This is an invitation to all readers of this Blog. Why not get involved in the debate about who should be appointed to the four vacancies on our Constitutional Court? I therefore invite readers to get involved in the debate by proposing their “dream candidates” for our highest court.
In several judgments – including the Doctors for Life case and the Matatiele case – the Constitutional Court has emphasised the important role that participatory democracy plays in our constitutional order. The problem is that many South Africans are world champions at complaining but far less enthusiastic about actually participating in debates or getting involved in actions to help build a more fair and just society that works for all.
The Judicial Service Commission (JSC) opened nominations on Monday for four judges to fill vacancies in the Constitutional Court. Until 15 July, the commission will accept the names of candidates, and it will begin its interview process in Johannesburg on 5 September.
So here is the deal.
All the clever, compassionate, obstinate, know-it-all or just plain experienced people out there must surely know lawyers, judges and academics who they think can serve with distinction on our highest court. So you are all invited to “nominate” your dream candidate (or candidates) on this Blog. Write a short motivation (no more than 350 words) on why you think a particular person will make a good Constitutional Court judge and post it in the comments section of this post (or later posts I will put up). To encourage practicing lawyers to participate, you are allowed to write under a pseudonym.
Readers are free to debate these “nominations” by either stating agreement or disagreement with a nomination.
I will read all the motivations and other contributions and on 13 July I will announce the winner of our own Constitutionally Speaking competition. The winner will be the person who wrote the best motivation – regardless of whether I agree with the candidature of the person “nominated” or not. If you write a brilliant motivation in support of Judge President John Hlophe, say, you will be adjuged the winner. I cannot offer a prize, but if you find yourself in Cape Town I would be more than happy to buy you dinner.
At the end of the process I will put forward my own own list of “dream candidates” – for what it is worth.
Let us debate and argue and engage! It is OUR democracy and we should get involved. If we do not, why would anyone need to take us seriously when we complain (as we surely will!).
This is not only a brilliant suggestion, it encouraging true civic participation. So prof, I have to give this some thought.
Meanwhile, and I know this is a legal blog, thought I’d like to share this poem (sang as a song by Canada’s poet laureate, Leonard Cohen), as follows, says it all about SA in my view:
“Everybody knows the deal is rotten
Old black Joe still picking cotton
Everybody knows the dice are loaded
Everybody rolls with their fingers crossed
Everybody knows the war was over
Everybody knows the good guys lost
Everybody knows the fight was fixed
The poor stay poor
The rich get rich
That’s how its goes
Everybody knows
Everybody knows the boat is leaking
Everybody knows the captain lied….
Everybody, talking to their pockets
Everybody, wants a box of chocolates
Everybody knows you’ve been faithful
Give or take a night or two.
Every body knows the deal is rotten
Old black Joe still picking cotton
Everybody knows its now or never
Everybody knows Its me or you
Everybody knows you live for ever
When you’ve done a line or two…
That’s how it goes, everybody knows
Everybody knows you’re in trouble
Everybody knows what you’ve been through
Everybody knows its coming apart
Take one last look at this sacred heart
Before it blows
And everybody knows.
1. Marumo Moerane SC, because he is calm, cool and collected. Unable to be influenced by politics. He is an experienced advocate. 2.Prof Hugh Corder, Dean of Law Faculty- UCT, as he is not racist. 3. Kgomotso Moroka SC, did well in trying to cover President Mbeki s mess in the Ginwala Commission and there is just under 25% women judges currently. 4. Van Der Merwe J, for an elaborate and convincing legal workshop he gave while handing judgement in that trial we all remember……My nominees, My reasons, My hope. ….. (My ANC, My VISION, My FUTURE)
Spuy – wow, you uncovered a white laywer that is not a racist! Tansformation is complete!!!
Mr./Prof. de Vos, (not sure what you prefer)
I ain’t read the Doctors or Matatiele judgements, will see if I can get them online, or get copies next time I am in Capetown. However, I got to tell you, the CC may support the principle of ‘participatory democracy’ but there aint much support for it — at least in my case — in the lower courts, or in the HC-CPD.
And in fact, interestingly, a fundamental principle of my case was (and is) supporting and encouraging the essence of participatory democracy and the need for the willingness to practice it, not just talk about it in theory; and the State’s response to my case — simplistically — was F**K U.
