Constitutional Hill

Glenister: A monumental judgment in defence of the poor

Corruption is a human rights issue and the only way for a state effectively to combat corruption is through the creation of a truly independent unit that investigates corruption with a view successfully to prosecute all those who have engaged in corrupt activities. I would guess that for most South Africans this is a pretty obvious fact. Sadly, in the past some in the ANC government (and the majority of ANC delegates at Polokwane) have shown itself to be less than enthusiastic about the investigation and prosecution of alleged corruption involving party leaders or involving those closely aligned to the ANC through mutually beneficial financial arrangements and family and friendship ties.

Hence, the Scorpions were abolished and a new unit — the Hawks – were created to investigate “priority crimes”. But yesterday in the judgment of Glenister v President of the Republic of South Africa and Others a majority of judges of the Constitutional Court (in a brave and brilliant judgment authored by Deputy Chief Justice Dikgang Moseneke and Justice Edwin Cameron), found that the Hawks were not sufficiently independent and that the state had therefore failed to fulfil its obligations to respect, protect, promote and fulfil the rights in the Bill of Rights as required by section 7(2) of the Constitution.

Both the majority and minority judgments emphasised the importance of fighting corruption and the need to establish a body that was sufficiently protected from political interference to do so. The minority held that the Hawks were sufficiently protected from such interference as it seemed to assume that politicians would not interfere with the Hawks (a rather surprising assumption given the allegations of interference with the far more independent Scorpions and given the interference by the intelligence services in the work of the Scorpions) and because there were sufficient checks and balances in the legislation to ensure that it would not be “subject to undue influence” by politicians.

The majority took a far more robust approach to what was needed effectively to fight the corruption that seems to be engulfing South Africa like a tsunami. The ANC government might be tempted to try and tweak the Hawks legislation without really changing anything in order to comply with the judgment, but in my opinion the approach taken by the majority would doom any attempt merely to make some cosmetic changes to the structure of the Hawks. For the majority the starting point was the evil of corruption and the need to provide effective mechanisms to deal with it wherever it may be found:

There can be no gainsaying that corruption threatens to fell at the knees virtually everything we hold dear and precious in our hard-won constitutional order. It blatantly undermines the democratic ethos, the institutions of democracy, the rule of law and the foundational values of our nascent constitutional project. It fuels maladministration and public fraudulence and imperils the capacity of the state to fulfil its obligations to respect, protect, promote and fulfil all the rights enshrined in the Bill of Rights. When corruption and organised crime flourish, sustainable development and economic growth are stunted. And in turn, the stability and security of society is put at risk.

Quoting from a speech by Kofi Anan, the majority also noted that corruption hurts the poor disproportionately by diverting funds intended for development and by undermining a government’s ability to provide basic services. Corruption thus perpetuates inequality (put that in your pipe and smoke it, Jimmy Manyi).

If one understood that section 7(2) of the Constitution requires the state to “respect, protect, promote and fulfil the rights in the Bill of Rights”, it becomes clear that the failure on the part of the state to create a sufficiently independent anti-corruption entity infringes on the rights to equality, human dignity, freedom, security of the person, administrative justice and socio-economic rights — including the rights to education, housing, and health. Corruption was therefore an assault on the poor and on those who have suffered from discrimination in the past.

What was therefore required was to create an anti-corruption unit with the necessary independence to be protected from potential political pressure. Although there are many ways in which the state can fulfil this constitutional duty, if the state fails to create a truly independent corruption fighting body it would be in breach of its Constitutional duties.

This is strong stuff. But it gets even better. What are the requirements for such an independent body?

