A joint letter signed by Nobel Peace laureates Desmond Tutu and FW de Klerk has been delivered to President Kgalema Motlanthe’s office on 2 December 2008, urgently requesting that he institutes an independent and public judicial commission of inquiry into the arms deal. The letter argues that:
the widest possible investigation into impropriety and corruption is appropriate. The commissioners should be required to indicate who, if anyone, should face prosecution and on what charges. There should also be an investigation into the possibility of cancelling arms deal contracts tainted by corrupt and fraudulent dealings, and recovery of payments already made. The urgency of the matter is self evident. The country is moving towards a general election, and the voters are entitled in the spirit of free and fair elections to be informed about what has become a major scandal in the country’s political discourse. Should you decline this petition, we respectively request that you furnish the reasons for your decision.
But what happens if President Motlanthe refuses to appoint such a commission? Could the Constitutional Court order him to appoint such a Commission? Would it ever issue such an order? I am afraid the answer to both questions is almost certainly no.
The argument being made is that section 84(2)(f) of the Constitution states that the President “is responsible for… appointing commissions of inquiry”. Moreover, section 83(b) states that the President “must uphold, defend and respect the Constitution as the supreme law of the Republic”. This means the President has a duty to take steps to uphold the founding values of our Constitution, especially section 1(d) which states “the Republic of South Africa is one, sovereign, democratic state founded on”, amongst others, “universal adult suffrage, a national common voters roll, regular elections and a multi-party system of democratic government, to ensure accountability, responsiveness and openness.
Given the widespread credible allegations of corruption in the arms deal, so the argument goes, the President has a constitutional duty to apppoint a full commission of inquiry to ensure accountable, responsive and open government. If he fails to do so he would be failing in his duty to uphold, defend and respect the Constitution – and the Constitutional Court would have the power to order him to do so by appointing a commission of inquiry.
If I had any money to spare, I would take a sizable bet that this argument is not going to fly with the Constitutional Court. There are several reasons for my scepticism.
The power of the President to appoint commissions of inquiry stems from the prerogative powers, which in the United Kingdom rested with the monarch and always had a strong political discretion attached to them. Although these powers have now definitively been captured in our Constitution, they have retained their strong political dimension and as the Constitutional Court made clear in the Hugo case the exercise of these powers would very seldom be reviewable by a Court.
Where these powers are exercised (or not exercised) a court would only intervene if the decision by the President was irrational. One would have to show that the decision was arbitrary, capricious or in bad faith – something that would be very difficult to do, given the many different policy options open to the President to fulfill his constitutional duty to uphold and defend the founding values of openness and accountability in our democracy.
This is appropriate because the separation of powers doctrine requires our courts to respect the power of the executive to make the kind of political choices associated with a decision to appoint or not to appoint a commission of inquiry. Even if the Constitutional Court could be persuaded that the President had failed to defend the values of openness and accountability enshrined in section 1 of the Constitution because allegations of corruption in the arms deal have not been dealt with decisively, it would not order the President to appoint a commission of inquiry into the arms deal because the judges would feel this would interfere with the powers allocated by the Constitution to the President (and not to the court).
Of course, it would be rather difficult to convince the Constitutional Court that the President had not defended these constitutional values, given the fact that an investigation into the arms deal had already been conducted by the NPA, the Auditor General and the Public Protector. The report produced by these agencies was of course doctored by President Mbeki, but this in itself would probably not be enough to convince a court that the President has failed in his constitutional duties.
Judge Nicholson did suggest that the President should institute such a commission, but I am quite convinced that these kinds of mutterings (just like his findings about the political conspiracy) would never have been made by the Constitutional Court. The latter court is far too aware of its appropriate role in our system of constitutional democracy based at least partly on the principle of the separation of powers. As a matter of judicial politics it is a non-starter.
Having said that, it is interesting to note that apart from Trevor Manuel, none of the individuals or organisations implicated in arms deal corruption have sued those who had made these allegations. While Thabo Mbeki’s lawyers immediately sprang into action after the Nicholson judgment in effect found that he had interfered with the NPA, he has not sued the Sunday Times for alleging that a bribe of R30 million was solicited from a succesful arms bidder and that R2 million was given to Jacob Zuma and the rest channeled to the ANC. Come to think of it, neither has Zuma sued anyone for this scandalous allegation – despite the fact that he has taken action to sue a cartoonist and some newspaper editors for making fun of him.
I imagine in a defamation case, the ANC (and Zuma) would be requested to provide information about their finances and this information may well provide embarrassing details or even incriminate them. No wonder no one has sued either Andrew Feinstein or the Sunday Times for alleging the ANC received money from at least one of the succesful bidders in the arms deal.
That is also why our President will probably not appoint a commission of inquiry into the arms deal as the Commissions Act provides wide powers for a commission to summon witnesses and to compel them to provide books, documents or other material requested by the commission. If I was the ANC Deputy President, the last thing I would want to do was to appoint a commission of inquiry that could summons all the financial records of the ANC since 1997. (But if that commission could be persuaded only to get their hands on all Zuma’s financial records, that might be helpful if one wanted to remain President after the election!)
Imagine what a field day the press would have with all the dirty little secrets on ANC funding that will emerge – even if it turned out that no money was paid by arms bidders to the ANC. Nee wat, there is no chance that our President will appoint this commission. Nice try though.
“given the fact that an investigation into the arms deal had already been conducted by the NPA, the Auditor General and the Public Protector. The report produced by these agencies was of course doctored by President Mbeki, but this in itself would probably not be enough to convince a court that the President has failed in his constitutional duties.”
Do you have proof of this? Geez man, you write so much drivel that the only reason I stay here is to make sure that your drivel does not go unchallenged; and your dishonest ways exposed.
Remember, you have not been sued either.
“The report … was of course doctored by President Mbeki …”
How do you know this, Pierre? And if you’re just guessing that Mbeki did that, isn’t that quite a serious allegation?
Khosi and Clara, the fact that the report was changed is common cause. It came out after an access to information request revealed the details of the changes. See the report in Mail & Guardian (http://www.mg.co.za/article/2008-09-30-arms-how-mbeki-meddled) who reports (and they have not been sued):
October 2001: Then-auditor general Shauket Fakie meets Mbeki and ministers Alec Erwin, Trevor Manuel and Mosiuoa Lekota, presenting them with a draft of the joint investigation team’s (JIT) report on the arms deal.
With Heath’s SIU excluded from the multi-agency probe into the arms deal, the JIT consisted of Fakie’s office, the National Prosecuting Authority and the Public Protector. They were due to release their report to Parliament at the end of October 2001. But after the meeting with Mbeki and his ministers the draft (in fact drafts, as up to that point each agency had prepared a separate report) was furiously rewritten. A final, unified report was presented to Parliament only in mid-November.
Fakie repeatedly defended his actions, saying the law gave him no choice but to seek comment from the executive before publication. He also claimed no “material” changes had resulted.
When arms deal bidder-turned-whistle-blower Richard Young gained access to the draft reports through access to information litigation, a different picture emerged. It seemed that evidence tending to contradict the executive’s version on the probity the main arms deal contracts had been omitted or toned down.
A set of handwritten notes resulting from Fakie’s meeting with Mbeki and his ministers strongly indicated that Fakie succumbed to the politicians’ demands. These included an instruction for the substitution of a finding by Fakie’s team that former defence minister Joe Modise had interfered to ensure the selection of BAE System’s Hawk jet trainers with the Public Protector’s finding that the Hawk selection was (justifiably) made for strategic reasons.
A separate note, but in the same handwriting as the notes recording changes to be made as a result of Fakie’s meeting with Mbeki and the ministers, stated the need to insert in the overall conclusion that “the joint investigation team found no evidence of impropriety, fraud or corruption by Cabinet, government or individual ministers”.
Indeed, the final report concluded that “no evidence was found of any improper or unlawful conduct by government” and that the irregularities exposed in the report “cannot be ascribed to the president or Cabinet ministers”.
Having regard to the often hectic responses by the paranoid – and increasingly truculent – tendency in these threads, PdV’s assertion on which khosi has called him out is (absent the evidential basis khosi has justifiably requested, and having regard to the other prejudicial material lubriciously trailed by PdV above) intellectually dishonest.
To take one example at random, PdV writes:-
“Given the widespread credible allegations of corruption in the arms deal, so the argument goes, the President [etc.]”
Now, we can be sure that many of the lesser luminaries orbiting this website will grab the phrase “widespread credible allegations of corruption” as validating their prejudices. PdV’s involved syntax points such persons in precisely the wrong direction.
And when, at the end of the piece, we read (surprise! surprise!) that it is perfectly possible any such commission of inquiry might exonerate the ANC, this is smothered by squalid rumour-mongering:-
“. . . what a field day the press would have with all the dirty little secrets on ANC funding that will emerge – even if it turned out that no money was paid by arms bidders to the ANC.”
To adapt PdV, even if it turns out that he can substantiate his assertions that TM “doctored” reports produced by the NPA, the Auditor General and the Public Protector, this would probably not be enough to save him from the charge of intellectual dishonesty in the manner in which he has presented his views on the subject, including, in particular his use of the term “doctored” which might – and probably is intended to – cover a multitude of interventions some of which might be benign.
In light of the provisions of s.181 of the Constitution, it is insufficient for a reputable commentator to claim that the former President of the Republic “doctored” a report by State agencies (two of which are specifically charged with supporting constitutional democracy) without indicating the broad nature of the intervention, let alone giving the evidential basis for the assertion.
I do not think, however, that the debate can progress if PdV is accused of being dishonest “tout court”, or of having “dishonest ways” – although I concede that the particular phrase khosi used is, in the circumstances, arguably justified.
If there were irregularities, and the only people involved were the president and Cabinet… that’s actually an admission of guilt between the lines.
In the time it took to elaborate it, my previous intervention has been partly overtaken by events.
The claim of doctoring by TM, in so far as capable of being supported by what PdV has now written, seems to hang on twoinstances.
The first concerns a change in wording whereby a previous finding by the PP that “former defence minister Joe Modise had interfered to ensure the selection of BAE System’s Hawk jet trainers” was replaced by a finding “that the Hawk selection was (justifiably) made for strategic reasons.”
The question, of course, is what “interfered” meant in the context of the previous draft. It is also pertinent to inquire why, if “interference” was intended to denote skulduggery, no other part of the report needed to be suppressed or mutilated as a consequence of the removal of that one word.
