Those Ministers sure do not want us ordinary folk to know what is in this mysterious Handbook of theirs. Finally, after contacting DA MP, Dene Smuts, an efficient DA researcher provided me with a copy of the Handbook (and as any good PR person would, also included DA proposals for changes to the handbook).

After studying the Handbook I understand why its content is being kept half-secret. 

This is the thing: It is far from clear that claims by a spokesperson of Communications Minister, Siphiwe Nyanda, that the Ministerial Handbook had entitled the Minister to stay in the most luxurious 5 Star Hotels for 6 months at a cost of more than R500 000 could be squared with the actual provisions of the Handbook.

Why did Nyanda not stay in the house allocated to him after he became the Minister of Communications? Why was the poor man made to suffer for six months by having to stay at the most expensive Hotels in Cape Town? Personally I would not be seen dead at these terrible, inhumane, dumps and would rather sleep in the boot of my car.

Who could possible live in a ”spacious, grand and elegant suit” with “spectacular views of Table Mountain”, have access to “two heated swimming pools”, ”magnificent flood-lit tennis courts”, a yoga centre “complete with feature inspiring music, fresh flowers, candlelight, therapeutic scents and post-yoga refreshments”, an ”on-site golf practice net”, “on-site hair salon” and a ”world class holistic spa experience, where the trilogy of mind, body and spirit is nurtured”?

Sounds awful, doesn’t it? Who would not rather stay in a lovely state owned house in Upper Claremont?

(By the way, it’s a good thing Minister Nyanda was not allocated a house in lower Claremont because he would surely then have been entitled not to occupy a house in such a bad neighbourhood and would have been forced to stay at the Mount Nelson for another few years, poor man.)

Well, the Mail & Guardian reported as follows on the poor Minister’s woes:

A Cabinet colleague of Nyanda told the Mail & Guardian that the reason Nyanda had apparently given for refusing to move into his Hooggelegen residence in sought-after Upper Claremont was because the public works department had not bought him a bed. A senior communications department source confirmed this explanation was also doing the rounds in the department, but added that Nyanda was allegedly also unhappy that his house did not have a view.

Although Nyanda’s spokesperson strongly denied this, the department of public works confirmed on Thursday that Nyanda hadn’t moved in because of a delay with the delivery of furniture “to accommodate him”. Public works spokesperson Thamsanqa Mchunu confirmed that Nyanda’s furniture finally arrived on February 5 and February 26.

So, one explanation for his splurge was that while the house was furnished and he could have stayed in it (sleeping on one of the other beds in the house, one presumes) or could have bought his own bed (I am told one can buy a very nice bed for about R10 000 – a bit less than the R500 000 us tax payers eventually spent on the Hotel Bills), the house needed a bed for the General to sleep on. We all need a good night’s rest, after all, and national security, the national interest and the public good required the Minister to be alert at all times in case he had to deal with yet more reports of the SABC banning an old leader of the party from its airwaves.

Another, unconfirmed, explanation was that he was not happy with the view (even though the house was in upper Claremont). The official version was that new furniture (obviously replacing existing furniture) had to be provided “to accommodate” the General. One assumes this means the General was not happy with the original furniture (which was obviously not up to the standard of the Mount Nelson) and he thus ordered new furniture which would “accommodate” him and would ensure he would stay in the style and comfort that he had become accustomed to.

This kind of thing is covered by the Ministerial Handbook, which states in chapter 2:

If, owing to exceptional circumstances, a State-owned residence is not immediately available for Members upon assumption of duty of office, expenses in connection with alternative accommodation may be debited to the State until an official residence becomes available.

The first question would be whether the absence of one bed or unhappiness with the existing furniture would constitute “exceptional circumstances” as required by the Handbook. The second question would be whether a house is “not available” if some of the furnishings in the house are not to the liking of the new resident.

Now, maybe I am just not used to the millionaire’s lifestyle, but I find it rather difficult to believe that the absence of one bed or unhappiness with the state of the existing furniture could possibly have legally constituted “exceptional circumstances” as required by the Handbook. In a country where many people live in shacks, one could hardly argue with a straight face that unhappiness with the quality of furniture constituted “exceptional circumstances” that mandated an extended stay at tax payers expense in some of South Africa’s most expensive Hotels. 

This conclusion seems irresistible if one reads the clause in conjunction with the provisions in Chapter 4 of the Handbook which stipulates what the Department of Public Works is required to provide to an official accommodated in official state housing:

The furnishing of State-owned residences is limited to the provision, and maintenance, of ordinary household furniture, mattresses, pillows, carpets, curtains, beds, stoves, refrigerators, freezers, washing machines, tumble dryers and heaters, micro-wave ovens and dishwashers on request….. If a piece of furniture becomes redundant in a State-owned residence, the Office of the Member concerned should make the necessary arrangements in consultation with the Office of the Minister of Public Works to have the article/s removed and the inventories amended accordingly.

These provisions confirm that the Department would only provide the bare minimum of furniture for a house and would also – as a matter of course - replace “redundant” furniture. Such replacements are not treated as “exceptional circumstances” but are treated as ordinary day-to-day arrangements that should be made between the official and the Department. The sections in chapter 4 do not provide for a Minister to vacate his or her residence while the furniture are being replaced and it is thus not viewed as exceptional circumstances when any piece of state owned furniture is not up to the exacting standards of the relevant Minister.

More damning perhaps is that the residence was obviously “immediately available”. There it was standing – in upper Claremont nogal -  a shiny house, shimmering in the morning light, furnished and ready to be used by any good servant of the masses of our people. Although the furniture were not to the Minister’s liking, that did not make the house “not available”. It just made the house not to the taste of the Minister (whom it turned out, had rather more expensive tastes than the previous owners).

All this suggests that the Minister was not allowed by the Ministerial Handbook to stay in 5 Star Hotels for six months at a cost of  more than R500 000 and that he is legally required to pay back the money he had wasted. Maybe the Public Protector – who seems to be taking her job rather seriously and is acting without fear, favour or prejudice - should be asked to investigate this matter?

Meanwhile, the President might take up the suggestion of Cosatu’s Zwelenzima Vavi (is he finally regretting  the fact that he gunned for the abolition of the Scorpions?) to have the serious allegations of corruption levelled against Minister Nyanda investigated. Just because General Nyanda has displayed a taste for the good life and seems to have flouted the Ministerial Handbook does not, of course, mean that he is a corrupt businessman too.  But it does make one wonder.

Simelane was slammed by Ginwala as an unreliable and arrogant witness. His performance before the Ginwala Inquiry was up there with the performances of Glen Agliotti and Jackie Selebi during the trial of the latter. Ginwala also found Simelane may have been acting unlawfully when he drafted a letter for former justice minister, Brigitte Mabandla, instructing Pikoli to cease the investigation into Selebi until she was satisfied about the merits of the case.