First, the majority indicated that the appearance or perception of independence plays an important role in evaluating whether a corruption fighting body was truly independent. This meant that the state could not create a body that it claimed was independent but that did not appear independent to the reasonable member of the public:

[P]ublic confidence in mechanisms that are designed to secure independence is indispensable. Whether a reasonably informed and reasonable member of the public will have confidence in an entity‘s autonomy-protecting features is important to determining whether it has the requisite degree of independence. Hence, if Parliament fails to create an institution that appears from the reasonable standpoint of the public to be independent, it has failed to meet one of the objective benchmarks for independence. This is because public confidence that an institution is independent is a component of, or is constitutive of, its independence.

Second, in a passage that may have consequences for our understanding of the appropriate relationship between the Minister of Justice and the NPA, the majority stated that the Constitution‘s requirement that a politician must be responsible for policing does not require that the anti-corruption unit must itself function under political oversight. This did not mean that such a body had to be insulated from political accountability. But it did mean that such a body had to be insulated from “a degree of management by political actors that threatens imminently to stifle the independent functioning and operations of the unit”.

Third, the Hawks are now “ordinary” police officials who enjoyed little if any special job security — a requirement for any truly independent corruption fighting unit. The majority pointed out that the Hawks at present can be fired by the Commissioner of Police for any number of reasons and that it appears as if he can also fire the head of the Hawks.

Although the majority does not say this, the lack of independence of the Hawks due to this provision is highlighted by the fact that our present Police Commissioner has recently been found to have acted in an unlawful manner relating to a highly problematic lease entered into to rent new Police Headquarters. If the Hawks were to investigate any possible corruption relating to this deal, the Commissioner would, in effect, be able to fire those responsible for the investigation for any of a number of reasons not officially related to the investigation.

But even if the National Commissioner of Police were not involved there could be problems with his power to fire members of the Hawks. The majority pointed out that unlike the National Director Public Prosecutions (NDPP) — who selected the head of the Scorpions from amongst the Deputy NDPPs –  the Police Commissioner can be re-appointed by the President at the end of his term. As the majority pointed out, a renewable term of office heightens the risk that the Police Commissioner may be vulnerable to political and other pressures. In theory the President could therefore place pressure on the Police Commissioner to fire those Hawks who dared to investigate allegations of corruption against — say — the Guptas or — say —  against the President himself.

But for the majority the gravest problem with the Hawks arises from the fact that the new entity‘s activities must be coordinated by Cabinet. The statute provides that a Ministerial Committee, which must include at least the Ministers for Police, Finance, Home Affairs, Intelligence and Justice may determine policy guidelines in respect of the functioning of the Hawks as well as for the selection of national priority offences. The Hawks is therefore not explicitly a corruption fighting unit. It is a unit that fights “priority crimes” and the politicians could decide what these “priority crimes” should be. This creates a risk of political and executive influence over the Hawks. As the majority pointed out:

It is true that the policy guidelines the Ministerial Committee may issue could be broad and thus harmless. But they might not be broad and harmless. Nothing in the statute requires that they be. Indeed, the power of the Ministerial Committee to determine guidelines appears to be untrammelled. The guidelines could, thus, specify categories of offences that it is not appropriate for the DPCI [the Hawks] to investigate — or, conceivably, categories of political office-bearers whom the DPCI is prohibited from investigating.

In other words, at present politicians can in effect decide what crimes the Hawks must investigate and, by implication, what crimes it should stay away from. This line of reasoning makes sense. If a President or other members of the executive are corrupt and wishes to avoid criminal sanction, these provisions would help them to do so. Although parliament is supposed to have some oversight function over this function, the President – as leader of the majority party — have indirect control over the majority of members of Parliament and hence could potentially ensure that no oversight takes place. If this ever happened this would completely subvert the corruption fighting ability of the Hawks – at least as it relates to politically connected individuals and institutions.

The majority made clear that it was not assuming that these powers would be abused by any politician. But where politicians are given powers over a corruption fighting unit that can be abused, that body does not have the requisite independence to make it effective.