And if it had only been a F.U… that’s okay.. I don’t mind a frank disagreement. Much prefer that to fake sycophancy… But frank disagreement weren’t the State’s intention… that wasnt enough of an objection to my ‘participatory democracy in the legal process’.
For the NPA Attorney General at the time (Theunissen), convinced (coerced?), a compliant Magistrate to issue an immediate Warrant for my Arrest (violate my Bail AGreement with the Magistrate who granted my bail), with instructions to immediately transfer me to Lentegeur (no access to a court, in the process… no discussion about reasons or justifications or providing evidence in accordance to the Criminal Matters Amendment Act.. in the court process… NO… straight to Lenteguer, don’t pass Go!!)..
Such was the NPA’s appreciation for ‘participatory legal democracy’!! Not even the Pope, had Martin Luther, sent to a mental Institution, for observation, for his 95 Theses, accusing them of corruption on the issue of indulgences! Not even the Aparthied Goverment had Mandela sent to a mental institution, for recomending the overthrow of the State! So, what did I have to say, that was so controversial, that the media are petrified to touch my case with a barge pole; and the NPA would like my credibility tainted with allegations of ‘insanity’… That is a very interesting question!
In fact… dont laugh, but when I spoke about participatory democracy, as one of my motivations for my political necessity ‘criminal’ act… to Lentegeur Psychologists, the Chief Psychologist’s response was ‘who do you think you are, to think that you are educated enough or know enough about participatory democracy, to be involved in participatory democracy?.. don’t you think you are being too arrogant and should leave that to people who are qualified in participatory democracy… ‘… She also informed me that she did not need more than ten minutes with a client, in order to make a fully informed final report on any ‘patient’, to a court of law! Thats the psychic kind of Forensic Psychologist she was! I ain’t joking! I refused to answer any more of her questions, until she put all our interviews on tape, so I could play them to the court, cause I knew the court would not believe a single word of what i told them she said to me.. cause it was so out of the range of bizarre (I worked for two very prominent psychologists in the USA.. so i know more than a little about psychology.. enough to know when a psychologist is BS and when they are really impartially listening!… anyway i digress…
Well, what do you say to that, that only certain people are qualfied to ‘participate in democracy’???
But back to legal justifications for participatory democracy…. In fact, one of the written jsutifications for my argument for the need for participatory democracy, and requesting judicial activism support, on my behalf, to make that case clear was:
Interpretation of the Constitution… Foreign Law… Justice Stone’s famous footnote four, in 1938, U.S. v. Carolene Products, where he articulated a justification for judicial activism in the field of individual rights….. when it came to “legislation which restricts the political processes,” or is directed at “discrete or insular” (ie vulnerable) minority groups; these situations might call for a more judicial enquiry.”
In other words, ordinarily the political system is adequate to defend individual liberties. when it is not, the Courts role must be redefined to allow broader judicial review as a substitute for the political review which these groups were unable effectively to obtain.
And so, what happened? I filed my Review with a View to Appeal Heads of ARguments in June 2006, was informed by the Registrar, that it would take maximum 6 months to get a date for when the Appeal would be placed on the Roll for Hearing… and THREE YEARS later.. I am still waiting.. and both teh NPA: Director General and the HC-CPD Judge President ain’t one iota interested in HC-CPD Appeal A 696-04 being placed on the roll for hearing!
That is the quality of their appreciation for ‘participatory democracy’ in South AFrica’s legal system. That is not even mentioning that, after I filed the original Appeal documents in 2004, the NPA removed the entire original file, and in the process of eventually returning it, after plenty objections on my part……. returned it with a couple of hundred of pages of missing evidentiary documents! Quite by accident of course.. !!
The Heads of ARgument, can be found here.
As for recommendations to the CC… I will think about that… for a day or two… I got an idea, but got to let it percolate…
Lara
Prof, what a novel idea…
Of course I will not take part in this one as my legal knowledge is not nearly sufficient to argue/debate with the ‘big boys’ and will watch from the sidelines.
Prof, one question though, just for interest sake, if you were nominated, you would accept?
I would like to see Belinda van Heerden appointed to the Court. She is a very impressive lawyer, with an outstanding academic history as a student and later as a Professor. She is also an experienced judge, at HC and SCA level. She has also acted for the CC. She’s demonstrated a commitment to justice beyond her judicial work, especially for children and families, and for the Black Sash during the 80s. With two women leaving the court (O’Regan and Mokgoro JJ), it is very important that female candidates be nominated and appointed. Although I don’t know Judge van Heerden personally, it seems to me that she is an ideal candidate for the highest judicial office.
