Constitutional Hill

Assessment of judiciary represents a retreat for reactionary forces in government

When cabinet spokesperson Jimmy Manyi announced in November last year that the cabinet had decided to have the decisions of the Constitutional Court assessed to determine how “decisions of the court have impacted on the lives of ordinary citizens and how these decisions have influenced socio-economic transformation and the reform of the law”, I wrote that on its face, this statement could be viewed as a positive development.

I went on to questioned aspects of the statement which suggested that “appropriate mechanisms be developed to facilitate … regular interface between the three spheres of the State to enhance synergy and constructive engagement among them in pursuit of common transformative goals”. This criticism was recently echoed by Acting Deputy Chief Justice Zach Yacoob, who said in a speech delivered at UCT Constitution Week that he could not agree with any suggestion that the two political branches of government had to discuss matters of importance with the judiciary directly and outside a court hearing, in an effort to influence it.

Because of statements like these about the need for debates and discussion between three branches of government, statements repeated in the discussion document released last month about the proposed review of the Constitutional Court, concerns were obviously raised about the proposed review of the Constitutional Court. Why assess the Constitutional Court when we all know that the reasons for the lack of economic transformation in South Africa are structural (a huge skills shortage and race-based inequality, amongst them) and political (the deployment of unqualified politically connected people to positions in the state sector)?

This anxiety was further exacerbated by previous irresponsible and uninformed statements made by ANC Secretary General Gwede Mantashe about the judiciary destabilising the government and being used to undermine Parliament as well as the more recent perplexing comment by President Zuma that government did not “want to review the Constitutional Court, we want to review its powers”.

Now the Department of Justice has finally announced the terms of reference for the review, and it is looking good for the judiciary. There are two big surprises in these terms of reference. First, the Supreme Court of Appeal (SCA) has now been included in the review along with the Constitutional Court. Of course, given the fact that the original announcement only spoke about assessing the judgments of the Constitutional Court, there will immediately be questions asked about the inclusion of the SCA in the review so shortly after that court had made an adverse finding (on technical issues) in a case that could affect the future political career of the President of the country. But such fears may be allayed by the actual terms of reference of the proposed assessment.

This brings me to the second big surprise of this announcement, namely the actual terms of reference of this proposed assessment. These terms of reference shy away from the controversial (some would say bizarre) proposals about the fundamental weakening of the separation of powers between the judiciary and the other branches of government in order to “facilitate debates” between the three branches of government to ensure they act towards a common goal. The previous two documents both contained talk of this, but the terms of reference avoid this altogether and focuses on many of the really important issues facing the development of our constitutional jurisprudence.

The assessment will be a mammoth (if not impossible) task to complete, and will require “a comprehensive analysis of the decisions of the Constitutional Court and the Supreme Court of Appeal since the advent of democracy” to try and establish:

the extent to which such decisions have contributed to the reform of South African jurisprudence and the law to advance the values embodied in the Constitution; to assess the evolving jurisprudence on socio-economic rights with a view to establishing its impact on eradicating inequality and poverty and enhancing human dignity; assess the impact on the development of a South African jurisprudence that upholds and entrenches the founding principles and values as espoused in the Constitution and how such jurisprudence contributes to and is enriched by the development of jurisprudence in the SADC region, the continent and globally; and assess the extent to which South Africa’s evolving jurisprudence has transformed and developed the common law and customary law in South Africa as envisaged by the Constitution.

The last aspect of this part of the brief is particularly welcome. Section 39(2) of the Constitution states that when courts develop the common law or customary law, they “must promote the spirit, purport and objects of the Bill of Rights”. Because there are not many lawyers and judges whose expertise lies outside the Constitutional Law field who actually engage with this provision seriously, there has been limited development of the common law, despite this powerful tool provided to lawyers to help mould the common law into a more egalitarian and fairer system or rules that focus more directly on whether the application of common law rules lead to just outcomes in particular cases.

In an article published in 2010 in the South African Journal on Human Rights, Dennis Davis and Karl Klare surveyed judgments over the first 15 years of the new dispensation, and found that although some leading judgments demonstrated the capability of the courts to transform the common law and provided glimpses of a more egalitarian, inclusive, and caring legal infrastructure, the jurisprudence is not without its limitations.