From the above it must be clear that it is going to be difficult for the executive and Parliament to comply with the judgment by merely tweaking the existing legislation. A completely new institution with far more safeguards to secure its independence will have to be created. Of course, even such a body will only be as good as the people appointed to it. The professional naysayers will argue that such a body will never be truly independent because fundamentally dishonest or corrupt people will be appointed to it to protect the ANC.

I would disagree with such a pessimistic assesment.

Where a body’s independence is secured and where the body is protected from political interference, those who work for that body often grow in confidence and often begin to embody the values of that body. The pride and respect that comes with such a position often assists an individual to act in a manner not expected by those who might have appointed the person.

I recall the words of an apartheid era Minister of Justice who at that time appointed South Africa’s judges and who complained that “the problem with these judges is that once appointed they think they have been appointed on merit and start thinking for themselves”. Hopefully the members of an independent corruption fighting body will have the integrity to follow this route.

Meanwhile the ball is back in the ANC government’s court. Only time will tell whether it will try to circumvent the judgment with cosmetic changes to the existing legislation or whether it has also realised that corruption — whether committed by an ANC leader, a white businessman or someone who has donated pots of money to the governing party — disproportionally disadvantages the poor and will, if not checked, fatally undermine the credibility and legitimacy of the ANC government.

  • Gwebecimele

    This is a hollow victory in my opinion. The legislation can be reviewed but that does not guarantee action. Scorpions acted mainly because they were a useful political tool and less about corruption.

  • Donald Paul

    A wonderful analysis, as usual. Thanks.

  • Maggs Naidu – maggsnaidu@hotmail.com

    Nearly half the CC believes that government, given all that is going on, can be trusted to do the right thing.

    There’s maybe too much tea flowing up on the hill!

  • Gwebecimele

    @ PdV

    “As the majority pointed out, a renewable term of office heightens the risk that the Police Commissioner may be vulnerable to political and other pressures.”

    What is this statement saying about other independent entities such as Ch 9 institutions whose members have re-newable terms. Should we also go back and fix this at the constitution level to rectify this new found fault?

  • Maggs Naidu – maggsnaidu@hotmail.com

    Hey PdV,

    “Glenister: A monumental judgment in defence of the poor”

    LOL!

    Unless you really think that this is about ‘the poor’.

  • spoiler

    Maggs – I dont think you read the commentary – if you had you’d understand why it benefits the poor even if the story isnt directly about them…Who is the real dufus around here?

  • Handel

    Section 17A of the ‘impugned’ legislation (SAPS Act):
    “‘national priority offence’ means organised crime, crime that requires
    national prevention or investigation, or crime which requires specialised
    skills in the prevention and investigation thereof, as referred to in section
    16(1);”
    Par [233]:
    “We point out in this regard that the DPCI is not, in itself, a dedicated anti-corruption entity. It is in express terms a directorate for the investigation of “priority offences”. What those crimes might be depends on the opinion of the head of the Directorate as to national priority offences – and this is in turn subject to the Ministerial Committee’s policy guidelines. The very anti-corruption nature of the Directorate therefore depends on a political say-so, which must be given, in the exercise of a discretion, outside the confines of the legislation itself. This cannot be conducive to independence, or to efficacy.”
    Par [251]:
    “5. It is declared that Chapter 6A of the South African Police Service Act 68 of 1995 is inconsistent with Constitution and invalid to the extent that it fails to secure an adequate degree of independence for the Directorate for Priority Crime Investigation.”

    In other words, the CC, having found that the government is under a constitutional obligation to establish an independent anti-corruption entity, (see [195]), has ruled that the DPCI is, or must be, that entity?

  • John Roberts

    The ANC, as usual, will simply piss on this judgement and ignore it. Nothing will get done.

  • Maggs Naidu – maggsnaidu@hotmail.com

    spoiler
    March 18, 2011 at 10:55 am

    Hey Spoiler,

    “Who is the real dufus around here?”

    Now that you asked – you are!

  • Brett Nortje

    Pierre, how tenuous is the S 7 (2) link? Does is settle the old locus standi argument?