As for the second instance, a memo which notes the need to insert in the overall conclusion a statement to this effect “the joint investigation team found no evidence of impropriety, fraud or corruption by Cabinet, government or individual ministers” is similarly unprovoking. Unless that part of the conclusion was contradicted by anything in the body of the draft report, the insertion is entirely benign.
dontgetmestarted, I am finding it difficult to catch your drift. I find one makes more sense if one is concise and veers away from pomposity – but maybe that is just me.
You also misinterpret my statement: “Given the widespread credible allegations of corruption in the arms deal, so the argument goes, the President [etc.]”. I am not distancing myself from the statement that there is widespread and credible allegations of corruption. Of course there is. Duhh! (See Andrew Feinsteins book. See – even – the JIP report. See the Sunday Times reports. See millions of newspaper articles. All never challenged in court in defamation claims.) I meant to distance myself from the constitutional law argument which I do not buy.
I can also provide links to literally thousands of articles about the way in which the JIP report was changed after Fakie met Mbeki – although I just provided one above – but go and Google and check it out. We all know there was a draft report. This was given to Mbeki. Mbeki and others met with Fakie after the draft report was handed to Mbeki. The report was substantially changed. Fakie first denied this until the draft report became public. This is not a secret. I am surprised you guys are getting so worked up about it.
See also Andrew Feinstein’s article in which he points out that if the ANC believed that the JIP report was credible it would not have launched its own investigation: http://www.armsdeal-vpo.co.za/articles12/neutered.html
As I recall, it was fairly widely known that the report was doctored, and when people like the auditor general are succumbing to political pressure, it has to be some serious pressure.
The arms deal will never be adequately resolved as long as the ANC is in power, because the ruling party has proved time and time again that protection of it’s members (especially high ranking ones) trumps all other moral or ethical considerations. An independent commission of enquiry (truly independent) would be the only way to clear the air, but that would endanger too many people, one of whom is waiting in the wings to become our commander-in-chief, and we just couldn’t have that.
The plethora of evidence that exists to indicate serious impropriety on the part of several politicians and businessmen cannot be dismissed with the typical conspiracy theories. In any normal criminal investigation, as I understand it, when there is enough prima facie evidence, a deeper investigation is initiated to corroborate or discredit this evidence. This has not happened with the arms deal (well, not an independent interference free investigation at least), in spite of everything pointing to the need for it.
It’s kind of like finding a guy in a house with a dead body and blood on his hands, and saying that there isn’t enough evidence to launch an investigation to find out what happened, and the gentleman swears blind that he had nothing to do with the dead body so it’s all ok.
In a normal democracy, this sort of thing would never be tolerated, but the ANC seems to think that a parlimentary majority means it can do whatever it wants, with complete disregard for what is right and what is wrong, even if it means altering incriminating reports about it’s members. I am fairly certain that if this was a deal involving members of the opposition parties, the ANC would have instigated inquiries and investigations years ago, all the while spouting forth about how they will defend the people of this country from corruption.
Sadly, at the end of the day, it is the people who make up the ANC’s majority vote that will suffer – the people in rural areas who feel obliged to vote for the ANC due to racial, tribal or historical allegiance lines. It is their schools that won’t get built, their services that won’t get delivered, because R47bn was pissed away to make a few people rich. But when R100 is a week’s worth of food, R47bn doesn’t even compute, and the ANC will get away with daylight robbery while the poor and disenfranchised people of the new South Africa suffer, blissfully unaware that their suffering might be a bit less if only the people they elected would refrain from treating government like their personal piggy bank.
Thank you for the post Prof, it goes a way to supplementing the SAfm interview you had earlier. It may just be time you got some armour to protect you from the onslaught by the bloggers. I must say that as much as this is traditionally a prerogative power one should hope that the electorate’s wishes should be strongly considered in light of the Cosntitution. This makes sense to me. The President should use his powers wisely and with due care. By ignoring the wishes of the masses he is also showing that he approves of corruption as Mbeki seems to have done. I infer this simply from the protective stance that does not consider a commission of enquiry as an appropriate way of addressing the issue. This matter has been ignored and has not gone away. The strange thing is that they don’t appoint a commssion that they could bully and get it over with.
Its clear that there are thse of us who don’t believe there was coruption at all whilst I’d love to have the taxpayers’ money put towards something useful. Its interesting that the people we elect to power are the very people who rob us blind and we continue defending them.
If they were to sue for defemation they would be faced with the task of disproving the statements. Applicant would have to show defendant was negligent. You’ll find that the papers did their research and made sure to cover their backsides just so they wouldn’t have a legal dispute. And I’m sure Prof could use jest as a defence or fair comment. As he is used to making harsh commentary about the nation’s leader’s I’m sure that he ould again say that all politicians must get a thick skin or get out. Zuma, and the rest, can’t behave like brats (grabbing everything in sight or inciting violence) and expect to be pampered all the way into the Union Buildings. The public must debate and insult if they want to until we are all better informed feel that this democracy, and Constitution, are alive and dynamic.
Who knows with elections about the corner. De Klerk who resigned from active politics out of disillussionment with the entrenchment of democracy seeks to revert to active politics.
The timing of the request smacks of political posturing. As for Tutu I wish to ask his to reconsider casting his vote for the sake of democracy.
Kgalema is actively campaining as not to be able to peruse all letters send by our luminaries. The question of an inquiry is a crucial one. Zuma may have to attend to it upon taking Office !
In the event the Supreme Court of Appeal overturns the Nicholson ruling; the charges are relaunched and Zuma is convicted, the charges of fraudulent arms deal will regain strength.
At the moment, electoral campaigning is the epicentre of all political activity. The officials in the Presidency must acknowledge receipt and indicate the matter will receive attention in due course.
Zuma and Mbeki have the right to institute action for any injurious falsehoods. They have three years to do so from the moment of cause of action. The silence may be compounded by the many legal activities which will seemingly traverse a period of eight months from now on the meddling with the NPA and Zuma prosecution.
We still have to wade through an appeal to the Constitutional Court of the impending judgment of Harms and his colleagues and an application for permanent stay of prosecution. The journey is long and protracted.
I seem to agree with Prof. that CC is already tired of political debates they will explain to any challenge to force decision as usurpation of executing powers of the President. De Klerk knows better. We had many atrocities in which thousands of South Africans were maimed and killed and no serious commissions of Inquiries were initiated. As for the Hit Squads, Harms – the Judge could not help us. The road is too dark.
I had hoped De Klerk will shed light on the disappearance of Simelane. For Believers there really must be a lot of praying!
Mthembi- Mahanyele v mail and guardian does not to need to be regurgitated. Society is very strange when Malema expresses his views in crude terms the law and itd wielders recoil and when the media insults everyone, we all gleefully wave the Constitution. Is Malema not a citizen entitled to ventilate his thoughts no matter how tactless? This is democracy is must embrace all its children.
When the media is on the brink of hate speech as it happened in Rwanda then I will be one of those at the forefront of the outcry. I’ll call for internal modifiers to be used, Delict to be considered and s36 be employed to prevent misuse of the right. Its not an unqualified right and the media must ensure reasonable and responsible reporting.
What malema said cannot possibly be right and does not warrant any protection. It was not even an idea in the sense that it could be debated in the marketplace of ideas model. It was a call to arms, it was wrong and flies in the face of our law.
As much as their reputations are protected by law, they are in politics and are afforded less protection in certain aspects. I think that we have a right not to have our hard-earned money wasted through corruption and ineffective governance. We want to know who is accountable for the mess and how its going to be cleaned up, is that too much to ask?
I also don’t support “justifying” (or rationalising) this wrong in light of another, especially one under Apartheid. You’re saying they did it so why don’t we and you’re likening the ANC government to the NP government in a way, I doubt the ANC would love that.
PdV @8.31pm
Difficult to catch my drift? Are you sure? I was accusing you of intellectual dishonesty. I very much doubt you are so thick-skinned as to have missed that.
As for our preferences in expressing ourselves, you can persist with “duhh!” and similar expressions of varying tepidity (a “cool” professor is a dismal sight on and off-campus), and I will continue in my own way. You will not find me abusing people for their style of English.
Written presentations, by the by, do not necessarily make more sense just because they are concise; nor does pomposity as such (what can you be thinking of, I wonder) offer a barrier to comprehension. It is excessive concision (“The report produced by these agencies was of course doctored by President Mbeki”) that ignited the present dispute. Your syntax is also at fault, for your parenthesis “so the argument goes” is properly to be taken with what precedes it.
Turning now to the substance, your main article skirted two substantial topics: (a) the imputation of ANC corruption in the arms deals and (b) the allegation of improper interference by TM in the joint report into the deals in order to cover up (a).
The point that khosi and I made relates to (b). Are you following me so far?
I am not tempted to deal with (a) until (b) has been properly disposed of, but suffice it to say that on (a) you rely far too heavily on the argumentum e silentio: the fact that allegations of impropriety have been made and left unchallenged (except by Trevor Manuel – and he was duly vilified for his heavy-handed reaction). Nor am I impressed by your hyperbolical “Millions of newspaper articles”, as if the mere accumulation of reports was capable of demonstrating their veracity.
Have a nice night!
That should be re: “PdV @8.51pm”
Pierre De Vos // Dec 3, 2008 at 9:11 pm
You are either writing dishonestly or not applying you mind at all. You are failing to understand or acknowledge two simple fact, i.e.:-
1.) All the articles, books, blogs etc that have been written about Mbeki on many subjects, are just that articles, books and blogs. These could very well be rantings of deranged men and women. If he spent his time challenging these, he would spend the rest of his life in courts.
2.) Judge Nicholson judgment, is a pronouncement by a court of law in this country. And he is not suing judge Nicholson, he is merely asking for his name to be cleared. And of course he had to respond.
Your argument that, if Mbeki had not acted improperly, he would sue on the whims of any peddler of untested information and conspiracies, is just uncooked and plain.
Nkululeko
Simply put. Why do you think elections must be the trigger for people to write petitions. I am saying that a serious commission of inquiry many not conclude its work before the imminent national elections, especially with festive season upon us.
As for De Klerk, he is disingenous because a lot happened during the era of fascist rule that cry for ferreting out. He should have championed a campaign to put close to many sad stories of South Africa.
He propably ignited by an innate electoral mood. As for our rights to know our affairs. No debate. so there would not be a for a shadow boxing. The books written are views of the authors, not evidence. If this books are crystal evidence they must be taken to near death Scorpions to tackle the culprits or the new investigatory body contemplated by the enacted legislation.
it is stale news that Malema once asserted that “kill for Zuma. The milk has sunk down the sand. I have not even mentioned that. My point for your clarity is that we are so deeply intolerant on the views of some citizens yet you appreciate the attitude of the courts to freedom of expression.