Let’s start with who should NOTeven be eligible:
For one, Judge Hlophe should not even be eligible. This is because Section 174 of the Constitution clearly stipulates that only fit and proper persons are eligible for nomination. I’m not sure exactly what fit and proper means in this context, but surely someone who’s had to go on indefinitely leave because of serious allegations – and who was found guilty of unethical business conduct – is neither fit nor proper to even be an ordinary judge.
Paul Ngobeni, the fugitive from the United States, is thus also not fit nor proper for nomination due to his fraud.
Here’s my nomination for chief justice:
Advocate Vusi Pikoli. He’s not currently a judge, but only 4 members of the entire Concourt have to be judges and nowhere I could find stipulates that the Chief Justice has to be among them.
Vusi has an enquiry that found he is both fit and proper. I think he’d make a great chief justice.
@ Garg,
I’m with you on that one. Vusi Pikoli is exactly who I would nominate. He has shown that he is prepared to act without fear or favour and he has stood up to Mbeki and the ANC, despite it having cost him his job.
As far as I am concerned, this man is exactly the sort of individual we need in the highest court in the land.
I would make the point however that being a CC judge is not about “standing up” to anybody or anything – it is about applying the law as it stands. Obviously the possibility that this would be interpreted as standing up against someone or something is natural.
Having said that, Adv. Pikoli has proven he has the mettle to stand by the courage of his convictions, and would make a better choice than, say, Hlophe, who has shown that he only seems to demand respect for the law when he’s not on the receiving end of it.
We know who should not even apply, or he does, his application should not even be considered….!
We know who should not even apply, or he if does, his application should not even be considered….!
Batman, Dexter Morgan, Ironman and Optimus Prime.
Norman // Jun 16, 2009 at 10:14 pm
I hate to burst your bubble
http://www.iol.co.za/index.php?set_id=1&click_id=15&art_id=vn20090616105115920C477177
For different reasons to those of some of the bloggers here, I would agree that Hlope JP should not, at this stage, be considered. His matter against the CC judges is still pending and it would therefore be undesirable for him to still be part of that very Court he is still litigating against.
As the saying goes, he can’t have his cake and eat it….he must understand that the delay in finalising his case against the CC judges impacts on his chances (such as there may have been) to be considered for the CC post.
I would support Alistair’s nomination for Belinda Van Heerden
Deputy President of the SCA, Hon. LTC Harms, for his expertise and experience in the law of evidence, procedural law, commercial law and the common law in general.
Unfortunately, I can only wholeheartedly support two people. I can only support two because my basic criterion is that I must have precious little in the way of doubt as regards whether they would do our relatively young constitutional democracy a meaningful service. A fairly demanding, if general, test.
My nominees would be David Unterhalter SC (‘Unterhalter’) and Madam Justice Belinda van Heerden (van Heerden’).
I have three reasons to advance in support of each individual and one collective reason supportive of both causing each basis to comprise four reasons.
As regards Unterhalter, I would offer the following: first, he has significant experience in constitutional litigation. Secondly, he has, from what I gather, an impressive academic background (a point which, in itself, strongly suggests a well-honed capacity for critical analysis. Thirdly, he has repeatedly made himself available to publically discuss President Zuma’s legal tales. Unterhalter would have known how sensitive that topic would have been and yet showed courage and the capacity to reason in a balanced and appropriately impassive manner despite the political significance of the subject matter.
As to van Heerden I would say first that she has a laudable academic background and secondly that she has noteworthy experience as a judge. The third of my reasons as regards van Heerden draws heavily from a point once ventured by Mr Justice Cameron (‘Cameron’) I believe. Some may argue that two important judicial goals being the promotion of legal skill and judicial transformation are in competition with one another. Cameron submitted that the two are not necessarily incompatible. I think that van Heerden illustrates Cameron’s view very cogently.
And finally my collective reason. I think that the appointment of the abovemention lawyers to the highest bench so soon after the appointment of a lawyer as outstandingly able as Cameron would send the message that ability is the principal citerion for judicial appointment.
Spuy // Jun 15, 2009 at 10:14 pm
- I can agree mostly with what you are saying. Two things howewever. Van der Merwe J is almost to be released from active duty due to advanced age – so he cannot really be considered. I know him well and he will not stand for nomination. Secondly, funny that you would recommend only one woman while there is currently slightly less than 25% women judges on the Bench.