A subsequent investigation into Simelane’s conduct at the inquiry by the public service commission (PSC) found he should have faced a formal hearing, but Justice Minister Jeff Radebe overruled this and recommended him to President Jacob Zuma in November last year to be appointed as Vusi Pikoli’s successor.

If the Johannesburg Bar finds that Simelane’s conduct made him unfit for membership of the Bar and he is struck off as a member of the Bar, it would in effect mean that he would have been ineligible for appointment as NDPP at the time of his appointment. Whether this would in fact happen, is of course far from clear.

Section 9(1)(a) of the NPA Act states that anyone can be appointed as NDPP who ”possess legal qualifications that would entitle him or her to practise in all courts in the Republic”. One therefore does not have to be a member of the Bar to be eligible to serve as the NDPP. One needs to have obtained the relevant legal qualification – usually an LLB – to qualify for appointment.

But section 9(1)(b) of the Act further states that one can only be appointed as NDPP if one is a “fit and proper” person. If Simelane is struck off as a member of the Bar by the High Court because he is no longer a fit and proper person, it would mean that a High Court had in effect found that Simelane does not possess the qualities specified in the law to have been legally appointed as NDPP.

At the very least, such a finding – if it is ever made – would bolster the application challenging the legality of Simelane’s appointment. If such a finding were ever to be made, Simelane would really have no other choice but to resign as NDPP. If this ever happened, it would leave very difficult legal questions unanswered as it would mean that Simelane’s appointment was unlawful when it was made. Minister Jeff Radebe and President Jacob Zuma would obviously be severely embarrassed by such a finding and questions will be asked about the motivation behind Simelane’s appointment.

And if such a finding is made, would that mean that all the decisions taken by Simelane as NDPP – including the decision to call off attempts to freeze the foreign assets of businessman Fana Hlongwane, who was allegedly a beneficiary of arms deal corruption – were null and void?

Maybe it is too early to worry about these matters. Simelane might provide the subcommittee of the Johannesburg Bar with excellent reasons why he is indeed a fit and proper person. He might argue – as he did at a public debate that I attended – that he was merely following instructions from the then Minister and the then President when he wrote the letter containing an illegal instruction and when he appeared before Ginwala and misled that Inquiry. Much like some Nazi’s after the second World War and police officers after the end of apartheid, he might argue that he was only following orders and should therefore not be blamed for what he did.

It would be interesting to see to what extent Simelane blames members of the previous administration for his troubles and what facts he will be prepared to put before the subcommittee to protect himself. Could we see some new revelations about what exactly happened after then President Thabo Mbeki decided to suspend Vusi Pikoli because he wanted to arrest Jackie Selebi?

Probably not. But this inquiry into Simelane fitness reminds us that his appointment as NDPP was one of President Jacob Zuma’s most troubling acts as head of State. Whether he is ultimately cleared or not, it is unfortunate that our NDPP, who – like Caesars wife – should really be beyond reproach, finds himself in a position where he has to answer questions about whether he is a fit and proper person as required by the law.

As the Marx Brothers might have put it, ‘this man may look like a corrupt idiot and act like a corrupt idiot, but don’t let that deceive you – he is a corrupt idiot.’ – Slavoj Žižek

On 30 May 2003 then President Thabo Mbeki published one of his politically and analytically most brilliant internet letters. The missive, which became one of his most famous, attempted to challenge the widespread perception that had taken hold (and remains to this day) that the government arms deal had been riddled with corruption.

The letter laid bare some of the deeply problematic ideological assumptions underlying the discourse on corruption in post apartheid South Africa. It then used this insight – which was not only spot on, but also tapped into a widespread resentment amongst members of the newly emerging post-apartheid elite – to defend what seemed to be indefensible.

(This was a tactic often used by Mbeki in his letters: correctly expose and analyze widespread racist or Afro-pessimistic assumptions, then use the insight to deny the existence of obvious problems or to discredit the valid criticism of progressive voices in our society. He used the same tactic against the so-called “ultra left” in Cosatu and the SACP and against those who pointed out the folly of his HIV stance.)

In the letter Mbeki wrote (and I am quoting at length):

In the Biblical Gospel according to St Matthew, it is said that Jesus Christ saw Simon Peter and his brother Andrew fishing in the Sea of Galilee. And He said to them: “Follow Me, and I will make you fishers of men.” Perhaps taking a cue from this, some in our country have appointed themselves as “fishers of corrupt men”. Our governance system is the sea in which they have chosen to exercise their craft. From everything they say, it is clear that they know it as a matter of fact that they are bound to return from their fishing expeditions with huge catches of corrupt men (and women)….

[W]e should not, and will not abandon the offensive to defeat the insulting campaigns further to entrench a stereotype that has, for centuries, sought to portray Africans as a people that is corrupt, given to telling lies, prone to theft and self-enrichment by immoral means, a people that is otherwise contemptible in the eyes of the “civilised”. We must expect that, as usual, our opponents will accuse us of “playing the race card”, to stop us confronting the challenge of racism.

The fishers of corrupt men are determined to prove everything in the anti-African stereotype. They rely on their capacity to produce long shadows and innumerable allegations around the effort of our government to supply the South African National Defence Force with the means to discharge its constitutional and continental obligations. They are confident that these long shadows and allegations without number will engulf and suffocate the forces that fought for and lead our process of democratisation, reconstruction and development. However, what our country needs is substance and not shadows, facts instead of allegations, and the eradication of racism. The struggle continues.

Re-reading this letter, it seems almost inevitable that Mbeki would have attempted at first to protect  former Police Commissioner Jackie Selebi. It also explains (better than anything anyone else may have written) why he refused to believe the evidence of Selebi’s corruption provided to him by the Prosecuting Authority and even continued to claim that nobody had provided him with any information that Selebi did anything wrong – even after Vusi Pikolu had briefed him on ten different occasions on the evidence against Selebi.

For Mbeki, his (often perceptive and accurate) ideological insights often trumped the proven facts. His tragedy (if you are sympathetic to the former President) or his evil genius (if you are not) was that these general ideological insights were often brilliant and perceptive, but blinded him to the specific facts and the valid criticism of individuals and about particular problems facing the government and the country and its people.

Which brings me to the set of questions I want to try and address in this post: why did an obviously brilliant, courageous and seemingly deeply principled struggle hero like Jackie Selebi became corrupt? Why are we confronted almost every day by news of crooked cops, Home Affairs officials and tenderpreneurs? Why does it sometime feel as if we are being engulfed in a tidal wave (or is it a Tsunami) of sleaze and corruption in South Africa?