The authors found that the chief disappointments are the absence thus far of a coherent exploration of the Constitution’s values or an explicit and sustained effort to develop new legal methodologies appropriate to transformative constitutionalism; the reluctance to interrogate the distributive consequences of private law rules in the routines of economic life; the emergence of a neo-liberal strand in constitutional application; and the lack of critical sharpness with respect to separation-of powers issues. The authors argued that while the inhibiting effect of mainstream legal culture was not entirely responsible for these difficulties, it is nevertheless true that concerns expressed a decade ago that the courts would be held back by the traditionalism of South African legal culture were well taken.

It is also welcome to see that the review envisages a study of the implementation of the decisions of the Constitutional Court and the Supreme Court of Appeal by the State and would aim to determine:

progress made and challenges encountered in the implementation of the decisions of these courts; legislation, policies and government programmes that have been put in place to give effect to these decisions; and capacity of the state within the available resources to realise the outcome envisaged by such court decisions.

This is indeed a huge and complex task, both in terms of the sheer volume of judgments that would have to be scrutinised but also because of the methodological challenges that will arise in deciding how progress by the State should be measured. How does one measure whether a particular decision about an unreasonable housing policy, say, was indeed implemented by the various departments (including provincial housing departments)? Would the study focus only on national government, or would it also focus on provincial government and local government (where most of the “delivery” happens and where most of the problems in implementing social and economic rights occur)? The terms of reference are unclear on this point.

Of course, one of the biggest problems in South Africa relating to the promotion and protection of the rights in the Bill of Rights is that most South Africans do not have access to courts. Poor people almost never get their cases heard by the Constitutional Court unless they can persuade an NGO’s (not a group of institutions much loved by the government) to take up a case on their behalf. Without NGO’s our jurisprudence would have been much impoverished – both in the field of social and economic rights jurisprudence and more general Rule of Law jurisprudence.

The review therefore requires that a study be conducted on direct access to the Constitutional Court through a comparative study of other jurisdictions, to identify factors that inhibit access to justice in relation to:

the costs of litigation; legislative frameworks, structures and processes that inhibit access; the right of access to the Constitutional Court by indigent and unrepresented persons; and whether the rules and the practices with regard to direct access to the Constitutional Court promote access to justice in particular to the indigent and unrepresented persons.

The Constitutional Court discourages direct access to the highest court as such an approach will fail to ensure that the ordinary High Courts and the SCA deal with Constitutional Law cases and engage vigorously with Constitutional issues. It will also make it very difficult for the Constitutional Court to deal properly with cases that come before it. In the absence of a comprehensive programme to fund human rights litigation ordinary people will often not be able to get to the highest court. Of course, another option is to amalgamate the various Chapter 9 institutions dealing with human rights and to create a super Human Rights Commission that will take up cases on behalf of indigent people whose rights have been infringed by the state or private institutions. This was proposed by the Asmal Report, but the proposal has never been taken up by the government or by Parliament.

Judging from the terms of reference of the assessment of the Constitutional Court (and now the SCA), the government has retreated from its innitial far more problematic position about why the review was needed. Gone is the threatening tone and any mention of the assessment being needed “to ensure the judiciary conforms to the transformation mandate as envisaged in the Constitution of the Republic in terms of non-racialism, gender, disability and other transformational variables”. Gone is any talk of the review being needed to promote “interdependence and interface that is necessary to realize transformation goals envisaged by the Constitution”.

In short, as is often the case with the ANC-led government, there are obviously two competing views about the judiciary inside the government represented by the various statements about this assessment. The one faction is deeply hostile to the judiciary (after all, judges review and set aside unlawful and unconstitutional actions by the President and unconstitutional laws made by Parliament and judges also convict and send to prison those who have been proven to be corrupt). The other faction understands the importance of an independent judiciary that is eager and empowered to implement the many progressive aspects of the Constitution. The original cabinet statement seemed to be influenced by the first faction, while the latter faction seemed to have had a bigger hand in preparing the terms of reference.

If done well, it might well assist the government to provide better access to justice and to create the mechanism that would help it to better implement progressive court judgments.