We should not always seek to couch sentences for Malema. He once uttered that we must eliminate counter-revolutionary forces. eliminate simply means get rid of; exclude from consideration; exclude from competition through defeat.
In this instance Malema meant that the ANC must fiercely contest the political space as to defeat its political opponents to advance, deepen and defend the nationsl democratic revolution. Not shoot any DA member. We have personal friends across the broad political spectrum. This is political language he employed, not a constitutional law parlance!
I, in fact, pointed out Mthembi-Mahanyele SCA judgment which cited a crucial judgment about political discourse namely Pienaar v Argus Publishing & Printing (decided :1956)asserts that strong terms and accusations are readily on the tongue. Court must recognise this south african reality. Ponnan cautioned about us being censurous.
Yet Malema, perversely, is trechantly criticised at every corner, to which he is used, as he perfectly knows that as a young public figure he is the property of robust political criticism, yet society is intoleranct of his assertions. This is what I am raising.
He, Malema, loves frontal attack which many regard as disrespect and ill-mannerism. I think we must tolerate his thoughts as he does ours. We are prone to saying baffon, child, stupid, nonentity.
This epithets do not held the rational discourse or informed public opinion we seek to generate. I will meet him tomorrow in Gauteng and directly share with him all these criticisims, from which he always imbibes crucial lessons.
I certainly have never said that the ANC must act like National Party, but say De klerk ought to have championed explosing the brutality that left us with such deep scars that have left South Africa divided on racial lines and many of our own buried at unknown places, leaving families witoht closure, yet killers exonerated without exponents of democracy were palpably quiet.
Luminaries should not pander to political excitement precipitated by election proximity. This petition is belated and will certainly receive attention after elections.
The suppurating urgency is self-created in a desperate efforts to woe voters to opposition parties that are surely anguished by the historical traditional electoral support the ANC enjoyed since the advent of the democratic trajectory.
I scornfully suggested that prosecution of Zuma will precipitate the appointment of the Commission, not by any single citizen but the President based on the powers vested in him by the Constitution. We as citizens cannot directly exercise this powers, but just our votes! So no legal challenge to force apppointment of commission will succeed.
If you are not clarified we will try some Zulu or Pedi to illuminate the points. I am a second english speaker or writer so my views are at times inadvertently shrouded by nuances.
The authors may be just be peddlers of rumour or messengers of discovery of truth. It is yet to be seen !
We must not just be so gullible as to treat every media media statement as absolute truth as prof. would like us believe with his reference to million articles. Most of those articles may be unworth of any space on newspapers but for lack of knew stories or indolence of journalists who are prone to news recycling.
“Men naturally rebel against the injustice of which they are victims. Thus, when plunder is organised by law for the profit of those who make the law, all the plundered classes try somehow to enter – by peaceful or revolutionary means – into the making of laws. According to their degree of enlightenment, these plundered classes may propose one of two entirely different purposes when they attempt to attain political power: Either they may wish to stop lawful plunder, or they may wish to share in it.” Frederic Bastia
“I either want less corruption, or a more chance to participate in it.” Ashley Brilliant
……………………………………………………………………………………..
These two authors are like WB Yeats when he succinctly elaborated the state of affairs in his home-country Ireland in his poem, ‘The Second Coming’. Unfortunately, they succinctly elaborate the state of affairs in my home-country.
You may have a point Sne, the reality of our time is point scoring. Perhaps after elections sober minds will prevail on the requests or petitions to close the chapter of the Arms Deal.
The world over arms deald have been fraught by corruption and counter claims, discoveries and non-discoveries. Ours was proclaimed clean by the erstwhile President,, TM, Auditor General and so on.
We hope, if Commission is appointed, the Judge or lawyer, auditor appointed will not act like Harms and say “nothing” to close the chapter.
PdV // Dec 3, 2008 @8.51pm
Part 2 (continuing mine // Dec 4, 2008 @36 am)
Turning now to your argument on (b):- in your first intervention // Dec 3, 2008 @8.16 pm you responded to a challenge by khosi to make good your assertion that TM had “doctored” the report. In the normal way of things, the interested bystander would expect you to give khosi your best shot. In fact you had sold the pass in your article by conceding that, even if the report HAD been doctored, the evidence would NOT be enough to convince Concourt “that the President has failed in his constitutional duties.”
This situation could only arise if the evidence were thin or went to insubstantial changes only. If it was serious “doctoring” (as opposed to “tinkering”) TM would have been guilty of grave breaches of his oath of office to “observe, uphold and maintain the Constitution and all other law of the Republic”: cf., s.41(1)e, g; and 181(4) of the Act – not to mention perverting the course of justice.
However that stands, you furnished only two substantive points in response, neither of which was at all convincing for the reasons I developed in my intervention // Dec 3, 2008 @8.43pm. These you conveniently affect not to understand and have therefore omitted to address. Is this the epitome of professorial “cool”, I wonder – spectacularly to miss the point because you were so distracted by style? I doubt it.
You go to mighty lengths to establish that there were various drafts of the report, and that the final draft was changed. So what? The issue is whether it was changed in any material respect. The instances you have given thus far are so flimsy as to be weightless.
Your defence of your blustering phrase “of course doctored by President Mbeki” has now more or less evaporated into a directive to the interested reader to google the topic and find out for ourselves. Why would we do that, if your best shot (you having read even some, maybe, of the “millions of newspaper articles” or the “literally” thousands of URL’s that have perhaps mesmerised you) fell so pitifully short of the mark?
Thanks Ishmael
I find it hard to move past Malema’s utterance. What he said was extremely stupid when looking at the political climate and the militancy of Zulu people and some MK who’ve been left outside the party (social kinda thing). Rwanda’s language was not so direct as to say Kill whoever. It was a nice story about how these people are doing this and that and led people to conclude that the other was the enemy and had to be stopped through violence. Please note that Hitler, a great orator, at times used uanced language. They had to make “liebensraum” (living space) and had to exterminate which meant they’d kill. Generally politicians use nicer language and euphemisms when we all know what they mean. If they don’t mean that then they ought to know how it will be interpreted.
You mentioned being second language English and thus your argument would be in nuanced language. Is Malema not also second language English and his argument nuanced? This could mean that he did in fact mean to say something harsher but because the native tongue is gentle he made it sound nicer than he would have had he been English. We should also remember that Prof De Vos is also a second language Englsih speaker so he may very well write in such a way that the linguists amongst us would rip to shreds. But this isn’t an English lecture and where one makes sense we should accept the argument.
The sad thing is that the President cannot be made to appoinnt a commission of enquiry, at best, he may be strolngly encouraged or persuaded. Mbeki’s silence indicates a support of corruption by not weeding it out. Baleka Mbete is another ineteresting character… If Mbeki could have been forced to appoint a commission we may have been anle to sort this out ages ago.
Please tell Malema he should think before he speaks. He is in the process of losing the ANC a lot of votes from the youth who don’t agree with him and those older people who would support the ANC if they weren’t told what to do by a boy (of course he’s still a windbag in his 30’s…).
Could you please also tell him we’re so very sorry about his wife’s hand (or handbag) that got stolen. She should, like everyone else, get the anti-smash ‘n grab windows and try keeping her bag in the boot.
Ishmael Malale // Dec 4, 2008 at 10:16 am
“We hope, if Commission is appointed… …will not… say “nothing” to close the chapter.”
…………………………………………………………………………………
I certainly hope so too. I am not saying that politicians should be saints but the results of this gigantic corruption is more costly to the ordinary man on the street than to anyone else! We are paying huge sums of money as tax but this is not used to ameliorate the lamantable conditions of the poor people of our country. I wish that this “corruption cancer” could be ‘nipped in the bud’ before it costs us taxpayers more than it already is and particularly the already crumbling service delivery for the poor South Africans…
Nkululeko,
The advice to Malema will be carried over and hope you heard him when he apologised recently. He will also have to think on his feet, it needs be. During the SAHRC intervention, he had stated he will choose wiser words. Should he jetisson his frontal militant speech-making? I hope not !
The ANC and its Leagues value your advice and trusts society will have to jdetermine its relevance by collective action to improve the lot of our people than Ishmael’s tactless reflections on the blog.
There are many unsung or unnamed modest leaders in our ranks. Society calls for tolerance and magnanimity and we will truly oblige. The ANC is the servant of the people and will remain so for a reasonable time of its existence.
We must absorb the positive and meaningful critisisms emanating from society. Some of the views expressed here will certainly shape policy development and legislation.
We kno too well that we will not be the dominant ruling for eternity. It is in the nature of social development that some new forces will emerge and contest our space.
dontgetmestarted // Dec 4, 2008 at 1:36 am
It is not a matter of pomposity, turgidity, conciseness, using ‘cool’ language or being criticised for the style of one’s writing. It is about clarity. This is a blog read by many people, some of them non-native speakers of English, and not all of them lawyers.
Pierre’s blogs are always easy to read and one can understand the argument (right or wrong) fairly easily. The language of your comments is so obtuse that one has to battle one’s way through them. Mostly I don’t bother. Or if I do – because I have been following a discussion between you and Sne, for instance – I might have to read it two or three times to ‘catch your drift’.
You are welcome to be as long-winded or as pithy as you wish, but clear and simple language would help to keep the debate moving along. For a good example of such language see the Constitution.
I should add, Dontgetmestarted, that I always find your arguments and insights interesting and persuasive ones, so it seems a pity that I have to battle to read them.
Sorry to change the subject abruptly but have you all seen this?
http://www.thezimbabwemail.com/zimbabwe/1021.html
Note who Chaired the Court Martial!
What possibly could FW gain from asking the president to launch a commission? I don’t understand how this can be construed as being “political posturing”. It is in everybody’s (except of course the people with their hands in the cookie jar) interest to know what happened. And just because he was the president during the former regime and part of the NP, he is disingenuous in his current plea? Don’t follow the logic there! And poor Tutu must be denied his right to vote? Gosh, people.
And yes, the media sometimes get it wrong and regurgitates stories, but to suggest that each every article or book on the matter is just rumour is ludicrous. Where there is smoke, there is a fire.
Sadly I must agree that we will not see such a commission or find out the truth whilst the ANC is still in power. Too much is at stake for them and with so many tainted by the arms deal there will probably be no-one left to lead the party or the country.
Mpho // Dec 4, 2008 at 12:35 pm
…………………………………………………..