I also agree with most bloggers above, Hlophe JP should not be considered, and Paul Ngobeni’s support should not really say anything as he is himself a lawyer of dubious character (I remember some outstanding matters in the US?). I really do not think that anyone of sound mind can nominate Hlophe JP while the JSC already told him once to “watch it” (OASIS) and is busy with a second (more serious) complaint pertaining to his fitness to hold office. If he is nominated, he would be stupid to accept nomination with this cloud hanging over his head, and it could lead to judges in general revolting. And, I do not think the JCS would even consider short-listing him at all. He must have his name cleared – not politically, mind you – and only then can he be considered.
I would still say, politics aside, that Moseneke DCJ should be in line for CJ-ship (failing that, the next senior CC judge should become CJ), which will still leave four vacancies to be filled. All can be filled from the SCA – and I agree that Belinda Van Heerden should receive a fair chance. I do not think many High Court Judges qualify, perhaps Lowna Theron from KZN and Cathy Satchwell from Gauteng South, to move toward gender representivity as well. There are however many High Court judges (once again excluding Hlophe JP for the above reasons) that can be regarded as ‘ripe’ for the SCA Bench to fill the vacancies created when the SCA judges migrate to the CC Bench.
Being an outsider to the legal profession but still an active reader of this highly entertaining as well as informative blog, I must submit that this “competition” is the most revealing of the bloggers to date. It has been a long time since I have read such cogent motivations as those been submitted to this competition — the JSC will have no need to consider any other candidates except those submitted to this blog!
And if pigs could fly, why can this blog not help with the actual selection?!
Dear Prof. P. De Vos
I think professors of law (particularly academics of highest standing) and senior counsel should fill the vacancies in the Constitutional Court. The following will make this very clear.
Normally, law professors hold highest qualifications in the field of law and their research skills and experience are immeasureable. They are always up to date with latest developments in law. They are able to think critically and have, in a number of occassions, influenced judges through their literature. Although not primary sources of law, their works are frequently consulted by lawyers and lawyers-to-be (law students).
On the other hand, senior counsel (silks) are advocates of proven experience and skill who have practised law for many years (above 10 years). Silks are masters of the art of courtcraft and they are regarded as leaders of the legal profession. A court is the field in which they reguarly play their game. The following are my nominees:
Prof CR Snyman; Adv Wim Trengove SC; Jeremy Gauntlett SC and Prof CJR Dugard.
Prof Snyman is emeritus professor of law at UNISA and is the authoritative author of criminal law. He has been widely quoted by the courts particularly SCA. His literature is prescribed in different universities.
Adv Wim Trengove SC has appeared in many reported cases and represented high profile politicians and corporates. I am sure he no longer introduces himself to judges during court proceedings.
Jeremey Gauntlett SC has headed the General Council of the Bar and the Cape Bar and is currently Judge of Appeal, Lesotho. Many members of the constituent bars are familiar with him.
Lastly, Prof Dugard is regarded as the best international lawyer of our times. He has received many honorary doctorates and is unquestionably an academic of highest standing. He has published widely on international law, criminal law and procedure, human rights and constitutional law. He is professor of law at Leiden University and holds honorary professorial positions at Wits and UP.
George, hmmmm, I would lie if I said serving on the Constitutional Court would not be a dream job. An intellectually stimulating environment in which one may even be able to contribute in a small way to the building of a more just South Africa. But, let’s face it, there is no chance at this stage of me being appointed. And there are probably more experienced black and woman candidates who deserve to serve on our highest court, so I Will keep on doing what I do now.
If the Concourt is going to be the final court in All matters as stated by Radebe, then the JSC may just have to promote some old hands from the SCA! I like Belinda a lot actually. She will bring good looks to the highest court as well as sound legal knowledge!
The Honorable President and Pastor Jacob Zuma…. why have a lacky, these guys @ times have a mind of their own….. So Mr President of the Cuntry you should be the Chief of the Armed Forces and Justice….. Bring me my Machine Gun, Bring me my Bible , but most of all bring me justice, in the words of old blue eyes . ” I did it my way”
Glory and viva
Prof
It is interesting that many of the proposals are still for white lawyers. I propose Adv Vuyani Ngalwana as a good candidate. When he was the pensions fund adjudicator he demonstrated an independent mind and often angered the big insurance companies with his judgments which found against them. He is smart and not scared to push the law to protect the little guy. And no offense to the other judges on the Constitutional Court, but it would be nice to have such a handsome guy on the court.