It remains an open question whether any institution or a number of institutions will actually be able to complete this review in the 18 month period envisaged by the terms of reference. After all the SCA delivers over 250 judgments each year while the Constitutional Court hands down between 30 and 40 judgments a year. That means the reviewers will potentially have to consider more than 5000 judgments and will then have to ask how all the relevant judgements (selected from these 5000) have impacted on the state and to what extent the state has actually implemented the relevant judgments. Quite frankly, I am not sure this is practically possible at all.

All I can say is: I am glad it’s not a job I will have to do.

  • Maggs Naidu – Zuma must go!

    “The original cabinet statement seemed to be influenced by the first faction, while the latter faction seemed to have had a bigger hand in preparing the terms of reference.”

    This entire “review” is a face saving exercise.

    Zuma and co have got mud on theirs.

    Our Constitution and the judiciary is far more robust (and defended – thanks COPE) than they thought it was.

    And South Africans are not likely to allow tampering with it, they have found an escape route from the initial idiocy.

    Nobody yet has come up with a single clause in our Constitution that does not aid or encourage transformation.

    There one silly majority judgement (R50 000 for schoolboy pranks).

    Apart from that nobody has been able to cite a single case which is not pro transformation.

    But let’s see what the clowns do next.

  • malome tom

    pierre, i like you, await perhaps with unabated breath the arrival of the anc government of our imaginations. the evidence you cite above, where mantashe and zuma assail the constitution can be a 100 time rebutted by other public pronouncements from that very same anc, speaking to the sacronsanctness of the constitutional order.

    in fact, before i commented i looked at what particularly gwede and ngoako have written and said on this matter. even though i disagree with them i recognise their various arguments as old, trodden arguments articulating executive weariness with a very active judiciary and not an attempt to eviscerate the entire constiutional order. there are some crazies within the ranks who either don’t understand the constitutional order or who do and don’t pay it any regard – but, and this is my point, any fair and objective recent historical reading of the ANC government’s relationship with the constitutional order reveals a government that by in large adheres to rule of law. i’m speaking inherently so here: be it land and property rights, reach of executive power etc. but this interrupts the view of the anc we imagine, one that is illegitimate because of its inherently bequethed proclivities: mainly the urge to be totalitarian in its entire outlook.

    in short we hear what we want to hear when it comes to the anc (da etc) and this almost always dilutes the real arguments. the position paper is an excellent start and i don’t have to be an anc lackey to offer an honest critique of the judiciary. in fact we would probably be surprised how many judges wold welcome this

  • malome tom

    in case you missed my point above in all the verbal bluster: your “surprise” at how benign the document is unsurprising. it is also condescending. but you obviously think you’re being robust and honest

  • Donovan

    Prof, my sincerest apologies on what I am about to do, but I have not been able to visit your blog in time, and therefore could not respond in time to matters raised on the constitution by Sirjay and OCM. Therefore I have just pasted my response to them, and invite them to further comment on the article of the review of the constitution. Apologies.

    “So sorry to respond so belatedly, but I have been away for a few days.

    Firstly, Sirjay, the African ‘big man’ syndrome, is true it did and probably does still occur in various parts of the world, including some countries in Africa. However, no-one is arguing against two-terms definitely not me, but having a two-term policy for a president who is not directly elected by the citizenry is not common practice, and there is no two-term policy (except in African countries) of head of government (as opposed to head of state) in the West. Further, one of the primary reasons for the ‘president for life’ syndrome in Africa, is because legislation was not passed protecting former presidents, in terms pensions for life, state residence, a former president’s office and staff, etc. So very often if you were no more president than you were effectively out of a job. Further, like the US where you cannot charge a president for what they did whilst in power. If there was legislation like this in the 50s to the 80s in the continent, then the chances of ‘presidents for life’ would have been severely reduced. On France this is a recent change after over twenty years of discussion, and Senegal took the lead from SA. There are clearly different rules for the application of democracy in Africa as opposed to the West.

    Secondly, some out here definitely cannot read, especially OCM. I am writing about the rules for local government in the constitution, not national and provincial. I truly hope you are not a lawyer otherwise I must pity your clients. So your response is irrelevant.