Thanks for the link Mpho. It seems like the dogs are turning against their Master. Is fratricidal war looming in Zimbabwe or has it already begun?
Thank you Heidi
you have the right to pick and choose the part that makes your body move!
There are many truthful stories and equally false rumour in the millions we read every single day!
Tutu had vowed not to cast his vote in the forthcoming elections and I am pleading with him to reconsider and vote. I am afraid you got me wrong here.
There are old leaders prepared to do anything to avenge the defeat of apartheid. I guess De Klerk is such bitter old man. Anyway, this may be a view I hold which so unfortunate and false!
My motivation is that why did he wait all this time to create some ocherstrated urgency. He should have sprung into action a long time ago. Not opportunistic histrionics on the eve of elections, a ploy to discredit the ANC!
Ah. Okay, I retract what I said about Tutu – I did misunderstand you. Would you feel the same if Tutu voted for COPE?
As for the rest I stand by what I said. The urgency is not orchestrated. We have to know what the deal is before the elections, which doesn’t leave much time.
Dontgetmestarted and Khosi: A few questions arise:
(1) Are there credible and widely published accusations of corruption in the arms deal? If you say no, you must have an extremely high threshold (or a paranoid streak believing that ALL the allegations were merely made based on no evidence and no facts but on some plot) for you to question the veracity of those involved in the arms deal. That is your right, but to my mind it is not reasonable or rational to deny that serious credible accusations about corruption in the arms deal have been made. You would then say that even thousands and thousands of of news reports, several books and the investigations by the Swedish, German and UK investigators as well as the Scorpions count for nothing. It seems to me that would amount to an extraordinary lack of trust in what you see with your very own eyes. Given what we know about arms transactions all over the world and the corruptions in the arms trade it would have been extraordinary if no corruption took place in the SA arms deal. Given the fact that a newspaper has published extremely defamatory claims against the ex-President and the ANC and no legal action was taken, might give an ordinary, objective person some reason to pause and wonder whether something might not be amiss. But of course, if one is a party hack, then one would not want to admit to wrongdoing by one’s heroes. This is natural but not reasonable or logical.
(2) I presented evidence that the JIP report was doctored and quote from the M7G report. “When arms deal bidder-turned-whistle-blower Richard Young gained access to the draft reports through access to information litigation, a different picture emerged. It seemed that evidence tending to contradict the executive’s version on the probity the main arms deal contracts had been omitted or toned down.” I do not have time to go through the two reports line by line but I am surprised that you would not think that something is wrong with the fact that the report was changed to remove all evidence contradicting the government’s official line on the arms deal – especially when the person who helped to edit the report (Mbeki) was the chair of the arms deal committee. Nemo iudex in sua causa, I was taught – one cannot be a judge in one’s own cause. For Mbeki to have had sight of the draft report AT ALL, and then for him to have put pressure on the AG to change some aspects of the report is clearly untenable, given the fact that Mbeki headed the arms deal committee.
(3) You dismiss the fact that no one has been sued for defamation about the various extremely defamatory statements made about corruption in the arms deal and say that this is different from Nicholson judgment where a court had found that the President had breached his constitutional duties. But in the court of public opinion, Mbeki is now known as the man who doctored the arms deal report – also something that is an egregious breach of his duties as President. I find it significant that no legal action has been taken and will assume the reason is that there is something to these reports. The fact that you do not, says more about your ideological (and personal) commitments than about logic and reason. None is so blind as ye who do not wish to see……
sarah palin // Dec 4, 2008 @12:30 pm
It’s all in the nick, sarah . . all in the nick. But I can see you have a very fair point and I am mulling it over.
I have always tried, even when the joy of invective causes overspill, to keep the lines of argument clear by, for example, numbering steps and objections and proceeding point by point.
I was engaged in a long dialogue with Anonymouse at one time, since when he seems to have become more of a doormouse. Bongs was his sparring partner for a while – another regular contributor notable by his recent absence and, like Anonymouse, greatly missed of late.
PdV @1.38pm
(1) The question is whether the reported allegations are “credible”, not whether they are multitudinous. We are all awaiting a definitive investigation with a balanced and convincing outcome, but these are not always and inevitably provided by public judicial commissions of inquiry. To take a fairly recent British example,Lord Hutton’s inquiry into the death of Dr. Kelly did not command widespread assent.
You were challenged by khosi to come up with some hard instances to substantiate your remark that TM had doctored the report, and you selected two which, upon examination, are (as I have said) so flimsy as to be weightless.
(2) [to repeat myself] You did present specific “evidence” that the final draft was “doctored” and I responded. Nothing in your latest post addresses the objections I made to the probative value of your “evidence”. You now fall back on tentative conclusions published in the M&G which are not particularly convincing either:-
“It seemed that evidence tending to contradict the executive’s version on the probity [of] the main arms deal contracts had been omitted or toned down.”
“Seemed”; “tending to contradict”?
Now you say you are not in a position to go through the final draft and the published report line by line. No one is asking you to do that, but we are entitled to credit you with having made the best points available when you responded to khosi. Will you at least admit that the instances you chose are less than compelling?
(3) I, at least, do not entirely dismiss the fact that no one has been sued for defamation. What I wrote was that I think you (and others, no doubt) place too much reliance on it to substantiate your claims.
On a more general note, you have not the slightest justification for imputing ideological or personal commitments to me. My first intervention in this thread was by way of commenting on the adequacy or otherwise of your response to khosi and Clara, and by way of reviewing the extent to which khosi was justified in abusing you for having “dishonest ways”. Nothing more, nothing less.
Wouldn’t it be nice to have a commission of inquiry into the arms deal? That way we will also know if indeed what the Prof wrote is drivel or not (among other many things).
Quite frankly I don’t read any drivel in what the Prof wrote, and I sincerely hope Motlanthe prove us wrong by appointing a commission of inquiry and stop all the nonsense.
I am reminded of Mandela’s assertion that “the criminals are investigating themselves. He was referring to the National Party and the government of the day for alleged political cover-ups.
I am not sure if it is me, but I have noticed that anything that implicates Zuma in some scandal or another is automatically viewed as drivel by some bloggers.
Has anyone seen Behind the Rainbow? It is said by several of the interviewees that the Arms Deal paid for the ANC’s 1999 election campaign. As an ANC member, I find it intolerable that ANC members should be stating clearly that the distinction between party and state was not simply blurred but utterly erased, and yet the new leaders have not set up an independent enquiry.
It’s not just you, Tony.
We are members of Prof. law school chorus. When we go the different direction it our choince in the debate.
What he votes for is not for any single human being to determine, as a politician I will persuadde him to vote our political electoral party. In the event he says I will thank him and indicate that his effort to vote strengthens democracy.
I have indicated that there is not any credible and involved investigations could be concluded before elections in such a vast matter of the arms deal.
Anyway, it is for the President to determine as empowered by the Constitution. Ours is only to urge; motivate and vote during elections. I will never seat on his swivel chair and proclaim the Commission as a political public discourse activist.
I truly find the petition somewhat opportunistic and inspired by election fever! That is the point which even Prof sees but does not want to acknowledge.
The historic arms deal books were not written last month or yesterday. Was De Klerk and parner in a political seizure during the moment potential discoveries of fraud in the AG report surfaced.
even half minded persons can observe that one.
Do not take depates here personal, you may develop heart attack. We are merely debating thoughts and views.
Prof and dear bloggers do not cast drivel. There raise points worth keeping for life and which will build the nations, but those who chose to oppose him. They must do it. It heps the debate.
If the debates takes a monolithic ANC bashing,many will take a flight from the blog and save time and money elsewhere. Why does it seem Zuma is the only politician in South Africa. You kiss all parties and pinch Zuma. It is now patisan, not objective analysis of broad south african issues.
Yet Zuma cannot be left unattended. It is good, credit must also be noted when due.
We are members of Prof. law school chorus. When we go the different direction it our choince in the debate.
What he votes for is not for any single human being to determine, as a politician I will persuadde him to vote our political electoral party. In the event he says I will thank him and indicate that his effort to vote strengthens democracy.
I have indicated that there is not any credible and involved investigations could be concluded before elections in such a vast matter of the arms deal.
Anyway, it is for the President to determine as empowered by the Constitution. Ours is only to urge; motivate and vote during elections. I will never seat on his swivel chair and proclaim the Commission as a political public discourse activist.
I truly find the petition somewhat opportunistic and inspired by election fever! That is the point which even Prof sees but does not want to acknowledge.
The historic arms deal books were not written last month or yesterday. Was De Klerk and parner in a political seizure during the moment potential discoveries of fraud in the AG report surfaced.
even half minded persons can observe that one.
Do not take depates here personal, you may develop heart attack. We are merely debating thoughts and views.
Prof and dear bloggers do not cast drivel. There raise points worth keeping for life and which will build the nations, but those who chose to oppose him. They must do it. It helps the debate.
If the debates take a monolithic ANC bashing,many will take a flight from the blog and save time and money elsewhere. Why does it seem Zuma is the only politician in South Africa. You kiss all parties and pinch Zuma. It is now patisan, not objective analysis of broad south african issues.
Yet Zuma cannot be left unattended. It is good, credit must also be noted when due.
Thanks. Mpho, I hadn’t heard about it, but it sure looks interesting.
Professor Pierre De Vos,
As a matter of interest. When you and other so-called experts appear on TV, radio shows and newspaper columns, do you receive any remuneration for that?
Just, as a matter of interest.
Dontgetmestarted: apologies for my slightly intemperate tone, but it is hard to keep a level head when the most obvious facts (that credible evidence exist that there was serious corruption in the arms deal) are contested in the face of overwhelming circumstantial and real evidence. May I suggest you read Andrew Feinstein’s book, “After the Party” especially chapter 14. Feinstein – who used to the the ANC leader of Scopa in Parliament – thus not a right wing rumour monger) quotes from the draft report and then the sanitised version prepared after a meeting by the AG with Mbeki and others (see p 214) and concludes that the changes were “blatant” and that Fakie’s explanation’s “laughable”. Note that the AG had to be threatened with contempt of court because he refused to hand over the draft report as instructed, before he relented. Why would he refuse to obey a court order, exposing himself to time in jail, if he thought that there was nothing to hide? If you still think the changes made were inconsequential after reading this, then we will just have to agree to disagree. See also http://www.politicsweb.co.za/politicsweb/view/politicsweb/en/page71619?oid=82519&sn=Detail for a critical discussion of the CREDIBLE evidence of serious corruption in the arms deal. Maybe all these allegations are false, but they sure create strong suspicions in the minds of objective observers. Hey, who knows, maybe there is a vast conspiracy by journalists, the NPA, the AG, Feinstein, opposition parties, investigators in the UK and Germany to fabricate all these allegations. Maybe the ANC NEC itself was completely wrong to believe that such credible evidence exist warranting an internal ANC investigation. Maybe the AG WANTED to change his report but just realised this after meeting Mbeki. Maybe there was no corruption in the arms deal. Maybe the ANC did not receive R28 million from winning arms bidders. (And maybe Father Christmas will bring me a brand new Porsche for Christmas……)
Pierre De Vos // Dec 4, 2008 at 4:05 pm
“…(And maybe Father Christmas will bring me a brand new Porsche for Christmas……)”
…………………………………………………………………………………….