I obviously disagree with Hlophe JP becoming a justice. Beyond his dodgy dealings there is tha matter of the recent CC judgement. I do not think his style and approach are in keeping with the CC.
I think Prof Snyman is miles ahead of many others in Criminal Law, however, not suitable for the the green robes. I recently read his take on capital punishment and I was rather disappointed. I feel it would be dangerous for a CC justice to advocate the death penalty.
Dugard SC, would be a good candidate. He has extensive knowledge of law. It also seems a favourite question of the JSc to ask what a candidate did in defiance of Apartheid, here he would also manage well enough.
This is certainly one of the more interesting and almost non-political debates on the blog.
Advocate Ann Skelton. She has appeared before the Con court on a number of occasions and more importantly champions the rights of all children. Having participated in the shaping of most of our current legislation she is acutely aware of the nuances and grey areas. Most critically however she not only believes in our constitution and its values but she lives them in the work she does based at the Centre for Child Law.
I am struggling to settle on four who meet my requirements, so let me set them out so you understand my difficulty. Because two women are leaving, at least two of the four must be women. To continue racial transformation at the CC, at least three of the four must be non-white. Because of the proposal to make the CC an apex court and the lack of SCA-type experience on the current court, at least two should be SCA judges. All of the judges should be fit and proper persons, with the intellectual ability, progressive values and work ethic to serve on a court that is becoming more and more important in our civic life. Bearing that in mind, here are my top 6:
1. Belinda van Heerden
2. Vincent Maleka SC
3. Lex Mpati
4. A. Cachalia
5. Prof Cora Hoexter
6. Leona Theron
No combination of these meets all of my requirements, but each of them would do a magnificent job.
I am surprised Khosi has not yet nominated Mojanku Gumbi who used to be President Thabo Mbekis legal advisor…..
Duke, a well considered list. I am not too familiar though with Adv Vincent Maleka. Why would he be a good Constitutional Court judge do you think?
Prof,
I thought and thought; with the following criteria:
(I) Charlie Houston’s dictum: lawyers are either social engineers or parasites: ‘Charlie Houston set out to teach us the difference between what the laws said and meant and how they were applied. His avowed aim was to eliminate that difference. He was a man you either liked intensely or hated’;
(II) Thurgood Marshall’s common sense listening criteria: “He’ll take ideas from a chimneysweep if they sound right to him.” [Simple Justice, by Richard Kluger].
In a political criminal trial that has spanned 7 years, and reached out to thousands of RSA’s legal and goverment intelligentsia; I have not come across one Advocate, or lawyer, who (i) wanted to take part in a Brown v. Board of Educ. precedent setting case (be a social scientist); and (ii) recommended I tell the court, ‘the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth’; and (iii) thought active impartial listening was an important aspect of clear legal communicating.
I don’t know any, or of any, Braam Fischers; I only know Legal Priests and Bishops selling Legal Indulgences; demanding respect for a Legal System Corrupt to its Core.
I wish it were otherwise, perhaps there are BvBoE Lutheran Fischers somewhere hiding; committed to eliminate the difference between what
the laws say and mean and how they are applied; as a matter of constitutional honour, not legal indulgence prostitution.
Lara Johnstone
As this is a competition, what is the prize???? a Black Merc please!
Section 174(2) of the Constitution asks that race and gender be considered. There are too few women, will be no Jews, and a paucity of pale males after the retirements take effect. So it makes perfect sense to promote women and Jews and perhaps Jewish women too. Now it becomes necessary to look around for suitable candidates having taken the constitutional concerns into account. Kill two birds with one stone by giving Dennis Davis the nod. Not only does this take care of the pale male and Jewish vacancies in one fell swoop, it may even have the effect of terminating his tv personality role in the interests of the jurisprudence of the Court. That can’t be a bad thing.
[ It has always worked for Springbok rugby to have a Jewish player on board, lets keep the Concourt similarly lucky] Now for three women: eenie mienie mynie mo: Leona Theron, for her persistence, Belinda van Heerden for her all
round brilliance and Cora Hoexter for auld times sake. Where and when do I collect my dinner?
