Constitutional Hill

Robert McBride

The past is very unpredictable and may not exist

Mar 2nd, 2010
by Pierre De Vos.
43 comments

Evita Bezuidenhout, talking about the revelations of apartheid era Vlakplaas hitsquads and the claim by many white South Africans that they never knew about the extra-judicial killing and torture of black South Africans by the police, said that ”the future is certain; it’s the past that is unpredictable”.

Last week the Supreme Court of Appeal (SCA) reminded us how true these words of Tannie Evita is for South Africa. Writing another chapter in this novel called our past, the court in effect wiped out a swath of human rights abuses perpetrated during the apartheid era.

According to the SCA, Dirk Coetzee, David Tshikalange and Butana Almond Nofomela never murdered Durban attorney, Mr Griffiths Mxenge, in November 1981. Adriaan Vlok never ordered the bombing of the headquarters of the South African Council of Churches at Khotso House, and the COSATU trade union headquarters in Johannesburg. Eugene de Kock, Craig Williamson and General Johannes Coetzee never bombed the London offices of the African National Congress in 1982.

Of course, we know these events did happen. The perpetrators were, after all, granted amnesty by the Truth and Reconciliation Commission (TRC) for having done these things. But according to the SCA, because the TRC granted the perpetrators amnesty, a newspaper could not claim that such individuals were murderers or criminals as this claim – which obviously would be defamatory – would also be false.

This, at least, is the consequence of the majority decision of the SCA in the case of The Citizen and Others v Robert McBride. Streicher JA (for the majority) thus found that The Citizen had defamed Robert McBride when it referred to him as a criminal and as murderer. While it was true that McBride planted a bomb in a pub in which three civilians had been killed and that he had been convicted and sentenced to death for these “crimes”, the newspaper could not rely on the traditional defense against defamation(that the defamatory statements were true and were in the public interest or that it was fair comment based on proven facts) because McBride was granted amnesty. It was therefore false to claim that he had been a murderer. He was not a murderer as the TRC had granted him amnesty for committing those murders.

Mthiyane JA (for the minority) disagreed, stating (correctly, I would contend) as follows:

the right thinking reader of The Citizen would have been left with the impression that the authors are clearly and principally commenting or expressing an opinion on the suitability of the plaintiff as a candidate for appointment as police chief. As I see it the reader would have understood the writers to be arguing, rightly or wrongly, that because of the plaintiff’s involvement in the bombing of Magoo’s bar and the Why Not restaurant in 1986, which had fatal and disastrous consequences for many innocent people, and his subsequent conviction and sentence, he ought not to be appointed to the post of chief law enforcement officer of a large municipality. Despite the strong and robust language used and the somewhat extreme (if not, right-wing) views expressed, the articles and editorials remain comment or opinion on the issue of his suitability for the position of the Metro Police Chief.

The fair comment defense did not require that the comment had to be fair in an objective sense, nor did it require the comment to be impartial or well-balanced. “Fair” in this context means only that the opinion expressed must be one that “a fair man, however extreme his views may be, might honestly have, even if the views are prejudiced”. Critical for the newspaper would be that the factual allegations on which the comment was based could be shown to be true. The minority points out the absurdity inherent in the majority opinion:

My colleague says that these facts cannot be obliterated from the historical record and that it is a well known fact that he is a murderer, but then goes on to suggest that the granting of amnesty rendered that fact false ─ a suggestion with which I join issue. This is by no means intended to downplay the broader motives which the plaintiff may have had, namely to free the then downtrodden majority of the people of this country from the evil system of apartheid.

The TRC Act made it clear that the effects of being granted amnesty would be to insulate a person from criminal and civil liability and to expunge the criminal record of the person granted amnesty. Last year the Constitutional Court found in the case of Du Toit v Minister of Safety and Security that Wynand du Toit, who was sentenced to 15 years imprisonment for the murder of the “Motherwell Four” but was later granted amnesty for these despicable deeds (am I allowed to write this without defaming Du Toit?), did not have a right to be reinstated as a police officer because of his amnesty. The Court warned against a “purely literal and de-contextualised reading” of the TRC Act, which would lead to a conclusion that:

the grant of amnesty has the effect of expunging not only the record of the conviction and sentence imposed on the perpetrator, but also all consequences that follow that conviction and sentence, past, present and future. There are, however, serious difficulties with that interpretation.

It was one thing to alter the public record, but another to change history and to assume for purposes of the law of defamation that certain acts – which did take place – actually never took place after all.

The majority decision has a somewhat Orwelian character as it holds that the TRC Act now requires us to pretend that what actually happened in the past, never really happened. We have to pretend that all those people who were granted amnesty for the most heinous crimes (once again, am I defaming anyone by writing this?) never really did anything wrong. It forces a kind of legal amnesia on all of us and fails to heed warnings that we should never forget the past – lest we repeat it.