    These are just examples of where the Constitution could change, or be discussed or be reviewed. since Prof’s article said he could not find any place.

    And I openly state that these examples are a part of an overall thread of the constitution that was based on a fear of the future because of our divided past, and we can move on now to have more robust and direct power rather than perpetual negotiations.”

  • Lisbeth

    No, I’m not changing the subject: there’s something about judicial independence in there.

  • Donovan

    Pierre de Vos wrote: “Why assess the Constitutional Court when we all know that the reasons for the lack of economic transformation in South Africa are structural (a huge skills shortage and race-based inequality, amongst them) and political (the deployment of unqualified politically connected people to positions in the state sector)?”

    I still am trying to understand the above statement you wrote, Prof. Can you really believe that its just corruption, a-la cadre deployment, and education and the lack of skills? That the class superstructures under apartheid all vanished?

    The judiciary and all the other sectors of SA society cleansed itself with the tears of Tutu in the TRC?

    Really you believe this, this all that is stalling our economic transformation? Maybe, just maybe, you are a refugee of the truth?

  • Gwebecimele

    @ Lisbeth

    I stopped at “poor black South Africans make 90% of the 50.6 million population” .

    Brett must be the source.

  • Gwebecimele

    While we are at it, can we safely say the decisions on Walmart, Vodacom listing, Bread Fixing, Arms deal, Cope split, Saambou etc are advancing transformation, fairness & democracy.

  • Lisbeth


    “Brett must be the source” :-)

    Seriously, though: ask any black South African, and they’ll tell you they’re poor compared to their white counterparts, who have their sticky little hands on the levers of just about everything!

  • Maggs Naidu – Zuma must go!

    malome tom
    March 27, 2012 at 14:22 pm

    Hey MT,

    “an honest critique of the judiciary”.

    An honest critique of our judiciary ought to include judges who “are deployed with a mandate.

    I can think of at least four such judges who should be “reviewed” :

    – our DCJ Moseneke and Judge Khampepe on the wild goose cover-up to Zimbabwe
    – the JP and his mandate from Zuma to influence the outcome of the CC judgement
    – and most importantly the CJ Mogoeng-squared and his mandate from no less than god.

  • Gwebecimele

    Is it not fair for the third arm of government to stand next to the other two and answer for the poor performance of SA. It can’t be fair that members of the the executives and others are easily blamed whilst our judiciary is praised and paid for life for subjecting us to slow and pro-rich justice.

  • Mikhail Dworkin Fassbinder

    @ Donovan [to Pierre]

    “Maybe, just maybe, you are a refugee of the truth?”

    With respect Donovan, the term REFUGEE is inherently RACIST, used to describe “foreigners” who, because they are a of a different “race”, are not welcome. I therefore demand that you withdraw the remark and apologise.


  • Mikhail Dworkin Fassbinder

    @ Junemub

    “Would you Reduce weight and Build Muscle tissue While doing so?”

    Maggs, WDYS?

  • Maggs Naidu – Zuma must go!

    Mikhail Dworkin Fassbinder
    March 27, 2012 at 21:19 pm


    I think it’s time you started your “satellite blog” and Reduce weight and Build Muscle tissue While doing so!

  • Thembani

    I am shocked at the nature and manner the judicial review issue is responded to by civil society and the media, espacially the latter.
    My shock is aroused by varu=ious questions.
    Question 1: Why is the ANC government not allowed to comment on the constitution or the constitutional court? Is the ANC government an illegitimate government? Did they take power by force, in a coup? I believe as a South African party, the ANC government is well within its right to debate about the constitution.
    Question 2: What renders the Constitutional Court above the law or superior to the organs, namely, the executive and legislative? Prof, what does Montesquieu’s separation of powers say? I would advice all those how are opposed to the review, and including yourself Prof, to re-read the document. The judiciary is no different espacailly when it comes to power and role playing from the other branches.
    Question 3: Does the constitution prohibit its amendment? The Constitution itself makes provision in term of section 53 and others, for its amendment. What is so unlawful if the ANC forsees an amendment to the constitution?

  • Maggs Naidu – Zuma must go!