LOL!!! Thats classical Prof Pierre. What a way to end my day!
Khosi, sadly I do not receive one cent for appearing on radio, TV or if quoted in newspapers. Neither do I receive any other benefit or inducement of any kind. I even pay for my own petrol and parking fees…..
Dear PdV @4.05pm,
You are still avoiding the particular point I raised. Do you accept that the instances you gave khosi (in the terms in which you gave them) fail to provide cogent support for your contention that TN doctored the report?
It is a small point, maybe, but khosi called you out on it, you responded, and I gave a detailed criticism of your response. You continue to retreat and I continue to pursue you on it.
That’s all there is to my involvement in this thread on the “doctoring” aspect.
that should be TM
The Big Slipper // Dec 3, 2008 at 9:19 pm
The arms deal will never be adequately resolved as long as the ANC is in power, because the ruling party has proved time and time again that protection of it’s members (especially high ranking ones) trumps all other moral or ethical considerations. An independent commission of enquiry (truly independent) would be the only way to clear the air, but that would endanger too many people, one of whom is waiting in the wings to become our commander-in-chief, and we just couldn’t have that.
…………………………………………………………………………………….
Its interesting how you quickly pass a judgement on a commision which is not existent. I do not think for a second that having the ANC as a ruling party would wash away a truelly independent commission of enquiery. Though is inevitable in every transitional goverment, that there always exist political interference in businesses of goverment.,however such is not neccessarily manifested in our country. For example, JZ,s case would have been adressed politically by now. Isnt this man leading a ruling party but yet he is fighting for his freedom in courts of law?
The above should say to you that we can have that impartial, unbiased structure that can conspicuously deal with this issue of arms deal, still without the interference of the Ruling party.
Dear sarah (cc PdV),
I have now given your post // Dec 4, 2008 @12.30 pm further consideration.
Much as it grieves me to think anyone would abandon my posts mid-way, I cannot agree that the arguments they convey lack clarity. Nor am I minded to boil off my vocabulary or syntax (which I think is the real complaint); to do so would be patronising, entail too many compromises, and blunt my invective.
From now on, however, I will put more breaks between sentences.
I am not at all offended by it, but I recall that, in another thread, you applauded an unfavourable review of a post of mine (lambasting a moronic intervention adverse to – who else? – lindelani) to the effect that I was a “supercilious little wanker”.
That’s as may be (we all have our little foibles; and, as it happens, I have my own preferred candidate for “most sycophantic little wanker” in this blog).
Your partisanship there sits ill, however, with your avuncular advice here that the problem with my posts – as you see it – “is not a matter of pomposity, turgidity, conciseness, using ‘cool’ language or being criticised for the style of one’s writing. It is about clarity.”
The moderator, PdV // Dec 3, 2008 @8.51pm, certainly had some kind of a problem with (lack of) conciseness and (perceived) pomposity in my posts, and it was to him that I was replying.
It appears PdV now regrets the form in which he expressed those views; I accept his apologies without hesitation, and I cordially assure him I bear him no animus for it. We are all greatly in his debt.
Have a nice night.
Seriously ☺
Dontgetmestarted, about the doctoring of the report. (a) I have provided extensive evidence and sources to show that there was a vast difference between the substance and tone of the draft report and the final report (see quotes from both draft and final report in Feinstein’s book on page 214); (b) it is common cause that Mbeki and four Ministers (potential “victims” of a negative report!) saw the draft report and met with the AG to discuss the report; (c) it is common cause that during this meeting notes were taken by the AG about perceived “problems” with the report (as expressed by those present) and that these “suggestions” by Mbeki and his Ministers almost all found their way into the final watered down report; (d) it is common cause that the publication of the report was delayed to effect these changes. I would concede that this does not show beyond reasonable doubt that Mbeki doctored the report. Cross examination of the AG, Mbeki and Ministers and Anthony Heard – head of the Press Section of the Government Communication and Information Service (who, it is alleged, was involved in the rewriting of the report) might be required for this. But I would contend that on a balance of probabilities I have shown Mbeki was involved in effecting substantial changes to the draft report, i.e. he doctored the report…… Many others have made this allegation. None of them have been sued for defamation.
Pierre De Vos // Dec 4, 2008 at 4:14 pm
What about the other guys?
Do you receive any advertising revenue from the ads on your website? Or is it just the host that charges advertisers?
Pierre De Vos // Dec 4, 2008 at 5:27 pm
dontgetmestarted
You are very patient. I think Pierre has conceded the point made and that he was wrong to state that doctoring did take place.
Lets hope for Pierre sake that a judge would deliver a judgment as deranged as Nicholson J’s, on the matter of the doctoring of the report. At that point, the former president would have to launch a court bid disprove these baseless allegations.
Yes khosi, I think that counts as a small victory for balanced and clear-headed pursuit of the truth – one small step at a time.
But there is more.
Incited by PdV’s previous intervention, I looked briefly at part of the “overwhelming circumstantial and real evidence” (// Dec 4, 2008 @4.05 pm) of corruption in the arms deals.
One of his arguments (as you know) goes like this:-
“You would then say that even thousands and thousands of of news reports, several books and the investigations by the Swedish, German and UK investigators as well as the Scorpions count for nothing.” // Dec 4, 2008 1.38 pm under para. (1)
and (a trifle heavier on sarcasm)
“Hey, who knows, maybe there is a vast conspiracy by journalists, the NPA, the AG, Feinstein, opposition parties, investigators in the UK and Germany to fabricate all these allegations.” // Dec 4, 2008 @4.05 pm
I pursued the topic of the investigation by the German Federal authorities into the possibility that ThyssenKrupp had been involved in criminal behaviour in connexion with the corvette deal.
This investigation launched (to a great fanfare by De Lille) in 2006.
It was closed with a nil result as long ago as June this year. Google “ThyssenKrupp all-clear” and the search goes straight to a report in news24.com.
Hey, who knows, maybe the “overwhelming circumstantial evidence” is quietly fading away behind all our backs?
Interesting to see that COPE also, do not want an enquiery? The aroma is very detectable!!!
dontgetmestarted:
For towering command of English, not to mention prolixity, you are hard to beat. My first language happens to be German, but English is my favourite . I read your comments several times over, not because I found it hard to follow your thread, but just for the sheer enjoyment. More, please!
Very appetising language jubilation! No limits on linguistic prowess! We are not worried by choice of words and concepts you are building us.
Yet return to the debates colleagues
khosi // Dec 4, 2008 at 3:52 pm
and
khosi // Dec 4, 2008 at 5:33 pm
What exactly are you driving at? Spit it out.
@Khosi
Dude, PdV never admitted he was wrong to state that the report was altered, merely that he has no evidence to prove that TM took some tippex himself and changed the report. However, the report WAS doctored (or altered, or amended, whatever you prefer), and this fact was widely reported in credible publications on a national basis.
Since TM was the head of the commission of inquiry into the arms deal on that particular occasion, he had sight of the report, and on the basis of probabilities (which is a more objective than subjective measure if applied correctly) was party and privy to any amendments made – this is what PdV’s point is, and you cannot disprove this. Neither can anyone else, which is why there were no immediate lawsuits when the news broke – it was that whole “lets close our eyes and ignore it and it’ll go away” thing that the ANC seems to do so well (oh yes, denialism – that’s the word I was looking for).
Even presuming TM didn’t alter the report, or indeed know about the alterations, the fact remains that the report was altered, and in doing so crimes committed by ANC members implicated in the report were suddenly washed away. In spite of overwhelming evidence of dodgy dealings and the like, the ANC steadfastly refuses to institute a proper investigation into the deal.
So, it runs something like this:
1. There is an arms deal, which from the outset there is protest over
2. There surface lurking allegations of improprieties (bribes, kickbacks and the like)
3. A commission of inquiry is instigated, which includes MPs Andrew Feinstein (ANC) and Gavin Woods (IFP)
4. The commission gets nowhere, being blocked at every turn by the ANC, including TM (read After the Party for credible evidence – it does exist)
5. A report emerges giving a basically clean slate for everyone involved in the arms deal, except that then the draft report is leaked indicating that material changes had been effected to the draft report to water it down greatly
6. Jacob Zuma’s financial advisor was found guilty of fraud and corruption relating to the arms deal, with Zuma being implicated in the judgement
7. Tenders were awarded to companies after EXCLUDING COST AS A CRITERION FOR DECISION MAKING (where on God’s green earth does ANY entity exclude cost as a criterion when deciding which product to invest in?!)
8. Arms were purchased in spite of the fact that the armed forces on the receiving end stated that they were unneccessary
And people say there is no need for an investigation? That the first investigation (with the dicey report) found no problems, so that’s the end of it? That there is no credible evidence of wrong-doing?
Come on, no matter where you stand politically or idealogically, only the most stubborn of stubborn would refuse to believe, on the basis of probability alone, that the arms deal was clean.
@Mel – I do believe we could have an independent commission of inquiry, and it would last for a few days even maybe before it got shut down (the Scorpions were independent and acted without fear or favour, and look where it got them). Independent commissions in SA are generally loaded with sympathetic ANC members, and therefore are completely not independent. Experience teaches me that independent commissions will either get shut down if they get to close to uncovering the truth about some people, or will come to the “right” conclusions according to certain politicians.
Dear TBS (this is part 1 of a 2 part riposte on the “doctoring” point),
On everything down to “So, it runs something like this”, your labours are otiose:-
[A] There IS no dispute that TM was consulted over the report(s) at the draft stage. How many times must I repeat that, I wonder.
This is not because TM was “head of the commission of inquiry” (!!?? whoa, boy! it was a joint investigation team commissioned by Parliament), but because such consultation (with TM, the minister of finance, and the minister of defence) was mandated in terms of s.4(6) of the Auditor-General Act No. 12 of 1995.; cf. s.41(1) h of the Constitution.