I hold no personal grudge against McBride. He was granted amnesty for a politically motivated act in which several women were killed. Just like De Kock and Coetzee, he took part in the amnesty process and his criminal record was expunged. Good for him. Unlike De Kock and Coetzee his deeds formed part of the liberation struggle.

Personally I do not believe his conviction for acts for which he was granted amnesty (but which the majority in the SCA would rather us not mention at all) disqualifies him from being a police chief. The fact that he is alleged to have crashed his car after a day of heavy drinking, that he is further alleged to have obtained a fake medical certificate to cover this up and is alleged to have intimidate witnesses, might well – if proven – disqualify him from ever holding any job, but that is for a court to decide.

But the principle seems important. A ruling that the TRC amnesty process requires us to suddenly be struck by a dangerous amnesia about the past, is destructive and illogical. In a democracy with a free media it is impossible to rewrite the past and to pretend proven facts never happened. That is what the SCA majority in effect requires us to do. I do not want to have any part in perpetuating those kinds of lies and the rewriting of history. Granting all those criminals amnesty was bad enough. Surely it is a bridge too far to expect us to forget they ever did those things.

On Robert McBride and democracy

Jul 23rd, 2007
by Pierre De Vos.
15 comments

My comment on Robert McBride last week elicited quite harsh comment from some readers. I bemoaned the fact that McBride was not being held accountable as one would expect in a democracy but some readers took issue with this on the ground that we do not live in a democracy.

That, of course, was before the National Prosecuting Authority (NPA) announced that McBride is to be charged with driving under the influence of alcohol, defeating the ends of justice and fraud. Nevertheless, the comments of the readers was perplexing because it seems rather obvious to me that we live in a relatively healthy democracy.

Really, the Economist (not a left wing or PC magazine by any strech of the imagination) placed South Africa 29th out of 165 countries on its democracy Index in 2007. (Zimbabwe was placed 147th on the list, two places ahead of Angola.)

There are perhaps three interrelated reasons why some people are so dissatisfied with what is happening in South Africa that they can claim we do not live in a democracy.

First, because South Africa never was a democracy in the past, some people fundamentally misunderstand the nature of democracy. In the past, most white people more or less saw their views reflected in government policy and actions, but they now often find themselves in violent disagreement with government policies. Because the government does not reflect their views, they claim the government is evil and undemocratic, instead of merely arguing that the government is unwise or wrong like a true democrat would have.

Second, some people have a “look-at-Zimbabwe” attitude and see signs everywhere of the imminent demise of South Africa into banana republic status. What in another country would be seen as a sign of the stupidity of a politician or political party, is often seen in South Africa as the end of democracy if not the world. When Tony Blair stupidly decided to help the USA to invade Iraq, few people in Britain saw this as the end of democracy in the UK. Conversely, in South Africa, Thabo Mbeki’s handling of Zimbabwe is seen as proof that our government is anti-democratic and Stalinist.

Lastly, people are just plain uninformed, perhaps because they believe the things that bigots whine on about on talk radio. Thus a reader rails against the Constitutional Court for endorsing legislation that only allows individuals to vote if they are present in South Africa. Only problem is, the Constitutional Court has never ruled on this issue.

Thing is, the wonder of a democracy is that we do not always (or ever!) have to agree with the government or with the judgments of the Constitutional Court and we can say so loudly and clearly. This is exactly what democracy is about. Even if one is a permanent minority (like gay men and lesbians in SA or black people in the USA) and always feel the government is not representing one’s interest, it does not mean that one is not living in a democracy.

Of course, democratic governments should adhere to some basic principles and we the people should make sure they do (because give even the most democratic government half a chance and they will cut corners). This is why I criticized McBride for failure to be held accountable.

But today I am very happy that the NPA has done the right thing and has affirmed the respect that everyone is equal before the law by charging McBride. I am eagerly looking forward to the cross examination because Mr. McBride looks like a guy who is going to make Schabir Shaik look believable and coherent under cross examination.

Such are the joys of living in a democracy under the Rule of Law.

McBride and the innocent until guilty charade

Jul 6th, 2007
by Pierre De Vos.
27 comments
It might well be that it was a pure co-incidence that the police officers who turned against Robert McBride after his alleged drunken driving incident, were arrested for driving with tinted windows this week. It might be that the police arrests thousands of people for this offence every week and that the poor officers just happened to be at the wrong place at the wrong time.

It is also possible, I suppose, that George W Bush will announce next week that he is firing Dick Cheney and pullimg all troops from Iraq.

But if I was a betting man, I would not be one to put even one Zimbabwean dollar on either of these scenarios being true.