The easy answer would be to blame everything on the racist stereotypes that Mbeki rightly warned against and to deny the very facts before our eyes. But this approach would not help us to understand the root causes of the problem and neither would it help to eradicate them. Although the Afro-pessimistic master narrative which Mbeki warned us against may well have helped to exaggerate the perception of corruption in our society, it cannot explain away the problem, which is very real and very dangerous for the long term well-being of our country.

For the same reason we should reject with contempt the racist and offensive claim that there is something in the DNA of the ANC and the government it leads that predisposes it and its members to corruption.

I would like to suggest that the problem can at least partly be attributed to the nature of our transition to democracy. South Africa did not experience a true revolution, but a managed transition. The state remained in tact and the private sector was largely left untouched. During the transition period the crony capitalists and the opportunists, who had exploited the conditions created by apartheid to make vast amounts of money, went to work to capture the new elite in order to protect their own financial interests.

Thus some of the big mining houses and other big business institutions who had resolutely supported apartheid, jumped ship and went to work to woo the members of the incoming government in order to protect their profits and their vested interests. They donated money to the ANC, forged close personal ties with some ANC leaders by wining and dining them and by providing them with all kinds of material “assistance”. They claimed they were doing this out of altruism or out of a deep sense of shock about the horrors of apartheid which – so they laughably claimed – they had only belatedly become aware of.

In essence, what large sections of the big business community did, was to offer legal bribes to the ANC as a movement as well as to individual ANC members to ensure that their own financial interests would be secured. They would offer fantastic riches to a few lucky well-connected individuals through BEE deals and directorships with the understanding that there would not be any fundamental transformation of the economic system in South Africa. Workers would still work and die for a pittance, while bosses would be allowed to continue to draw huge salaries and bonuses and subvent profits to London and New York.

Was it then not all too human and understandable that some (but not all) members of the new elite – who had not benefited from these legalized bribes – began to feel hard done by and tried to do something about it? Thus the mutually beneficial relationship between crony capitalism and some members of the new elite became firmly enrenched. In the feeding frenzy that followed, the lines between the legalized bribes paid by the apartheid capitalists and the criminal bribes paid by people like Schabir Shaik and Glen Agliotti became somewhat blurred.

And as more and more people seem to get fabulously rich (perhaps not as rich as those who exploited the apartheid system) and the culture of accumulation and consumption firmly took hold, it was perhaps inevitable that somebody like poor Jackie Selebi would begin to think that there was not really anything wrong with a gangster buying your very own child a nice pair of shoes. Ironically, it is exactly against this new kind of colonization that Mbeki himself warned in his Nelson Mandela Lecture when he said:

Thus, everyday, and during every hour of our time beyond sleep, the demons embedded in our society, that stalk us at every minute, seem always to beckon each one of us towards a realizable dream and nightmare. With every passing second, they advise, with rhythmic and hypnotic regularity – get rich! get rich! get rich! And thus has it come about that many of us accept that our common natural instinct to escape from poverty is but the other side of the same coin on whose reverse side are written the words – at all costs, get rich!

Is it too late to turn around this ship? Well, extraordinary political and moral leadership is required to address the capturing of our hearts and minds by the crony capitalists. We have the perfect Constitution and the perfect laws to fight the good fight and to stop the rot, but without the political leadership there will be no success. That is why the fight raging currently inside the ANC between the tenderpreneurs and those who believe in the creation of a more fair and just society is pivotal for the long-term well-being of our society.

Sadly, because he is himself compromised and implicated in the culture of greed through his association with the fraudster Schabir Shaik, President Jacob Zuma is probably not the best leader to lead the fight. Time for a change in ANC leadership perhaps?

Not that Agliotti was a much better witness, but in as much of his testimony was corroborated by other witnesses, the court found that he had to be believed and not Selebi.

The conviction must place a question mark over the actions of former President Thabo Mbeki, who appointed Selebi, at first took steps aimed at protecting Selebi and claimed that there was no evidence of wrongdoing on the part of Selebi even after Mbeki was briefed by the National Director of Public Prosecutions (NDPP) about the evidence against the former top cop.

Why was Mbeki so adamant that Selebi should not be arrested? Why did Mbeki ask us to trust him on Selebi and why did he maintain – in the face of overwhelming evidence provided to him –  that there was no evidence to suggest that Selebi was a crook? Why did he appoint this guy in the first place? Does it not show- at the very least –  a spectacular lack of judgment on the part of our former President?

One should also ask if Selebi would ever have been investigated and prosecuted by the Police and whether he might not have still been our Police Commissioner had it not been for the Scorpions. If the now defunct Scorpions had not taken on the case, the chances are that we would never have known that Selebi was a crook. The conviction of Selebi thus underlines the sheer folly of the decision to abolish the Scorpions.

During Selebi’s trial it emerged that several members of the Police Service tried to assist Selebi to prevent him from ever facing charges of corruption. The prosecutor was arrested and acting crime intelligence boss Mulangi Mphego intervened to secure testimony from Agliotti to weaken the case against Selebi. But it is not entirely clear to what extent the Police tried to protect a now convicted crook from prosecution.

Meanwhile Menzi Simelane has dropped all charges against Mphego relating to the Selebi case. Why was this done? Who is being protected? Can one trust Simelane to have dropped the charges purely for legally sound reasons? The conviction of Selebi suggest that the decision to drop all charges against Mphego was at best dubious.

For the conspiracy theorists, or even for those merely skeptical of the integrity of the Police, questions must now also be posed about the role of Selebi and other members of the police in the investigation into the murder of Brett Kebble. Selebi was called from the scene of the crime and it is alleged that he allowed Kebble’s car to be removed from the crime scene before the police could gather the required forensic evidence. Was Selebi protecting anyone when he allegedly did this?

At Kebble’s funeral then President Mbeki’s side kick and enforcer, Essop Pahad, bizarrely said that “what Brett said to any of us in private should remain private”. It is well-known that Kebble bankrolled the ANC and questions will inevitably be raised about the link between Selebi, Kebble, Mbeki and the financial dealings of the ANC and some of its members. Whether Selebi and others are hiding anything is, of course, unclear.

Lastly, the conviction underlines the fact that the relevant piece of legislation on corruption – passed by the ANC dominated Parliament – is excellent. Where a political will exists to investigate and prosecute corrupt individuals, whether they are politicians, state officials or private businesspeople, the legislation will provide sufficient legal backup to secure convictions. In that sense, the prosecution and conviction of Selebi is remarkable: I suspect in most countries in the world the top cop would never have been investigated and convicted of corruption – no matter how crooked he might have been.

The question does arise though, whether there is sufficient political will on the part of the Zuma administration to ensure that this act will be utilized properly to help stamp out corruption in both the public and the private sector. Given the fact that President Zuma himself only escaped prosecution for corruption through the shenanigans of the NPA, this is sadly far from clear.