[B] There IS no dispute that the final report as published differed from the draft(s), but no instances have yet been provided here showing that the alterations were significant or material (notwithstanding the best efforts by PdV on this precise point). Whew!!! and I have said that before, too.
Furthermore, PdV has NOT succeeded in “provid[ing] extensive evidence . . . to show that there was a vast difference between the substance and tone of the draft report and the final report” // Dec 4, 2008 @5.27 pm. Numerous assertions are made that such major differences exist. There is a difference.
[C] The AG stated there were no significant alterations in or omissions from the Report as a result of those consultations. More on this aspect follows in part 2.
***
On everything under [A], [B] and [C], refer to the press release from the office of the AG dated 26 May 2003 and previous posts in this thread.
***
Those who are truly interested in getting some perspective on the credibility and fairness of the “thousands of articles” PdV has urged on us (which allegedly prove that substantial changes were made) might care to read the Auditor General’s Special Report dated 24 June 2003 which examines the hand-me-down errors infesting reportage on this topic.
***
Finally (for now) if you, TBS, cannot see that the term “doctored”, (cf. “sanitised”, “expurgated”, “sexed-up”) constitutes a value judgment, then you have serious comprehension issues. Neutral terms such as “altered” or “amended” do not indicate the extent or effect of the changes which could be stylistic or made (let it be said) in the interests of precision, concision, or clarity.
PdV at least withdrew the “of course” and is now down to “on a balance of probabilities”. This is not a “second-language” issue – am I correct, sarah?
Dear TBS (part 2 of a 2 part riposte on the “doctoring” point)
Richard Young – the managing director of one of the unsuccessful bidders in the process, who secured release of the drafts under the Promotion of Access to Information Act – concedes that the AG retained two senior counsel to conduct forensic investigations for the purposes of the report, who made no complaint as to the way in which the final Report was couched. According to Young:-
“The hired investigating advocates simply kept quiet about their findings being excised from the final Joint Report. One has to question whether they were just following the orders of their paymaster . . “
Young further concedes that senior counsel was retained to, and did, confirm to SCOPA that the Report as published did not vary in any material or significant way from the draft(s). To account for this, Young is not beyond asserting:-
“This is plainly false and should receive the most serious censure of the professional legal fraternity.” Ahem! Let’s try “pompous” for size, shall we?
On all this, go to the armsdeal-vpo website and locate Young’s essay “The Arms Deal – a Litany of a Rampant Corruption of Power”.
Young vowed to sue the AG for – inter alia – perjury and defeating the ends of justice, but evidently thought better of it. Does that prove Young does not believe his own reviews, maybe?
Hey, maybe there was a conspiracy involving three eminent counsel, the Auditor General, the State President, the Minister of Finance, the Public Protector, the National Director of Public Prosecutions, Parliament . . . [yawn].
The Big Slipper // Dec 4, 2008 at 10:00 pm
Please refer to part 1 and part 2 of : riposte on the “doctoring” point.
These are authored, at the wee hours of the night, by the meticulous, impressive and impregnable dontgetmestarted.
You might, as well, want to remember that none of us has said that the arms deal was clean. We merely asked for evidence that the arms deal report was, as Pierre de Vos put it, ‘doctored’. And he failed to provide such.
sarah palin // Dec 4, 2008 at 9:25 pm
At this stage, its like I said – ‘a matter of interest’
So, what khosi and dontgetmestarted are saying is that TM had nothing to do with the changes that were made? Its interesting that AFTER a meeting with him the changes, favourable to him, were made. Its quite a far-fetched argument. And even if he was head of the commission (oe enquiry) why should he see the document before it is released when he is one of the people being investigated? I can see why it would possibly satisfy the lesser standard of proof (balance of probabilities) and not beyond reasonable doubt.
Linguistic prowess is wonderful, provided you are making sense. If not then I may as well read a novel or peotry to get my dose of flowery language. I suggest “The quiet violence of dreams” by Sello K. Duiker.
Dontgetmestarted: You have single-handedly managed to suck the life out of what could have been an interesting discussion. For Gods sake man, at least make an actual point now and then between the endless pompous posturing and petty point scoring.
Prof, I do not think it is imperative that Mbeki ,implicated Ministers and officials must approach the courts to sue the authors of books or ariticle writers about the Arms Deal.
The failure thereof does not legally validate the claims made against them. There is not any statutory injuction to that effect and no adverse conclusions must be exacted therefor. As for lingering guestions is another !
As for the ANC, there was not an investigation into the arms deal, the new NEC wanted a comprehensive report on the Arms Deal as they had never been privy to the report initially in order to be well apprised of the matter as to correctly deal with the Zuma matter. There was no suggestion that there is credible evidence warranting a Commission of Inquiry.
You have suggested that it is untenable that the AG allowed the President participate in the meeting. The AG is obliged to limit the report to the President, Minister of Defence and Minister of Defence as regards national defence special account as relfected by Dontgetmestarted.
When developing an audit report, a draft report is generated and the affected parties confronted with its contents in order to solicit responses to the tentative findings. Conseguently, the final report would be compiled, taking into cognisance representations or submissions of the affected parties.
The AG was not seeking a preferred version of the President.
The suggestion that the President doctored the report has indeed not been proven, even after perusal of your sources. The meeting was an imperative transaction of the law, and the production of a draft report and concomitant consultation with the affected partied for responses is an established procedure in the auditing field.
All I say does not suggest that there might not be flaws in the procurement process. I contest fiercely that there is conclusive evidence, on preponderance of probabilities, that Mbeki doctored the report. It is a fallacy, when discerning your argument and sources.
Do you think the President was not supposed to be confronted with a draft report to solicit its reactions? In every investigations that is what we do. Sir.
Questions in the minds of society will always prevail. Some even think that the fanners of claims could be agents of destruction of the organisation that demolished their minority undemocratic State. This questions could well be untruthful! You do not have to establish a Commission every time a question is raised.
The President must consider the petition and make his determination.
TO PIERRE DE VOS AND HIS ILK AND THE WHOLE LOT
http://www.mg.co.za/article/2008-12-05-ginwala-absolves-mbeki
Go on, dispute the report. Next month the Supreme Court of Appeal will further deal a blow into you dishonesty and lies.
I just hope that the Rat comes back from its slumber. The report, amongst other things, finds:-
“Pikoli was lax in his handling of security clearance issues”
Can we have a rebuttal COMRADES.
you = YOUR
Khosi,
Thank you for the update.
Right now it is still speculations so let us wait for the release of the Report by President, shall we? Given your vivacious argument above against “doctoring” by Mbeki et al of the Report relating to the Arms Deal, I am convinced that even this one will still be the same as that released by the Commission regardless of the finding adverse to Jacob Zuma’s claim of intervention by former President Mbeki…
Et al,
On the matter of the ‘doctoring’, I think Pierre de Vos needs to raise a white flag and say ‘Maluju’
Khosi my experience which the judges of the SCA is that they decide some judgments based on newspaper reports. Remember Zuma had a generally corrupt relationship with Shaik. A newspaper phraseology not origined from Judgment. Harms was a polician of note in the Boederbond he may have a backage, but I hope not. He is Judge now, no longer a politician!. The judges seem not happy with a Zuma
I concur on doctoring Prof has not proved anything! but conjecture!
Spectator // Dec 5, 2008 @7:39 am
“So, what khosi and dontgetmestarted are saying is that TM had nothing to do with the changes that were made?”
erm.
No, that is NOT what we are saying.
Ishmael Malale // Dec 5, 2008 at 9:41 am
Also et al
This has always confused me, as well. What did Judge Squire say about Shaik relationship with JZ? What was the actual wording?
The basic meaning of the verb “to doctor” in the figurative sense in which it was used by PdV is “to tamper with by falsifying the contents of the original draft”. Are we all on the same page now?
The AG had a statutory obligation to consult with the President on his report before publishing it. Necessarily this involved giving consideration to what the President might offer by way of comment.
A “draft”, by its very nature, is a provisional text, liable to be corrected or improved for all sorts of reasons and in all sorts of ways.
There is nothing surprising or suspicious about the fact that the version immediately preceding the final, published version should exhibit marginal notes identifying areas where changes might be made.
Your quire correct Dontgetmestarted!
Khosi I will come back is a few minutes on your guestion.
Perhaps I can save you some time, Ishmael, in responding to khosi’s inquiry:-
“The Supreme Court of Appeal attributed the phrase to Squires in its judgment upholding Shaik’s corruption and fraud convictions last week [November 2006].
“Squires has written a letter to Business Day pointing out the error.
‘If you have never read the judgment delivered in that case, may I suggest that you do so. I can find no such mention of my having made any such comment. If you have already read the judgment, and in it this phrase ‘a generally corrupt relationship,’ occurs, I would be grateful if you would advise me of the page and line number in which the statement appears,’ Squires wrote to the newspaper.”
[quote from iol]
In the thread under the article “Fit and Proper Person” // Nov 26, 2008 @6.52 pm, PdV, recognising that the phrase “generally corrupt relationship” was only attributed to Squires by the media (falsely, as ozoneblue had observed 42 minutes before), posted 8 “facts” intended to demonstrate JZ’s corruption. Item (8) reads “two different courts have found that ‘an overriding corrupt relationship’ existed between Zuma and the crook. Again, that is not a quote –not from Squires, at least.
Khosi
Shaik said that he did this, not because of any personal connection with Zuma, but because Zuma was the person in government responsible for co-ordinating co-operation and inter-departmental activities between different Ministries. We find that explanation difficult to believe. There was no evidence whatever that established such a function in Zuma. But even if there was, there is nothing about this request that has anything to do with co-ordinating any other Ministries’ work with that of Safety and Security. It was at this stage, a first approach, purely a matter for the police administration and Zuma would undoubtedly have had the authority of his office and influence to persuade Tshwete to accommodate the request, one of the few people who could.
Khosi this is the essential excerpt of the judgment of Squires on whether Zuma is having a generally corrupt relationship with Shaik.:
” These four episodes show in our view that Zuma did in fact intervene to try and assist Shaik’s business interests. While it may be accepted that his intervention on behalf of Shaik to relieve the threatened exclusion of Nkobi interest in ADS and the munitions suite contract, was undertaken as Deputy President of the ANC and would not, in the absence of any alleged and known duty vested in that office that was discharged or subverted for Shaik’s benefit, constitute a contravention of Act 94 of 1992. But it clearly shows, as do those in the Renong, Eco-Tourism and Venson situations, a readiness in both Shaik to turn to Zuma for his help, and Zuma’s readiness to give it. ”
Generally corrupt relationship was couched by the media judges and embraced by the media alert SCA.