Clearly, something fishy is going on. The officer has presumably been driving with tinted windows for some time. Why arrest him now? Why call McBride, the Metro Police Head, to the scene of the arrest? Any reasonable person will be hard pressed not to think that McBride is acting like the worst kind of school yard bully, victimising his colleagues because they ratted on him.

The mayor of Ekurhuleni gets it exactly wrong. News24 reports that the mayor, Duma Nkosi, has previously said that McBride is innocent until proved guilty “by credible institutions created by our democracy”.

This case is rather similar to that of Police Commissioner Jackie Selebi, who has admitted to be a good friend of the alleged murderer of Brett Kebble.

In both cases a dark cloud hangs over a senior police officer. In both cases the credibility of the officer has been severely tainted. In both cases their supporters claim that they are innocent until proven guilty and that us normal people are therefore not allowed to have any opinion about them until such time as they are convicted in a court of law.

This might be true if these two were ordinary citizens. But they are not. They are public representatives charged with upholding the law. Even a whiff of scandal fatally compromises their integrity. They are innocent of a criminal offence until proven guilty, yes. But there is also a court of public opinion. In that court they have already been found guilty.

This makes it impossible for them to do their job properly. In order to protect their rights, they should both be suspended until a full investigation into their alleged nefarious activcities have been completed. If this full and independent investigation then finds that they are both angels, fine, they are cleared and can return to work. If not, they must be fired.

It is sad how public representatives hide behind the innocent until proven guilty mantra to escape all forms of public accountability. They do not understand that in a democracy public officials are accountable to the masses of the people.

And public accountability cannot only be about whether one has been convicted of a crime. Many people who have never been convicted of a crime is unfit for public office. To suggest that as long as one has not been convicted one is fit for public office no matter what one has done or is alleged to have done is an insult to us ordinary people who have a right to accountable public officials.

It suggests that the bar for public officials are set so low that any charlatan and conniving bully can become a police commisioner as long as he or she is never succesfully convicted of a crime. If we use that measure PW Botha, Magnus Malan, Wouter Basson, and George W Bush for that matter, should all have been fit to be public officials in South Africa.

And I thought we were fighting against this kind of lack of public morality.

Robert McBride and the Tooth Fairy

May 30th, 2007
by Pierre De Vos.
6 comments

When I wrote a few months ago that Robert McBride (pictured) was a favourite scapegoat for many white South Africans who refuse to acknowledge the evils of apartheid, I received some vitriolic emails. Well, I still think that many white South Africans judge McBride more harshly than other state officials, but if the latest report in The Star is true, he deserves all the scorn coming to him.

The newspaper reports that three of the top cops in the Metro who had been on the scene of McBride’s car crash and who had now made statements that do not correspond with the version given by McBride, are being victimised at work.

On May 18, notices were placed around various metro police offices banning Chief Superintendent Stanley Segathevan, Superintendent Itumeleng Koko and Chief Superintendent Patrick Johnstone from entering the premises. The official reason: they had tried to gain unauthorised entry into the police’s head office after hours.

On Tuesday, the trio consulted their lawyer about getting a protection order against McBride. They also tried to hand in their letters of grievances at their offices, but were denied access.

It is perhaps not surprising that no decision has been made whether McBride will be charged with drunken or reckless driving. After all, the cops (McBride’s pals) who happened on the accident scene whisked McBride away and did not take a blood sample as would normally have been required. McBride said afterwards that he had amnesia and could not remember how he rolled the car after returning from an end of year Christmas party and in any case, it was all a racist conspiracy.

I am sure there are a few people out there who believe McBride. I mean, who on earth would drink any alcohol at the Police end of year Christmas party – unthinkable, surely. And amnesia is a common occurrence so how can we doubt his claims in this regard. It happens all the time – in Days of our Lives.

Those same people who believe McBride’s story will also believe that judge Hlophe got permission to receive R500 000 from Oasis from mid 2001 for “out of pocket” expenses from now dead Minister Dullah Omar in early 1999. And while we are at it, we should ask them about the whereabouts of tooth fairy and whether Father Christmas wear underpants under that red coat of his.

Jokes aside, the whole thing stinks. Police are supposed to be beyond reproach and we the people pay them to enforce the law. If a leading police officer like McBride, who is Ekurhuleni Metro Police Chief, tries to avoid the law like this, he is undermining respect for the Rule of Law.

If the report in The Star is correct, he has now also abused his position of authority to avoid criminal sanction and could then potentially be found guilty of the obstruction of justice.

But maybe the report is not true. I am looking forward to McBride’s press conference where he will explain everything and will deny that he is abusing his power to thwart the criminal investigation against him.

What will he say? This time amnesia won’t do the trick. Maybe he will claim he got permission from Dullah Omar to bar the cops from their places of work. Oh no, that is the wrong Minister, so that won’t work either. He should speak to Judge Hlophe who will surely be handy with a creative answer or two?