I’m surprised Trengrove SC hasn’t come up more often. So, we replace Sachs J with Davis J; O’Regan J with Van Heerden JA. How about we get a coloured person on Constitutional Hill? Mpati JP sounds like a good suggestion. I’m yet to get around to nominating anyone…
Adv Maleka is one of the smartest, hardest working advocates in the country. Also has real integrity.
I read the judges of the SCA’s CVs and I belive that those who sacrificed their time to teaching at universities and elsewhere should be short listed as this shows that they sacrificed their time to something greater than themselves, educating the minds of the future, a selfless act that also qualifies a person better to give judgement. That should be considered when appointing the justices.
Lets get real about this process/competition/professorial challenge. We are all living in a country in which the president, according to the prosecutors’ view of the merits of the case against him, should actually be on trial for fraud, corruption, racketeering and tax evasion. Our chief of police, Jacky Selebi, is on trial for racketeering and defeating the ends of justice. The Cape judge president is facing (mostly he tries not to) impeachment and all of the current Concourt judges, except that goody goody Cameron, have a disciplinary counter-complaint pending against them which could theoretically lead to their impeachment too. Our chief prosecutor was suspended by Mbeki for going after Selebi and then fired by Motlanthe for
going after Zuma in the ordinary course of his “without fear, favour or prejudice” functions. {Fear the politicians without your favour, they will prejudice you}. To be succinct: our desperate times call for desperate measures. In these circumstances we have to choose horses for courses when
it comes to filling the vacancies on the Concourt Bench. Especially so while that pesky DA review of the NPA decision to withdraw charges against Zuma is still pending. One can’t be too careful about upholding the Constitution while always maintaining the transformation agenda. When you look at it this way, it is plain the Hlophe JP should be Hlophe CJ; Motata J can be his wingman, at least until lunchtime but not after taking tea and Nono Gosa,
with her fine track record of reported judgments, can surely crack the nod. To supplement the gender requirements and make up the numbers, Minnie Mouse can be asked to take on SA citizenship – voila – a suitably transformed and
safe as houses Concourt to blend seamlessly into the other shambolic spheres of government as we have come to know and love them.
David Unterhalter and Cachalia are the only two that I can affirmatiely support. Unterhalter is undoubtedly one of the finest advocates currently practicing at the Bar (though I understand he divides his time between SA and a sabbatical abroad somewhere, these days). He is also an outstanding teacher, lecturing Competition Law at Wits (and we all know he doesn’t need the money). He is brilliant and articulate.
Cachalia because he already has the judicial experience. He is likewise of superior intellect and can be incredibly direct, if not cold.
Perhaps Prof Hoexter, but she’s been through the interviewing process before and came short, so I’m not sure of her chances. And maybe throw in a Kathy Satchwell in there (an openly lesbian woman, double score!).
And why on earth isn’t Marumo Moerane a judge already?! He seems to be have been around forever.
So 3 real candidates and 2 maybes.
all you fools can talk and talk all you want, but at the end of the day Politicians will decide. PSSS! whatever.
1. Advocate Moroka
2. Tsoka J
3.Mojapelo JP
4. Hlope JP
I second Nklandlaaitjie, except may I modestly nominate myself instead of Minnie Mouse.
[...] For the rules of the “competition”, and for the contributions thus far click here. [...]
Given the amount of transformation that still needs to be carried out in our Judicial system, Judge John Hlope is the only suitable and the qualified candidate to carry out this national importance duty and wipe out all the white and black racist.
Tbose, given the judge President’s track record he is not a suitably qualified candidate to effect transformation – unless you believe transformation has nothing to do with the values of the Constitution and everything to do with appointing self-serving people to the bench. Hlophe owns shares in a wine faarm that is actually owned by the most notorious hanging judge from the apartheid era which suggests he lmikes the powerful regardless their politics. If I was President WZuma I would be very nervous to appoint him because when the political winds shift who knows what Hlophe will do?
5. Mojanku-Gumbi
6. Zondo JP
7. Ngoepe JP
8. Musi JP
9. Maluleke J
9. Tsoka J
10. Adv Semenya SC
11. Adv Maleka SC
12. Molahleki J
13. Adv Tokota SC
We have a new understanding of Creation through quantum physics and the confirmations of COBE Satellite. It has been a passion of writer since 1974 with the miraculous demonstrations of mental telepathy. Today this new science of cosmology and the world trends towards the ecovillage offers some immense opportunities for seriosly minded professional people and your blog serves as invitation for those so minded.