Political will is key to fighting corruption. If we see more high profile cases of private and public corruption brought to court, we will know the Zuma administration is serious about stamping out corruption. If we do not, we will know that it is rotten to the core.

Boy, was I duped or what?

Yesterday it was reported that Ashley Smith, a reporter for the Cape Argus until April 2006, “came clean” in an affidavit submitted to the National Prosecuting Authority, alleging that he had been bribed by Rasool. Smith claimed under oath that he and then political editor of the Cape Argus Joseph Aranes used their positions as full-time staff members on the Cape Argus to assist Rasool’s campaign against political rivals, and that they received money from a public relations company that obtained provincial government contracts handed out by Rasool’s office without using the tender route.

Rasool, who is supposed to take up the position as South Africa’s Ambassador in Washington, issued a tepid denial of these allegations, saying that the allegations are old hat and had been dealt with before. But Smiths allegations are backed up by Rasools enemies in the ANC who have made similar allegations against Rasool in the past.

If the allegations are true, Smith, Aranes and Rasool could all face conviction for corruption in terms of the excellent Prevention and Combatting of Corrupt Activities Act 12 of 2004. If convicted, they could face heavy sentences, as the High Court is empowered by the Act to impose a sentence of up to life imprisonment for contraventions of the relevant sections of the Act.

Section 3 of the Act – which creates the general crime of corruption – is rather broad and has two components.

First, it targets any person who gives or accepts “directly or indirectly” a “gratification”, which is defined as including any money, gift, contract, benefit, position, employment or service. If it can be proven that Rasool had arranged for the PR company to receive contracts from the Premiers office (as alleged by Smith), this would satisfy the first part of the test for corruption as not only direct payments or benefits are targeted. Where a front company is used to channel the payment of money or the rewarding of contracts (as is alleged in this case), that will still fall squarely within the definition of corruption set out in section 3 of the Act.

Second, the “gratification” had to be given or received with the intention to achieve any number of specific goals. Where a gratification is given or received with the understanding that the person who received it would act in an illegal, dishonest, unauthorised, incomplete, or biased way, or that would amount to an abuse of a position of authority or that would amount to any other unauthorised or improper inducement to do or not to do anything, the parties will be guilty of corruption.

If the allegations by Smith are proven to be true, this second requirement would also clearly be met as the journalists would have acted in a dishonest, unauthorized, biased and improper manner by writing bad things about Rasools enemies within the ANC and good things about Rasool while they were supposed to report fairly and honestly about politics in the Western Cape.

Section 24 of the Act further makes it easier for the state to prove its case. As long as it can prove that a “gratification” was given or received, it could be assumed that this was given or received with the intention to corrupt – unless the accused can produce evidence that raises reasonable doubt about this link.

A prosecutor would therefore have to show that the PR company did indeed receive contracts from Rasool’s office and that the journalists did indeed write stories favorable to Rasool and detrimental to his enemies in the ANC. Once this has been done, Rasool and the journalists would have to provide evidence that cast reasonable doubt on the link between these two events.

Two issues arise. First, given the fact that these explosive allegations have now been made under oath, will the police and the prosecuting authority investigate the matter properly and will they bring charges against Rasool and the journalists – despite the fact that Rasool is a well-connected member of the ANC and Ambassador designate to Washington? Or will Menzi Simelane strike again and make sure that these rather troubling allegations go away?

Second, can Rasool plausibly take up his position as Ambassador to Washington with these very serious charges of corruption hanging over his head? Rasool has, of course, not been convicted of any crime. Perhaps these allegations are all part of a dark plot by his enemies. But it seems to me untenable that he could properly represent South Africa in the USA while this dark cloud hangs over his head.

Surely the best way to deal with these allegations would be to investigate them properly and – if they seem plausible – to prosecute Rasool and the journalists who will then either be convicted or have their names cleared by the court. If Rasool is innocent, he might also want to explore the possibility of suing the Cape Argus and Smith for defamation in order to clear his name.

In the absence of such steps, Rasool would clearly not be fit to become the South African Ambassador in Washington. If President Zuma is serious about corruption he will have to withdraw the appointment until the matter has been cleared up. Any bets on whether this will happen? I guess it will depend on internal ANC politics, rather than on whether the President is committed to stamping out corruption or not.

It has been several months since the Judge President has done anything controversial, reactionary, ethically dubious or even newsworthy. Meanwhile, Ngobeni has seemingly been too busy giving the Minister of Defense bad legal advice to call me a racist and a pervert or to utter spluttering denials about ever having been disbarred as a lawyer in the USA.

Oh, how I miss our very own Tweedledum and Tweedledee!

Of course, several legal challenges are in the pipeline to try and overturn the absurd and illogical decision on Hlophe by the Judicial Service Commission (JSC) last year, so we might still hear from Tweedledum and Tweedledee in the next few months. The JSC, as you might recall, decided to avoid any investigation of the complaint lodged by the judges of the Constitutional Court against the Judge President, because such an investigation would have forced the JSC to decide whether Hlophe or the judges of the Constitutional Court were lying through his/their teeth. If there was one thing the JSC wanted to avoid at all cost, it was discovering the truth.

Nevertheless, now that the dust has settled somewhat, it might be appropriate to reflect on why the JSC made their patently absurd and indefensible decision and why the case seemed to have split the legal community, largely along racial lines.

The first question seems the easiest to answer. A political decision was taken by the Zuma administration to protect Judge President Hlophe – perhaps because he was accused of trying to protect Zuma and he was being rewarded for his zeal and initiative in protecting the Dear Leader from criminal prosecution. (Not that it was necessary, what with the National Prosecuting Authority doing the protection.) The JSC was thus loaded with pro-Hlophe supporters by President Zuma, which enabled a majority of its members to avoid making a finding that either Hlophe or the judges of the Constitutional Court were liars.

The second question is more perplexing. Why did seemingly good people (I am not including the opportunists, charlatans and crooks who came out to bat for the Judge President) keep quiet or offered support for the Judge President? Why were they almost exclusively black, while those who insisted that the truth be determined were almost exclusively white? Why did the tactic deployed by Hlophe and his storm troops to racialise the issue (despite the fact that the overwhelming majority of accusers were black themselves) succeed so brilliantly?

I suspect the answer to this question has much to do with the lack of racial transformation of the legal profession and the consequences of a particular legal culture that exacerbate racial divisions. More than 80% of practicing advocates and attorneys are still white (and in Cape Town this percentage must surely be much higher). Moreover, lawyers (of all races – Seth Nthai hi there!) are notoriously egotistical and arrogant and ready to gossip about, and belittle, their fellow lawyers. They love to snigger about the stupidity and ignorance of colleagues and of judges and often do so in a sneering and sarcastic manner.

