheid security” = “post-apartheid society”
Michael Osborne says:
November 19, 2009 at 9:17 am
I don’t agree with the circularity proposition.
Political activism is a lot more than fixing one faulty tap during the national elections or “defending the constitution”.
Voters are far more astute than they are given credit for.
Michael Osborne says:
November 19, 2009 at 12:05 pm
Hey Michael – what’s the alternative to the ANC in your view?
p.s. I am fine thank you.
p.p.s Dworky has the condoms
Mikhail Dworkin Fassbinder says:
November 19, 2009 at 9:25 am
But I would personally be more prone to support a party with a simple but highly attainable slogan like “Jobs for All.”
———————————————————————————————————-
C’mon Dworky you can do better than that.
Something like “One settler, one condom” that will get rid of settlers within a generation or two.
Some grouping tried “A chicken in every pot, a car in every driveway” some years ago as part of the campaign to get “better housing”, that rather optimistic campaign fizzled out – maybe they should have asked for cement based concrete and mortar.
Seems like you think that “Jobs for pals” is not a great slogan.
What about “Unlimited mileage” or “Don’t be fooled, there is such a thing as a free lunch”?
@ Maggs
“Voters are far more astute than they are given credit for.”
Maggs is so right.
That is why voters will continue no doubt to vote for a party for whom Cmd Malema is the mouthpiece. In my view, it helps especially that many South African voters are actually or functionally illiterate. That assists them in getting to grips with the difficult issues — without being distracted by irrelevancies like printed “facts.”
(It is not only South African voters that are no fools. Look at American voters.
Most of them can read; yet they are more likely to read TV Guide than a newspaper. American voters showed they were no fools by voting George Bush in with an increased majority in 2004. Like South African voters, American voters have shown over the years a wonderful ability to grasp their own interests, no matter what the so-called “clever” people, policy wonks, etc., will say.)
[Maggs - apologies. Out of condoms. New batch on the way.]
Mikhail Dworkin Fassbinder says:
November 19, 2009 at 12:47 pm
[Maggs - apologies. Out of condoms. New batch on the way.]
————————————————————————————–
Hey Dworky – those are not for eating!
Khosi had other ideas with strawberry flavoured.
Since it’s you, what the heck – eat it!
@ Pierre.
“All those white people voting for the DA should really be voting for the ANC while poor people who want a revolution should vote for the DA!”
Sort of kick back to the days of Benny Alexander aka Khoisan X – bring it all down and let’s start afresh!
Mikhail Dworkin Fassbinder says:
November 19, 2009 at 12:47 pm
That is why voters will continue no doubt to vote for a party for whom Cmd Malema is the mouthpiece.
————————————————————————————————————-
Eat your words Mr Dwork!
“The ANC deserved to lose a recent by-election after fielding ‘a drunkard’, according to Deputy President Kgalema Motlanthe.”
“‘The ANC got the message loud and clear – this is what the community told them, and they disregarded it and the community then did not vote… they simply stayed at home and the ANC lost. If people in leadership of the branch manipulate processes, the community must be able to punish them, that’s how they will correct it.’”
http://www.iol.co.za/index.php?set_id=1&click_id=13&art_id=vn20091122080716832C973674
OK, OK, Maggs, I admit it.
There is more and more evidence that the ANC-voting electorate is sick of Cmd Malema. In fact, I read somewhere that ANC supporters all over the country are leaving the ANC in droves — all because they disagree with Cde Malema.
Clearly, most ANC supporters are wise men and women who will not stand for having a clown as the public face of the ANC!
Mikhail Dworkin Fassbinder says:
November 22, 2009 at 19:49 pm
“In fact, I read somewhere that ANC supporters all over the country are leaving the ANC in droves — all because they disagree with Cde Malema.”
In your dreams!