    March 27, 2012 at 22:27 pm

    Hey Thembani,

    The issue is not about the ANC’s “right to debate about the constitution”. The ANC should and, if the NDR is to get back on track, must engage in such debates.

    This so called “review” started off with the President of our country and officials of government alluding to reviewing “the powers of the Constitutional Court”.

    It has its roots in the courts having “reviewed” the powers of South African President Zuma whose response has been ungracious and ungainly. Zuma refuses to comply with the letter and spirit of our Constitution and his attempt to “change to rules while the game is in play” is disgusting.

    Fortunately our Constitution is robust enough to thwart off these attempts at meddling to protect Zuma and co to protect themselves from being regarded as equal before the law.

    And so too is the ANC which has repeatedly shown itself to be bigger than individuals – it is unlikely that a policy conference of the ANC will confer on the next set of leaders the mandate to stuff around with the nation’s Constitution.

    The terms of reference itself is an indication that withing the ANC “the centre still holds” while Zuma and his lackeys have got more egg on their faces – if anything it’s a clear rejection of Zuma and his nonsense.

    Zuma is smart – but this time (probably bolstered by his successes at overthrowing Mbeki and the entire state machinery, outsmarting the once powerful Malema and other wily things) he’s overstepped the bounds.

    He should step down at the end of this term, before his dethroning becomes worse than what he did to Mbeki.

  • ozoneblue

    Maggs Naidu – Zuma must go!
    March 27, 2012 at 13:12 pm

    “Nobody yet has come up with a single clause in our Constitution that does not aid or encourage transformation.”

    Once we all agree on what the word “transformation” means then that statement will start to make sense. We have had plenty of so-called “transformation” with very little impact on the lives of the fast the vast majority of South Africans.

    Let us begin by understanding what “transformation” doesn’t mean:

    It doesn’t mean UCT must have racist admission policies when they continue to skim the milk of the private and model C schools.

    It doesn’t mean that we have “tranformed” when our national cricket team is 100% black – when all those black players come from Grey colleague and their mums/dads are part of a corrupt capitalist elite.

  • ozoneblue

    Yebo gogo.

    “Even the state prosector’s decision to drop the charges against Zuma may have been a sign of strength, not weakness. After all, the decision was made after prosecutors recently uncovered clear evidence that Mbeki loyalists had meddled in the investigation to try to derail the career of Zuma, his great rival. This meddling irrevocably tainted the case against Zuma, despite credible evidence of corruption. Many advanced democracies punish such prosecutorial misconduct in order to ensure procedural fairness.”

    And when our leading “constitutional expert” + “independent” media have a track record of systematically and consistently denying the above ever happened – in fact arguing for an “independent” organ of the state that appears to be only accountable to the president of the day under the guise of constitutionality then that is when we should have know we are in very serious trouble indeed.

  • Maggs Naidu – Zuma must go!

    March 28, 2012 at 8:57 am

    Well spotted OB!

    That about sums it up.

    No one is prepared to kill or die for Zuma, the terms of reference of the “review” is clearly a slap in the face for a President who does not know “what is a crook” and the ANC is rejecting his nonsense.

    Time’s up Msholozi – when you gotta go, you gotta go!

  • ozoneblue

    Maggs Naidu – Zuma must go!
    March 28, 2012 at 9:28 am

    Oh I see the logic now. The evil “Stalinist” Zuma couldn’t muster enough internal democratic support to cynically manipulate the terms of reference.

    I wonder if Prof Chameleon will ever apologize. When will the learned prof ever write an article on things that ordinary South Africans might give a fuck about – like the Constitutionality of Resource Nationalism, private health care and the new national Health Insurance or perhaps the fact that his AA UCT only draws from elitist economic apartheid feeder schools.

  • Maggs Naidu – Zuma must go!

    March 28, 2012 at 9:56 am

    Hey OB,

    “When will the learned prof ever write an article on things that ordinary South Africans might give a fuck about – like the Constitutionality of Resource Nationalism, private health care and the new national Health Insurance or perhaps the fact that his AA UCT only draws from elitist economic apartheid feeder schools.”

    How about you start a “satellite blog” to write about those things?