Dontgetmestarted: Thanks for the intervention. I had already posted the crucial part by squires. So I fear those judges read newspapers than the actual judgments, at times, not always.
dontgetmestarted // Dec 5, 2008 at 1:10 am
the changes which could be stylistic or made (let it be said) in the interests of precision, concision, or clarity.
Touché.
This is not a “second-language” issue – am I correct, sarah?
and touché again.
I leave you the uncontested victor of the field because:
a) I cannot match your command of the language (seriously) and others, such as Clara, enjoy your prolixity;
b) I enjoy your invective;
c) As a layperson, I don’t even pretend to understand the subtleties of constitutional (or other) law, which is why I read this blog and learn from the cut and thrust of the debate between Pierre and contributors such as you, Mouse, Khose, Sne et al;
d) My sideswipes detract from the essence of the debate.
sorry, Khosi. ‘Khose’ should of course read Khosi.
Ishmael Malale // Dec 5, 2008 at 11:14 am
@
dontgetmestarted // Dec 5, 2008 at 11:12 am
“But it clearly shows, as do those in the Renong, Eco-Tourism and Venson situations, a readiness in both Shaik to turn to Zuma for his help, and Zuma’s readiness to give it.”
Would one be safe in assuming that Squires, in his letter to Business Day, was protesting that that particular phrase, which he did not deliver, was used by a higher court in his name.
What I am missing is whether, in his protest, Judge Squire did say that the phrase ‘generally corrupt relationship’ cannot be used as a summary to what he said in his judgement.
I am surprised contributors claim I have not provided credible evidence of serious doctoring. Please read p 214 of Feinstein’s book where some of the original and the doctored conclusions of the report are reprinted side by side and make up your own mind. What I read there shows clearly that substantial changes were made. Feinstein – intimately involved in the arms deal investigation – agrees with my conclusion. These changes were made after the President and other Ministers had sight of the draft and suggested changes to said draft.
I am also surprised that some argue the “truth” is that there was no doctoring. There is NO evidence of this so no one can say that is has been conclusively shown that TM did NOT doctor the report. At the very least, those arguing that the substantial evidence of doctoring is not sufficient to prove conclusively that TM doctored the report, must concede that there is no substantial evidence to prove the contrary either (and there IS strong evidence – as provided by me – that some doctoring did occur). They can therefore not make use of the word “truth” here without being accused of applying double standards when evaluating evidence regarding TM’s involvement. One set of rules for TM, another for me!
dontgetmestarted & Ishmael
“But it clearly shows, as do those in the Renong, Eco-Tourism and Venson situations, a readiness in both Shaik to turn to Zuma for his help, and Zuma’s readiness to give it.”
Would one be safe in assuming that Squires, in his letter to Business Day, was protesting that that particular phrase, which he did not deliver, was used by a higher court in his name.
What I am missing is whether, in his protest, Judge Squire did say that the phrase ‘generally corrupt relationship’ cannot be used as a summary to what he said in his judgement.
Pierre De Vos // Dec 5, 2008 at 12:06 pm
Just a question in lay man’s language. If a person is seen leaving a murder scene, is such evidence enough for a conviction?
Prof
even if the motive was present!
Pierre De Vos // Dec 5, 2008 at 12:06 pm
Whatever happened to burden of proof.
Khosi
This what Judge squires said (in part):
“…and even if nothing was ever said between them to establish the mutually beneficial symbiosis that the evidence shows existed, the circumstances of the commencement and the sustained continuation thereafter of these payments, can only have generated a sense of obligation in the recipient. …Since all the accused companies were used at one time or another to pay sums of money to Jacob Zuma in contravention of section 1(1)(a)(i) or (ii) of the Corruption Act and accused No 1 directed them to that end or made payments himself, all the accused are found GUILTY on the main charge on count 1. …”
That section and subsection of the Corruption Act read:
1. Prohibition on offer or acceptance of benefit for commission of act in relation to certain powers or duties.-
1. Any person-
a. who corruptly gives or offers or agrees to give any benefit of whatever nature which is not legally due, to any person upon whom-
i. any power has been conferred or who has been charged with any duty by virtue of any employment or the holding of any office or any relationship of agency or any law, or to anyone else, with the intention to influence the person upon which such power has been conferred or who has been charged with such duty to commit or omit to do any act in relation to such power or duty; or
ii. any power has been conferred or who has been charged with any duty by virtue of any employment or the holdings of any office or any relationship of agency or any law and who committed or omitted to do any act constituting any excess of such power or any neglect of such duty, with the intention to reward the person upon whom such power has been conferred or who has been charged with such duty because he so acted; or
So the evidence according to Judge Squires showed an existence of a mutually beneficial symbiosis (relationship) …generated a sense of obligation in the recipient. And Shaik was found guilty of some form of corruption. Keywords – symbiosis (relationship) and corruption implies a corrupt relationship.
“sarah palin // Dec 4, 2008 at 9:25 pm
khosi // Dec 4, 2008 at 3:52 pm
and
khosi // Dec 4, 2008 at 5:33 pm
What exactly are you driving at? Spit it out.
khosi // Dec 4, 2008 at 5:33 pm
Pierre De Vos // Dec 4, 2008 at 4:14 pm
What about the other guys?
Do you receive any advertising revenue from the ads on your website? Or is it just the host that charges advertisers?
khosi // Dec 4, 2008 at 3:52 pm
Professor Pierre De Vos,
As a matter of interest. When you and other so-called experts appear on TV, radio shows and newspaper columns, do you receive any remuneration for that?
Just, as a matter of interest.”
Khosi:
Are you accusing the Prof of being an academic prostitute? If so you are, you are out of line!!
Dear sarah,
I am actually disheartened by your post @11.25am. I seek and claim no personal victory. Nor are issues of “style” what this blog (or my posts) are about.
My posts revolve on the question how dialogue can contribute to advancing the cause of truth. Debating skills are secondary, and legal expertise is often a disadvantage when amour propre intervenes.
khosi’s question in the opening post in this thread deserved a proper response, that’s all. I had thought we were getting somewhere, but PdV is proving refractory.
***
I was certainly pulled up sharply by what Ishmael posted @9.41am. We are all potentially victims of what passes for generally accepted truths, and until this morning I had never doubted that Judge Squires did find a “generally corrupt relationship” between JZ and Shaik. Obviously, I had allowed myself to be misled.
Elsewhere, PdV morphed this into “an overriding corrupt relationship” and attributed this to two Courts. He is wrong as to Squires, who was far more circumspect. I have not read the SCA judgment.
Every assumption parading as truth requires to be unmasked.
Every “truth” deserves to be questioned and challenged – even if it means to the bitter end, and even if the world has stopped listening (or reading).
Khosi, the adds on the Blog are run by Google and helps me track the amount of visitors to the Blog every day. (There are between 800 and 1200 visits every week day.) I am not paid for this but every time a visitor clicks on one of the adds I get a few cents credit. So far I have not claimed this money because quite frankly I am not sure it will cover the bank charges I would have to pay on a dollar cheque. But if all you visitors click on the adds every day I might make a few cents. Don’t be shy!
Khosi, you ask:
“Just a question in lay man’s language. If a person is seen leaving a murder scene, is such evidence enough for a conviction?”
Of course not. But the police would be criminally negligent if they did not view that person as a suspect and did not investigate the matter further to ascertain whether he or she was involved in the murder or not.
PdV // Dec 5, 2008 @12.06 pm
“Please read p 214 of Feinstein’s book where some of the original and the doctored conclusions of the report are reprinted side by side and make up your own mind”
We seem fated to rendezvous at the mulberry bush.
(1) Let me try again, one more time. Khosi called you out on your assertion that TM “of course doctored the report”. This is in the very precise context of allegations of corruption in the arms deals.
(2) You responded by cutting and pasting a piece in the M&G. Presumably you thought it was a killer response.
(3) I analysed this M&G piece and found it unimpressive. You have never disputed my analysis, but (in company with others here) have continued to confound and confuse the difference between alterations and “doctoring”. I had presumed there was no doubt what you intended by the word “doctored”. I have now given a working definition above (@10.09am).
(4) We are entitled to assume the M&G piece was your best evidence. No other evidence has been forthcoming from you beyond what is written in “thousands and millions of newspaper articles” (excuse my loose quote), and on a single page of Feinstein’s 2007 book “After The Party”, to which you have now nailed your thesis.
(5) The JIT covers a lot of ground in 380 pages – a redaction of roughly 1,000 pages in the draft(s) – comparatively little of it bearing on the allegations of corruption because they (or many of them) were the subject of a distinct inquiry.
(6) The roughly 1,000 pages in the draft(s) covered even more ground. Changes were made following the mandated consultations with the executive arm of government. It is a very long and winding road from there to your assertion that TM interfered so as to falsify the contents.
*****
“I am also surprised that some argue the “truth” is that there was no doctoring. There is NO evidence of this . . .”
I can hardly credit it that you are actually asking for proof of a negative. Are you unfamiliar with the rules of logic? You have asserted there was doctoring, therefore the burden of proof is on you, and that is where it remains until you provide at least credible evidence that TM doctored the report.
Be that as it may, who has argued there was no doctoring? All that has happened in here is that you have been challenged to justify your assertion that the JIT Report “was of course doctored by President Mbeki”.
That said, public assurances by the Auditor General to the contrary, and the considered opinion of leading counsel who confirmed to SCOPA that there were no changes of substance, constitute a fair starting point on the other side of the question.
Have a nice afternoon!
Tatera // Dec 5, 2008 at 12:45 pm
I merely asked a question; and Prof has adequately responded on his part.
khosi // Dec 5, 2008 @12.07 pm
The baleful phrase was the prosecution’s gloss on their case under count 1.
It was repeated in “Business Day”’s coverage of the judgment (May 2005) as if it was a quote from the text.
Squires immediately emailed protesting about this reportage, but his protest was never acknowledged.
A year later, the SCA in their judgment on the asset forfeiture appeal, repeated the phrase, again attributing it to Squires. See para. [8] of the judgment. It was only at this time that Squires’ original protest came fully into the light.
Squires neither used nor made any reference to the phrase in his judgment. As you know, Tony @12.23pm provided the relevant part (where the phrase might have occurred, but did not).