In the absence of a fundamental change in briefing patterns, many white attorneys still only brief white advocates with whom they grew up, went to university with or drink and play golf with. Some of these advocates are brilliant and some are rather mediocre but in a kind of reverse affirmative action the mediocrity is overlooked while the potential brilliance of young black advocates are sneered at or dismissed. This is unjust and scandalous, but because of the way in which the legal profession is structured it is not easy to change.

Let’s face it, if you are a brilliant young black lawyer starting at the Cape Bar, your chances of being briefed by anyone but the state lawyers is rather slim – unless you have demonstrated that you are a good coconut and is white in all but skin colour. Judge President Hlophe did not create the racial divisions in the legal profession – he merely skillfully exploited it for his own selfish gain.

In this kind of atmosphere, it was very easy for Judge President Hlophe and his cronies to appeal to racial solidarity or to silence some black members of the legal profession, who feared they might be associated with the racists and the anti-transformationists in the legal profession or might alienate their potentially biggest client – the state. Support for a full investigation of Hlophe was seen as support for the sneering and arrogant white lawyers who make cynical jokes about the intellect and ability of even the brightest and most brilliant black advocates and judges.

One therefore had to be exceedingly brave and strong (or perhaps foolhardy) to be a black lawyer supporting a full investigation of the serious allegations against Hlophe.

So, while I have been a sometimes harsh critic of Judge President Hlophe and his cronies, I would argue that the disastrous turn of events, which led to the failure of the JSC to investigate the various allegations at all, can at least partly be blamed on white lawyers who have not always shown the necessary understanding for the urgent need to transform the legal profession. Is the legal profession doing enough to change briefing patterns and to transform the legal profession? Surely not. And if they do not take drastic action on this front, the legitimacy of the legal system and of the judiciary will be further imperiled.

When a white judge makes scandalously patronizing statements about black judges or lawyers, white lawyers and judges must speak out. And when a black judge acts in a way that suggests he or she is a crook, black lawyers must insist that he or she should be fully investigated.

But at the moment this does not seem to happen as racial solidarity seems to trump everything. The more transformed the legal profession becomes, the easier it would become for the good men and women of all races to stand up and insist on the upholding of high ethical standards in the profession and in the judiciary.

When this happens, a lawyer or a judge who is accused of taking a bribe, of drinking one cup of “tea” too many, or of scandalously overcharging clients will not be able to garner support from a block of lawyers merely because he or she belongs to the same race.

Until then we will have to cope with the antics of the Tweedledums and Tweedledees of this world.

If one alleges that a right in the Bill of Rights has been infringed, then the very broad provisions of section 38 will kick in and the DA will clearly have standing to challenge the decision. This section allows anyone to approach the court, whether they are acting in their own interest; acting on behalf of another person who cannot act in their own name; acting as a member of, or in the interest of, a group or class of persons;  acting in the public interest; or an association acting in the interest of its members.

That seems to be one of the reasons why the DA is alleging that the decision to drop charges against Zuma was reviewable in terms of the Promotion of Administrative Justice Act (PAJA). Section 33 of the Bill of Rights guarantees for everyone the right to administrative action that is lawful, reasonable and procedurally fair. If the decision to drop charges is reviewable under the PAJA, it would implicate section 33 of the Bill of Rights as PAJA “operationalises” this section. That would mean that the DA would clearly have standing, given the broad parameters of section 38 set out above.

However, if a court finds that the decision is only reviewable on the grounds that the NPA had not acted in terms of the law and the Constitution when it dropped the charges against Zuma (because it failed to adhere to its own prosecuting policy, which it is constitutionally required to do), then the question of whether the DA has standing to challenge the decision becomes legally more interesting.

That is not to say that one could not argue that the DA would have standing – even if this is a Rule of Law issue and not an administrative law issue. Where a supposedly independent institution like the NPA fails to uphold the Rule of Law and drops charges against the leader of the majority party on spurious grounds, one could argue that the official opposition would be directly affected. If such an opposition party, who professes to adore the Constitution (unless the abolition of the death penalty is involved, in which case all bets are off), cannot bring an application to uphold the Constitution, who can?

Besides, so the DA might argue, how could it compete fairly in the political arena if an independent constitutional body like the NPA fails to act without fear, favor or prejudice against members of the governing party? Surely minority parties have a direct interest in upholding the Rule of Law, because without respect for the Rule of Law, they stand very little chance of ever convincing the public that some leaders in the governing party are corrupt and may have abused the Constitution. And if they cannot do that, how will they get the majority of voters to vote for them?

Of course, whether it is in the interest of the DA to have President Zuma prosecuted is another matter. Cynics might argue that it is in that party’s interest to ensure that Zuma remains President for as long as possible – what with his family troubles, his inability to lead, and his apparent inability to impose his authority on the fractious tripartite alliance members.

And given the fact that the DA – like the ANC – contains its fair share of old National Party members and is generally perceived – unlike the ANC – to hold values that are not shared by the majority of South Africa’s voters, the DA is probably not going to convince too many ANC voters to vote for them – even if they can get the NPA to adhere to the Rule of Law, to act independently and to prosecute Zuma.

As yet I have no firm views on whether the President and the NPA will be successful with this technical argument about the right of the DA to bring the review application. There might well be a judge somewhere who finds the arguments of Zuma and the NPA persuasive. What I do know is that the assertion made by President Zuma’s lawyer that he cannot be charged because he is a sitting President, has no basis in law and is obviously not tenable. This assertion will only become true if the Constitution is amended to indemnify a sitting President from prosecution. This is because such an indemnity would constitute a fundamental breach of the principle of the Rule of Law and at present it would thus be unconstitutional.

More interesting for me is the question of whether there is any use in spending all this money in trying to have the original decision of the NDPP set aside. Given the fact that President Zuma has appointed Menzi Simelane as NDPP and Simelane is about as likely to prosecute Zuma as Bafana Bafana is likely to win the World Cup by beating Brazil 6-0 in the final, one may ask whether the DA is not wasting its time and money with this application. Even if it wins the case, it will be a pyrrhic victory as Simelane will almost certainly revisit the decision and will surely decide not to prosecute the President.

He will be able to point to a country like France, where articles 67 and 68 of that Constitution makes clear that the President of the Republic enjoys immunity during his term of office. In France the sitting President cannot be requested to testify before any court and cannot be prosecuted either. However, the statute of limitation is suspended during his term, and enquiries and prosecutions can be restarted, at the latest one month after he left office.

Simelane will be able to point to such provisions and will then be able to argue that it is not in the national interest to charge a sitting President. The President, so the argument might go, will spend all his time in court (or dealing with family trouble) and will have no time to govern the country and that would not be in the “national interest”.