    You could call it focusing on “a collection of thoughts about life, death, politics, rugby and the inevitable disappearance of the ozone hole”


  • ozoneblue

    Maggs Naidu – Zuma must go!
    March 28, 2012 at 10:02 am


    Who would want to read a blog with a religious “coolie” named Bhagwan Shree Rajneesh in the logo?

  • Andrew

    ozoneblue says:
    March 28, 2012 at 8:36 am

    Apologies for this long post…

    “It doesn’t mean UCT must have racist admission policies when they continue to skim the milk of the private and model C schools.”

    This issue of the admission policy of UCT has been hotly debated in the press. Going on previous comments, you are against using race as a proxy for disadvantage. As you pointed out this may lead to a few rich black* kids, attending model C schools, being advantaged ‘unfairly’.

    I hope I captured your position correctly.

    Dr Max Price of UCT, pointed out, I think, that according to research, even rich black* kids at model C schools will underperform on average 7% below their white* counterparts.

    (*The reference to race above is required in the context of discussing AA admission policies.)

    He further goes on to say, that it is expected that at least two generations of university attanding in a family is required to erase this.

    It would also seem that after students that were admitted on the basis of race attends UCT’s various academic support programs, are doing just fine after the extra support.

    What is the solution? Clearly we need more universities. This would allow for those obtaining high marks to be admitted on ‘merit’ while reserving space for those with ‘potential’

    The issue of merit is actually subjective. A kid at school currently getting 10 A’s may actually not have more potential than another getting none. That is why universites administer admission tests in in addition to matric marks.

  • Maggs Naidu – Zuma must go!

    March 28, 2012 at 12:58 pm


    “Clearly we need more universities.”

    The powers that be decided that it was better to shut down teacher and nurse training colleges and issue 40 casino licences.

    There’s no money to be made from shares in state universities.

    It’s thus better to prepare future generations to be gamblers and drunkards than highly skilled.

  • Maggs Naidu – Zuma must go!

    p.s. It must be awfully frustrating for a visionary like Minister Naledi Pandor.

    The Southern African region should spend more on science and technology, Science Minister Naledi Pandor said on Tuesday.

    “We need to become active innovators, productive researchers and be supportive industrial partners to the private sectors and to the service sectors in our countries,” she said.

  • ozoneblue

    March 28, 2012 at 12:58 pm

    “I hope I captured your position correctly.”

    No – you have again mischaracterized my (and Neville Alexander’s) position. By Max Price’s own admission elsewhere “not a few” but indeed almost ALL the kids going to UCT come from privileged middle to upper class schools. Further it is not about “black kids” – it is about Apartheid style racial classifications and quotas that relates to “Whites, Coloureds, Indians and Africans.”

  • Andrew

    ozoneblue says:
    March 28, 2012 at 14:04 pm

    So noted.

    Maggs Naidu – Zuma must go! says:
    March 28, 2012 at 13:36 pm

    Not sure Naledi is a visionary, but her point stands on its own. We could ask, what are the universities doing wrong?

    The engineering and applied sciences faculties in particular. These students should be able to start businesses, invent new technologies, or just produce day to day stuff like cups, plates, etc.

  • Maggs Naidu – Zuma must go!

    March 28, 2012 at 15:55 pm


    “These students should be able to start businesses, invent new technologies, or just produce day to day stuff like cups, plates, etc.”


    It’s astounding that most university graduates end up as job seekers rather than job creators.

    The University of KZN had started a compulsory semester of entrepreneur development for engineering students – perhaps it’s still continuing.

    Anyway still on education, the state subsidies for teacher training at our universities are the lowest – kinda lopsided for a country which needs to attract more trainee teachers.

    However, although there has been a financial incentive to offer certain kinds of programmes, at the same time, the newly declared funding formula does not favour initial or in-service teacher education, placing it in the lowest funding category – below commerce (Ministry of Education, 2004). This has already had the effect of making certain teacher education providers limit or entirely cease professional teacher education, and concentrate on Honours, Masters and Doctoral students in Education. It is also not encouraging for teacher educators who wish to do professional teacher education thoroughly (and by implication, at some expense) – with school-based teaching experience and on-site assessment of practical teaching competence.

  • Maggs Naidu – Zuma must go!

    LOL at Cronin!