What people are missing is that the provisions of the Corruption Act under which Shaik and others were charged are asymmetric. Shaik was convicted because his acts were made with corrupt intentions. The state of mind of the recipient was irrelevant to count 1.
dontgetmestarted // Dec 5, 2008 at 1:58 pm
The question that still lingers on my mind is: can the phrase ‘generally corrupt relationship’ be used as a summary in explaining what Judge Squire found was the nature of the relationship between Shaik and Zuma.
“But it clearly shows, as do those in the Renong, Eco-Tourism and Venson situations, a readiness in both Shaik to turn to Zuma for his help, and Zuma’s readiness to give it.”
I quote the above excerpt from the judgment and I am also mindful of other pronouncements that skirt on the above-referred pronouncement.
I ask this fully aware that the charge was asymmetric. That said, the judge looks to have found the intent to perform a corrupt act, commensurable. And I think this is the reason that the NPA is so keen to see JZ in court.
There hasn’t been an independent nor public arms deal probe. Enough said, really.
“What we see depends mainly on what we look for” – John Lubbock
http://www.mg.co.za/article/2008-12-05-how-arms-deal-bribes-were-paid
PdV main article:-
“The report produced by these agencies was of course doctored by President Mbeki . .”
“it is hard to keep a level head when the most obvious facts (that credible evidence exist that there was serious corruption in the arms deal) are contested in the face of overwhelming circumstantial and real evidence.” PdV // Dec 4, 2008 @4.05 pm
“Dontgetmestarted, about the doctoring of the report. (a) . . (b) . . (c) . . (d) . . I would concede that this does not show beyond reasonable doubt that Mbeki doctored the report.” PdV // Dec 4, 2008 @5.27 pm
Come on people, you can all read!
Ahhh, now I understand dontgetmestarted. What you require from me is to meet the extremely onerous standard of proof used in criminal cases before you could accept my statement as valid. I believe the preponderance of probabilities standard is more appropriate as this is an acceptable standard to prove facts before a court in any civil matter. I am not the NPA trying to convict TM of a crime and sending him to prison, so I do not think have to meet your standard which, if accepted, would make it almost impossible for anyone to draw any factual conclusions about any matter in public life unless they have personal knowledge of it. This seems to me anti-ethical to robust debate in a constitutional democracy based on openness and transparency and would provide public officials with far too much leeway to get away with very serious abuses of power. A newspaper who wishes to publish claims about someone’s actions do not need to meet your standard. Why should I meet it? Because TM is your hero? Because he was the President? Maybe we should agree to disagree on this point. Suffice it to say that I think your approach is extremely dangerous for a democracy and would seriously hamper public debate and news reporting of power abuse. You are welcome to differ and to argue that public officials are entitled to the kind of protection that your standard of proof would provide. I am a bit more suspicious of public officials and believe – like the Constitutional Court – that freedom of expression requires robust debate unhindered by such a high standard of proof. I therefore have a different view of democracy which I believe is more in line with the values of the Constitution as interpreted by the Constitutional Court. You are, of course, free to argue that robust open and transparent democracy is a bad thing…..
PdV @6.53pm
That is just a silly and unworthy response.
You refuse to analyse your own views as variously expressed here, and take idle refuge in attributing to me opinions I have never stated.
I said nothing about a criminal standard of proof.
I mentioned the principles of logic, however, which are universal.
First you tell us the matter is so obvious as to be beyond the necessity for proof (of course!), then you tell a different tale. Then you change your mind and back-peddle.
No one asked you to provide personal inside knowledge. You made a statement about two texts in the public domain which are capable of being examined by anyone who has the time and skill to assess the differences between them. I merely suggested you have not demonstrated that you are not such a person.
It is mischievous of you to set yourself up as the champion of the Constitution and denigrate those who challenge your opinions as opponents of “robust open and transparent democracy”. That is rich!
Truly, the debate has now declined from any engagement with the issue raised in the original posts in this thread and it is but a stone-throw away from tedious name-calling.
I had expected better of you.
GRR . .
“I merely suggested you have not demonstrated that you are such a person”
“It ain’t what you don’t know that gets you into trouble. It’s what you know for sure that just ain’t so.” (Mark Twain)
Ah, Mark Twain. He is sorely missed.
“Some men worship rank, some worship heroes, some worship power, some worship God, & over these ideals they dispute & cannot unite — but they all worship money.” (Mark Twain)
I was at a end of year party and had two classes of whisky, but this does not incapacitate me to see that the allegations of doctoring are without any proof. The author of the draft and final report is the AG, after representations by the relevant politicians. They they instruct him to include their preferred version? or they ventured their response which swung the pendelum in favour of changes ? If the is evidence proving that the answer is yes to the first question, then there was doctoring. If the answer is yes to the second question, then Prof must concede.
John Lubock’s quatation may suit all of us. We are all proponents of robust democtratic discourse. I will punch an advert prof. It is a useful debate. The judges can indeed believe newspapers, this was not denied or admitted. It is therefore deemed accepted.
Anyway, prof you do not have to prove beyond reasonable doubt to write a newspaper article, but must undertake reasonable investigation and solicit the response of the adversely affected party. The only sources are attackers, some for one reason or the other embittered and thus not entirely reliable.
It was worth a presence on this topic!
I think the truth is that the arms deal is used by powerful international interests to ensure that their “business friendly” allies in the ‘third world” country named South Africa stays in power. Thus the relatively little interest shown in the media about the Scorpions crack-down and the implications for the likes of TM – in stark contrast to the never ending obsession with the trivial role played by JZ and his “left leaning” allies.
allafrica.com/stories/200812010544.html
I agree with Tim Cohen when he says “The third and last of my predictions is that if this investigation goes anywhere (and I suspect it won’t) it will demonstrate former president Thabo Mbeki’s intimate involvement in the whole sordid affair.”
The BAE investigation will go nowhere cause it will implicate the British and perhaps break open the pandora’s box of the criminal activities of the international arms industry and the associated meddling in post-colonial government’s political affairs.
Zuma, however, will continue to be the fall guy for political reasons although as Tim Cohen put it :
“First, it will become obvious that African National Congress president Jacob Zuma’s role in the whole affair was really trivial. The fact that Zuma’s name is now deeply associated with arms deal corruption is a huge irony, and I suspect it is no accident. I think the investigations of Zuma were a convenient red herring for all the people much more intimately involved. This is one of the reasons for Zuma’s and his supporters’ anger. But it’s also something he cannot express. He can’t fume publicly about the fact that other people were more corrupt than he was (assuming they were and he was).”
On a different note:
Lindelani Maseko may have a point after all. White lawyers unfairly receive favourable judgements.
• Zuma’s white lawyers got him off the rape case, and they are ensuring his name is on the ballot papers when South Africa votes.
• Tony Yengeni’s white lawyers got him off the drunk-driving charge.
My bet is that Selebi has white lawyers too.
I feel you, Lindelani my broer!
Goodness, you cant stay away from this blog for 3 weeks and some weirdo joins the debate. On return from my last break we had Lindelani. An insecure chap. But with reason.
Now we have another. (It MUST be a guy, only men have such inflated egos.)
I mean what kind of a person uses words like ‘invective’, regularly in a blog post. Or even worse, prefaces it with ‘my’. More than once! Pompous would be too kind a description.
Reminds me of a certain character in the cartoon series South Park, who commands his school friends to ‘respect my authority’. School boy stuff really.
Oops not an isolated incident. Just spotted another! Oh sorry its not an incident, its an INTERVENTION!
‘MY previous intervention’ nogal. Perhaps it was a divine intervention?
An important person as this obviously does not get disappointed or sad, they are – wait for it – ‘disheartened’.
But wait, there’s more!
‘truculent’
‘lubriciously’
‘take idle refuge’
Or sentences like -
‘Now, we can be sure that many of the lesser luminaries orbiting this website..’
Perhaps God himself is writing on Constitutionally speaking. Perhaps us lesser mortals should shut up.
Or perhaps its just another person with massive insecurities hiding behind words?
WvR
“I mean what kind of a person uses words like ‘invective’, regularly in a blog post.”
True – over at that thinly veiled reactionary “thought leaders” website the high and mighty gods of political censorship simply delete posts like that for its non-stereotypical content.
True Mhambi.
Some people tend to be dialectically verbose.
Dear Mr Wessel (must be a man – all that mindless aggression)
I write what I like.
Ring a bell, maybe?
or the riposte comique
small boy: eeuuuw, gramps!!! wots dat ‘orrible lump up der @11.12pm yesterday wid da SORE hed!!?
gramps: tis the argu-mhambi-um ad hominem, son.
small boy: an’ y izzit lyin’ ?
gramps: cuz it aint got no leg 2 stand on, son.
DGMS
“I was engaged in a long dialogue with Anonymouse at one time, since when he seems to have become more of a doormouse. Bongs was his sparring partner for a while – another regular contributor notable by his recent absence and, like Anonymouse, greatly missed of late.”
Since Wednesday last week I am involved in a long trial which is proceeding until Tuesday next week – hence my absence here. I am trying to catch up though and the exchanges are fascinating!
Here some homework for you dontgetmestarted.
Go through ‘I write what I like’ and count the number of times the phrase ‘my invective’ pops up.
Quite funny how many people don’t get the point of Steve Biko.
He was no racist because he was secure in his knowledge of his own and black peoples worth. Take note Thabo Mbeki.
He did not use larnie language because he did not feel he had anything to prove.
Q and A: Terry Crawford-Browne -> http://www.thetimes.co.za/PrintEdition/Insight/Article.aspx?id=899747
“F W de Klerk and Archbishop Desmond Tutu have asked the president to appoint a commission of inquiry into the arms deal. Chris Barron asked anti-arms deal crusader Terry Crawford-Browne …
Would this be in Jacob Zuma’s interests?
I think it would be. I’ve said throughout this that he is a scapegoat to divert attention from much greater culpability, including that of Thabo Mbeki.”
It appears that whistle blowers and journalists (Feinstein, Crawford-Browne, Tim Cohen) with intimidate knowledge of the arms deal agree on that point.
Bongs,
and I meant dormouse, of course
riposte d’alarme
WATCH OUT! Style warrior about!
riposte de l’escalier (nogal, whoops!)
Empty Wessel Makes Most Noise. Am I Right?
“larnie language”
Ag, Wesseltjie, you’s just jealous because Afrikaans didn’t got such lekker words like invective and lubricious.
Allamapstieks yes, perhaps thats it Clara. I must suffer from language envy. Siestog.