But this does not mean that – from the DA perspective – this application is not worth pursuing. If the party can lay its hands on the report by the prosecutor in the Zuma case which sets out in great detail why he believes there is a winnable case against President Zuma, it will severely embarrass the majority party and its leader. Zuma would be weakened and this might benefit the DA in that many ANC voters will become (more?) disillusioned with the ANC and might stay home come the next election.

Zwelenzima Vavi, who turned a blind eye to the credible allegations of corruption against President Zuma and refused to admit that Zuma had a case to answer, might be forced to rethink his position as well. After all, he berated Zuma last week for not investigating far less credible claims of corruption leveled against some of the Ministers in Zuma’s cabinet. If Mr Vavi was consistent, he would have to insist that the very strong case against Zuma be brought to court so that a court could once and for all decide whether our President is corrupt or not.

I wonder whether that is not the real reason for the President and the NPA’s legal maneuvers. They would surely want to prevent the DA from obtaining documents that would remind the people of South Africa that prosecutors in the NPA believe the President is guilty of corruption. Now that Thabo Mbeki is no longer President (and hence, no longer a handy enemy to rail against to help rally the troops) and the Polokwane alliance is showing signs of disintegrating, this is the last thing that Zuma can afford.

Who knows? One thing is certain though, even if the NPA loses these preliminary skirmishes, they (along with the President’s lawyers) will surely go on fighting tooth and nail to stop the DA from obtaining the relevant documents. After all, as Bill Clinton found out during his second term in office: the truth can be a rather bothersome thing to deal with – even for a President.

Time will say nothing but I told you so,
Time only knows the price we have to pay;
If I could tell you I would let you know.

If we should weep when clowns put on their show,
If we should stumble when musicians play,
Time will say nothing but I told you so.

I don’t often say I told you so, although I would lie if I denied that I am often tempted to do so. But in the wake of reports that the ANC National Working Committee (NWC) on Monday discussed the possibility of charging Cosatu leader, Zwelenzima Vavi, (or may have already decided to charge him), for insulting ANC leaders in public, I have to say: “Well I told you so”.

The Times reports that the ANC wants to charge Vavi as he is a card carrying member of the ANC. They argue that ANC Youth League president Julius Malema was also charged as an ANC member. They are very, very, cross with Vavi because last Thursday, he accused President Jacob Zuma of not taking action against corrupt ministers, specifically mentioning Minister of Cooperative Governance Sicelo Shiceka and Communications Minister Siphiwe Nyanda. Vavi said reports that Shiceka had lied in his CV and the conduct of Nyanda, who spent R500 000 on hotels in Cape Town, should be probed.

The tenderpreneurs in the ANC obviously did not like this talk of probing Ministers for corruption. What will be next? Charging President Zuma for taking money(”taking a bribe”, our courts called it) from a crook and then doing favours for that crook? Exposing the various business dealings of ANC leaders making a fast buck while service delivery flounders? I mean really, who does Vavi think he is? How can one effectively loot rule a country when one’s allies want to have corruption probed and exposed? Have you ever heard of such an absurd idea?

There are no fortunes to be told, although,
Because I love you more than I can say,
If I could tell you I would let you know.

The winds must come from somewhere when they blow,
There must be reasons why the leaves decay;
Time will say nothing but I told you so.

Vavi is, of course, an ANC member and according to the ANC Constitution he is subject to the discipline of the ANC like any other member. It would therefore be perfectly legal to charge Vavi. I am sure if the right disciplinary committee is selected Vavi could also be found guilty of contravening section 25.5 of the ANC Constitution which prohibits any member from, inter alia: 

Behaviour which brings the organisation into disrepute or which manifests a flagrant violation of the moral integrity expected of members and public representatives or conduct unbecoming that of a member or public representative;

Behaving in such a way as to provoke serious divisions or a break-down of unity in the organisation;

Undermining the respect for or impeding the functioning of the structures of the organisation;

Prejudicing the integrity or repute of the organisation, its personnel or its operational capacity by: Impeding the activities of the organisation; Creating division within its ranks or membership; Doing any other act, which undermines its effectiveness as an organisation; or Acting on behalf of or in collaboration with: Counter-revolutionary forces.

That is exactly why I warned after the conviction of Julius Malema that it was a bad idea to find him guilty of criticising the President of the ANC. At the time I wrote:

Surely, if this approach were to be strictly applied, it would stifle democratic debate within the ANC and would severely limit the freedom of expression enjoyed by ANC members. If an ANC member criticized one of his comrades because that comrade had been found guilty of corruption, say, disciplinary charges could be instituted against him or her for sowing division within the ANC. This would leave good members in the ANC who spoke out against the wrongdoing of comrades vulnerable and would make it rather difficult to raise questions about the conduct of fellow ANC members – even if this criticism is based on proven facts.

And that is exactly what Vavi is now facing. Those who want to stop Vavi from speaking out about corruption in the ANC (so much the better to loot govern the country) are even using the Malema saga as an excuse to do so. This is the problem with curtailing freedom of expression and endorsing censorship: today it is being used against your enemies, but tomorrow it is being used against yourself – even when you speak the truth and are one of the good guys.

The fact that the NWC even discussed the possibility of charging Vavi clearly means that the tenderpreneurs in the ANC are more stupid and vengeful than they are greedy (and that takes some doing). Charging Vavi would be a calamity for President Zuma and the ANC. Unlike Malema, who has no real power base, is being manipulated by a few rich benefactors to do their bidding, and could easily be dropped when he passes his sell-by date, Vavi is the leader of Cosatu. Without the organisational skills of Cosatu and the active support of its members, the ANC will find it difficult to get more than 50% of the vote at the next election.

One assumes President Zuma and Mr Gwede Mantashe will outflank the tenderpreneurs on the NWC and will make sure that charges against Vavi never see the light of day. If they do not, the ANC would probably be done for as the governing party.  But what President Zuma will not do is to order an investigation into the credible allegations of corruption against Siphiwe Nyanda. If one lives in a glass house one is surely not going to throw the first stone.

Meanwhile, all I can say to Zwelenzima Vavi is: “I told you so”. When Vavi supported President Zuma as the alternative to Thabo Mbeki and said Zuma was an unstoppable tsunami I warned that President Zuma was an African traditionalist and deeply conservative man who did not share the values held so dearly by Cosatu. Now Vavi is realising that this is indeed the case and that he had helped to elect a man that is ethically weak and holds reactionary views.

Perhaps the roses really want to grow,
The vision seriously intends to stay;
If I could tell you I would let you know.