    This smells of real fear of the madame.

    The government has shelved plans to toll Western Cape highways.

    Deputy transport minister Jeremy Cronin told the Cape Times’ Business Report on Wednesday: “We see no priority in ‘tolling’ the R300, N1, and N2 in Cape Town… it can’t be a priority.”

  • Mikhail Dworkin Fassbinder

    Maggs, I am 1000% in agreement with the contention that Madame Zille has revealed her full RACIST colours by calling black children from the Eastern Cape “refugees.” That is why I am asking you to support my demand that both Zille and your Gauteng Premier Nomvula Mokonyane (who called blacks who stream to Gauteng from other provinces “so-called health migrants”), be sent into exile on St Helena!


  • Maggs Naidu – Zuma must go!

    Mikhail Dworkin Fassbinder
    March 28, 2012 at 20:29 pm


    Start your own “satellite blog”.

    In the meanwhile the DA is onto something really, really important (apart from scaring off Jeremy Cronin that is) – should we join their campaign?

    Cape Town – The Democratic Alliance has called for a certain brand of condoms to be withdrawn from the market because of possible defects.

  • Maggs Naidu – Zuma must go!

    The way is paved for Zuma’s next Police Commissioner!

    Johannesburg – Crime intelligence boss Lieutenant General Richard Mdluli’s suspension has been lifted, national police spokesperson Brigadier Lindela Mashigo said on Wednesday.

  • Mikhail Dworkin Fassbinder

    Maggs, I join the demand that the condoms be immediately withdrawn!

  • ozoneblue


    “According to the NCC, the condoms were sent to the SA Bureau of Standards (SABS) for testing earlier this week, where they passed quality control tests.”

    Testing condoms for king and country. I can imagine a very long line of very eager young blokes lining up for that job.

  • Gwebecimele
  • Gwebecimele


    “Madonsela said this would strip her of her power to possess state secrets while carrying out her mandate.

    “Will we be affected? Yes, severely . We will not be able to function optimally.

    “Why does this democracy trust a police station above Chapter Nine institutions?” Madonsela asked.”

  • Mikhail Dworkin Fassbinder

    Gwebe, I am certainly in favour of the absolute independence of our Ch 9 institutions – including the Public Protector. My problem is only with Madonsela in particular, who has allowed herself to be used by the LIBERAL media and the RACIST DA to undermine the elected representatives of our people.


  • Gwebecimele

    May be this deal (Barclays/Absa) has just completed its 5 year clause of non-retrenchments. Lets wait for Walmart, Vodacom and others to reach theirs and we will have another round of GOOD FDI.

    Suddenly there is an anti-retrenchment move promoted by the likes of 702 and we all know that has nothing to with race.

    Ride your camel and get on the M1, this new SA.

  • Maggs Naidu – Zuma must go!

    March 29, 2012 at 9:54 am


    Bunch of clowns – our laws apply equally to everyone, even those who plan unplanned protests i.e. “anti-toll REFUGEES” from Gauteng!

  • Gwebecimele
  • ozoneblue

    “The differences are simple yet profound. Most, if not all ANC leaders in history, were educated in the formal sense. Zuma is uneducated. His informal education is limited to a bare minimum.”

    So the WHITISH Sowetan announces: Zuma is an “uneducated” African.

  • Mikhail Dworkin Fassbinder

    @ Ozoneblue

    With respect, the WHITIST liberals would not say this if Zuma were white. Look at Ronald Reagan, Mao, and Master Sergeant Doe. None had any proper education. Yet they led great nations through uncharted waters!


  • Maggs Naidu – Zuma must go!

    Mikhail Dworkin Fassbinder
    March 29, 2012 at 22:54 pm


    “With respect, the WHITIST liberals would not say this if Zuma were white.”


    Nobody complained when Verwoerd and Vorster ran their crime against humanity with their corrupt ways, oppressing people, protecting murderous criminals within the state security forces, abusing resources, threatening lives and safety of political opponents, using the state institutions for narrow political and personal advantage.

    Now that Zuma is doing the same they just complain and moan all the time. Complain and moan.

    Even Comrade Floyd, now that he’s out on his ass is suggesting that ZUMA MUST GO!