Suppose all the lions get up and go,
And all the brooks and soldiers run away;
Will Time say nothing but I told you so?
If I could tell you I would let you know. – - WH Auden “If I could Tell you”

The proposed amendment of section 176 will extend the term for Constitutional Court judges who will be able to serve until they reach the age of 70 – regardless of how long they had already served on the Constitutional Court. If passed, this will mean that Chief Justice Sandile Ngcobo appointed by Jacob Zuma last year – who currently will have to retire in 2012 – would be able to serve as Chief Justice until 2023 (along with judges Cameron and Froneman who would then also have to retire in 2023).

Deputy Chief Justice Dikgang Moseneke, on the other hand, will then have to retire in 2017 – long before the end of the term of the current Chief Justice. The proposals would therefore make it impossible for him ever to become Chief Justice. Newly  appointed Judges Chris Jafta and Bess Nkabinde will then serve until 2029, while Justice Mogoeng Mogoeng, a lay-preacher, will serve until 2030.

The question that comes to this suspicious mind is: why has Minister Jeff Radebe made this proposal now? Did he consult the Chief Justice and the other judges of the Constitutional Court? Why wait with the proposal until after four of the most compassionate and progressive judges have retired from the Constitutional Court and four new judges were appointed by the very guy who has had several run ins with the courts because he took money from a crook and then did favours for that crook?

I for one, smell a rat.

When the Constitution was drafted there were long debates about the term to be served by judges of the Constitutional Court. It was pointed out then that South Africa should avoid the American example, where Supreme Court justices serve for life or until they fall over or retire. Sometimes they serve for 30 years or more, thus ensuring some influence for the President who appointed them many years after that President had retired or even died.

Because judges of the South African Constitutional Court have enormous powers and because the exercise of these powers have political ramifications, it was felt that the Constitutional Court judges – unlike High Court and Supreme Court of Appeal judges – should serve a fixed term of no more than 15 years. In this the drafters of our Constitution followed the wise model of the German Constitution and the Constitutions of many other modern democracies.

The reasoning was simple and clear. Judges of the Constitutional Court exercise power that will have strong political ramifications. They are not in effect appointed by the Judicial Services Commission (JSC) in the same manner as the judges of High Courts but are selected by the President from a list prepared by the JSC.  The President also appoints the Chief Justice and Deputy Chief Justice without having to follow the advice of the JSC.

By giving the President a decisive role in the appointment of the judges of our highest court, the Constitution recognises the fact that this court plays a more political role than the other courts. It can declare invalid the actions of the President, has to confirm the unconstitutionality of legislative provisions and, heaven help us ever having to go there, would be able to rule on the validity of an election result.

A relatively regular turnover of judges of the Constitutional Court would therefore ensure that a new President would have some say in the appointment of the Constitutional Court judges as the 12-15 year terms of Constitutional Court judges come to an end and they have to be replaced. This would ensure that the leader of a defeated political party would not be able to exert undue influence on our legal  system by appointing Constitutional Court judges that will serve perhaps far into the future. One would not want judges to serve for 30 or 40 years when that political party whose leader had appointed them had already faded into obscurity or had even disappeared (as the National Party has indeed done).

Imagine these proposals were in place in 1990 and FW de Klerk had appointed 40 year old judges to the Constitutional Court who could then serve until they were 70. That would have meant that the Constitutional Court would have been packed with people appointed by De Klerk and would have been able to serve until 2020 – long after the demise of the National Party. If de Klerk had used his power in a Machiavellian manner to ensure the appointment of judges that were in effect pro-National Party, the Constitutional Court would have been able to thwart much of the ANC’s transformation programme.

Some High Court judges who currently still serve on our courts were appointed before the end of apartheid, but their decisions can always be appealed to the Constitutional Court. Imagine pro-apartheid judges were allowed tos erve on the Constitutional Court for the next 30 years? How undemocratic would that be?

This would have been bad for democracy, bad for the legitimacy of the Courts and bad for the Constitutional project as a whole. It would also have invested the appointment of Constitutional Court judges with so much more significance, as a President would be far more likely to choose a mediocre but reliable party hack for a position on the Court if he or she knew that the appointment would last for 30 or 40 years and might still help to thwart the political programme of a party who defeated the President’s party at the ballot box.

Regardless of how one feels about the judges presently serving on the Constitutional Court – and in my humble opinion there are several brilliant judges serving on that court at the moment, along with a few other judges who one would not be able to  describe as intellectual giants – this proposal seems wrong and dangerous.

It upsets the careful balance devised by the constitutional negotiators which recognised the political role played by the Constitutional Court, but limited the term of the judges serving on this court to ensure that one party in power did not pack the court with its supporters to rule South Africa from the grave – so to speak.

In the absence of cogent and plausible arguments for this amendment, it would not be unwise to suspect that there is some inherently undemocratic about this move and that malicious intent might be behind these proposals. Given the fact that these proposals are brough to you curtesy of the same people who engineered the appointment of that ethically challenged guy called Menzi Simelane as head of the NPA, I am deeply suspicious about the motive behind this proposal. Surely, it will be seen by many people as an attempt by some in the ANC to help entrech their power, if not until Jesus comes then at least for the next 30 years.

Apparently that is what President Jacob Zuma and his lawyers believe. They contend that when our President says that somebody is “fit and proper” and is a man of integrity – regardless of the objective, proven, facts – it is legally true. In his answering affidavit in the case challenging the appointment of the purported National Director of Public Prosecutions (NDPP), Menzi Simelane, President Jacob Zuma argues that the requirements – set out in the National Prosecuting Authority Act – that the NDPP must be a fit and proper person (and hence must be a person of integrity), are subjective requirements not capable of determination by  court of law.

In the following astonishing passage the President seems to reveal a disturbing belief that he IS the state and is thus not bound by the requirements of the law that are explicitly made applicable to him.

Whether a person is fit and proper to be entrusted with the responsibilities of the office concerned is my subjective decision. I am the person, as the President of the Republic, to be satisfied that the person is fit and proper. In doing so I have to take cognisance of his/her experience, conscientiousness and integrity.

This is so absurd and laughable (but also dangerously anti-democratic) that I am quite surprised that any lawyer would have risked ridicule and humiliation by  offering it up in all seriousness to a court of law. The requirements set out in the NPA Act that the NDPP must be a fit and proper person and hence a person of integrity, are clearly NOT subjective in nature.

There might be room for debate about whether a person is fit and proper and has integrity, but the principle of legality – which is part of the Rule of Law – requires the President to comply with these requirements set out in the Act. The President cannot have an absolute authority to decide what these requirements should mean because then the requirements would become irrelevant and the law would make no sense. Then we have rule by dictate and not by Parliament.

To hold otherwise – as the President and his lawyers want to do – would mean the President could appoint a mass murderer as NDPP. He could appoint someone who has defrauded thousands of South Africans out of their money, who has raped his wife, who had issued fraudulent cheques or had been involved in gang activities and drug running. The assertion by the President is that any such person would be legally fit and proper merely because he says so! This is not only wrong, it is also scary. Who think up these arguments? Clearly people with a very tenuous grip on reality and no grip on the law.

What is required is to ask from the objective standpoint of a reasonable and informed person, whether there will be a perception that the NDPP is not fit and proper and is not a man of integrity. Bearing in mind the diversity in our society this means that the perception here must be based on all relevant material information: we must ask how things appear to a well-informed, thoughtful and objective observer, rather than the hypersensitive, cynical and suspicious person.

The well-informed, thoughtful and objective observer must be sensitive to the country’s complex social realities, in touch with its evolving patterns of constitutional development, and guided by the Constitution, its values and the differentiation it makes between different institutions and the need for the NDPP to act without fear, favour or prejudice (in other words, the need that the NDPP should act honestly and with integrity and not like a mafioso or a gangster).

Using this test – and not the subjective one offered by the President and his lawyers – Simelane’s appointment can surely not be said to have been lawful. This we know from the Ginwala Inquiry and the subsequent report later used by the government to justify the unlawful firing of Vusi Pikoli. (It had to pretend that Inquiry made a finding it never did to achieve this result, but it did claim at the time that it was relying on the factual findings on the Ginwala report and therefore never disputed the accuracy of the findings in the Ginwala Report – the same report it now says it is allowed to ignore.)

The President claims that everything that happened at the Ginwala Inquiry and the Report produced by Ginwala can be ignored by him because this was not a judicial commission of Enquiry but merely “a fact-finding exercise”. He does not claim that Ginwala got it wrong. Neither could he claim this, as Simelane had a chance to give his side of the story before the Inquiry and was then cross-examined by a competent lawyer who proceeded to expose him as a fraud and a liar. So the President is really claiming that he can ignore both the law and the facts – as clearly established by a legal Inquiry – because he is exercising an Executive function and because the body that made the factual findings was not judicial in nature.

This is sophistry of the highest order. The fact that the President is offering these arguments means either that he and his lawyers are so ignorant and hubristic that they think they will get away with it, or that they have realized that they are in deep trouble and that the purported appointment of Simelane cannot be defended on factual and legal grounds at all.

But let us recall why Simelane is not a man of integrity and why he is thus not fit and proper and could therefore not have been appointed lawfully as NDPP by the President.

Ginwala found that Simelane deliberately withheld legal opinions from Adv Pikoli and the Inquiry. By persisting in this conduct he misled the Inquiry. Let me quote from the Report (and remember, no one has disputed the factual accuracy of these findings – not because they were lazy but because they can’t dispute the facts, many of them admitted to by Simelane under cross-examination).

It is unacceptable that the DG: Justice elected not to heed the legal advice that he sought and obtained from senior counsel relating to the relationship between his office and the NPA. The legal advice furnished to him clearly shows that his accounting responsibilities over the NPA were limited and did not extend to the areas of responsibility that he claimed. Not only did he ignore this legal advice; he did not share it with Adv Pikoli and he also did not disclose it to the Enquiry when it was his responsibility to do so – not even after it was requested. He attempted to suppress the disclosure of the information that was of significance to the work of this Enquiry. He only acknowledged the existence of these legal opinions when they were presented to him by Adv Pikoli’s legal representatives during his cross examination.

And later on in the Report this:

I must also state that I have found the conduct of the DG: Justice highly irregular. His failure to include all the relevant material at his disposal in the original submission by Government was not consonant with the responsibilities of a senior state official furnishing information to an investigative enquiry established by the President. He had a duty to place all relevant information before the Enquiry. His testimony before the Enquiry was also not particularly helpful to me; his evidence was contradictory and I found him to be arrogant and condescending in his attitude towards Adv Pikoli.

Later on the Ginwala Report says the following about Simelane:

The DG: Justice did not heed the legal advice he had sought and received, and continued to assert powers he did not have. His personal view informed the complaints against Adv Pikoli that formed part of Government’s submissions to the Enquiry. For that reason he made statements in his evidence in chief that he was forced to retract under cross examination.

It was also only during his cross examination that it emerged that the DG: Justice prepared the letter dated 18 September 2007 from the Minister to Adv Pikoli. It is in this letter that the Minister requires Adv Pikoli to supply her with all the information that Adv Pikoli relied upon to take the legal steps to effect the arrest of and the preference of charges against the National Commissioner of Police. The letter prepared by the DG: Justice did not conform to the request from the President to the Minister dated 17 September 2007. I point out elsewhere in the report that the literal reading of the letter conveys a meaning that Adv Pikoli was to stop any plan to arrest and prosecute the National Commissioner of Police until the Minister was satisfied that there was sufficient information and evidence to do so. The Minister has since on affidavit said that it was not her intention to stop Adv Pikoli from discharging his duties or performing his functions as the NDPP. Assuming this is correct, the conduct of the DG: Justice in drafting the document in the manner it reads was reckless to say the least. The DG: Justice should have been acutely aware of the constitutional protection afforded to the NPA to conduct its work without fear, favour or prejudice. The contents of the letter were tantamount to executive interference with the prosecutorial independence of the NPA, which is recognised as a serious offence in the Act.

And yet later Ginwala further demonstrates why Simelane is not a man of integrity and hence that no reasonable person would be able to conclude that he is fit and proper:

I must express my displeasure at the conduct of the DG: Justice in the preparation of Government’s submissions and in his oral testimony which I found in many respects to be inaccurate or without any basis in fact and law. He was forced to concede during cross-examination that the allegations he made against Adv Pikoli were without foundation. These complaints related to matters such as the performance agreement between the DG: Justice and the CEO of the NPA; the NPA’s plans to expand its corporate services division; the DSO dealing with its own labour relations issues; reporting on the misappropriation of funds from the Confidential Fund of the DSO; the acquisition of new office accommodation for NPA prosecutors; and the rationalisation of the NPA.

All these complaints against Adv Pikoli were spurious, and are rejected without substance, and may have been motivated by personal issues. With regard to the original Government submission, many complaints were included that were far removed in fact and time from the reasons advanced in the letter of suspension, as well as the terms of reference. This further reflects the DG: Justice’s disregard and lack of appreciation and respect for the import for an Enquiry established by the President.

With these undisputed factual findings in the public domain one thing emerges quite clearly. When the President appointed Simelane he appointed him despite the fact that Simelane was not fit and proper as required by the law. If the President is a reasonable person, he deliberately flouted the requirements of the law. If he is not a reasonable person it must mean that he appointed Simelane for an ulterior purpose. We all know what that ulterior purpose might be.

No wonder President Zuma and his lawyers had to embarrass themselves by making absurd and untenable legal and factual assertions in this answering affidavit. When one starts on the road of unlawfulness and deceit, it is sometimes difficult to keep one’s story straight.