  • Oupoot

    I always thought the SIU were the dedicated, specialised anti-corruption (in terms of public money) unit.

  • Henri

    I have attended the first part of the SCA hearing in the JSC / Zille (Premier Western Cape) appeal (re the Hlophe matter) on why Zille was not present (as Section 178(1)(k) of the Constitution requires) at the JSC meeting when it considered a matter “relating to a provincial …. division of the High Court” – that is, at the Hlophe JP disciplinary hearing.

    One of the most embarrassing moments to the JSC counsel, was when he had to answer as to the “coyness” of the JSC’s answering affidavit in relation to certain paragraphs of the Premier’s founding affidavit. In other words – why was the JSC “ducking and diving” and not giving straight, truthful, open answers? It related to specifically how the JSC voted and whether there was the prescribed majority. It seems, relating to the heart of the matter, the JSC was reluctant to answer openly – if it didn’t try to keep the true facts from the Court.

    Each of the Judges tore into counsel on this point, with Judge Ponnan pointing out that it was a matter peculiarly within the knowledge of the JSC – but which it decided to withhold from the Court.

    Wow!!! The serial bunglers on the JSC at it again. I mean, the JSC (the Constitutional watchdog over the Courts) holding back the facts from the Courts?

    But I saw Carmel Rickard there. Her take on it would be interesting to see.

    Tuesday, the FUL / JSC appeal would be heard.

  • Maggs Naidu – maggsnaidu@hotmail.com

    pierre de vos’ dirty fingers
    March 18, 2011 at 12:07 pm

    Arggggggggghhhhhhhhh!

    You stupid moron.

    Go jump off a cliff or sit in from of a speeding truck.

    Asshole!

  • Donovan

    Prof (and others)please ignore stupid idiot who tries to spam this bloh, s/he is looking for attention, let’s not give it.

    On the topic at hand, i have a question, one of the main reasons for the ANC Conference to resolve that the Scorptions must be disbanded, was because it reported to the NPA and not the police. It was argued that by the Scorpions reporting to the NPA, they were playing both investigator and prosecutor, which is unconstitutional and unfair. Doesn’t this CC judgement therefore mean that the separation between investigation and prosecution is not necessary?

  • John Roberts

    Pierre

    It’s pretty simple to get the IP address from your ISP for the spammer.
    In fact , WordPress will give you his exact location so just ask the creators of your blog theme to pull the data out.

  • Pingback: DOJCD: Parliament vindicated, not “irrational” « SA Reconciliation Barometer Blog

  • zoo keeper

    Haven’t had a chance to check it all out yet but its it a big call and will have serious ramifications for the future.

    Prof, could the judgement lead to a challenge to “cadre deployment: i.e. where the ostensible independence of an entity is undermined, or “hollowed out” by the appointment of party apparachiks?

    This could be a watershed moment in constitutional law…

  • Mikhail Dworkin Fassbinder

    @ Maggs

    “Go jump off a cliff or sit in from of a speeding truck.”

  • Mikhail Dworkin Fassbinder

    @ Maggs

    “Go jump of a cliff …”

    It seems ironic that this so called “dirtyfingers” contributor would condemn PdV when, right here on this blog, Brett has been openly demanding that other contributors perform fellatio on him. The sheer hypocricy inclines me to think that “dirtyfingers” is an active member of the DA.

    What do you say?

  • Maggs Naidu – maggsnaidu@hotmail.com

    Mikhail Dworkin Fassbinder
    March 18, 2011 at 13:49 pm

    Dworky,

    “What do you say?”

    I say that Brett was bored with solitaire.

  • Clara

    Mikhail Dworkin Fassbinder
    March 18, 2011 at 13.49 pm

    Fassbinder:

    While I usually enjoy your facetious contributions, this sentiment does not extend to smutty innuendo. This is a family blog, you know.

  • Mikhail Dworkin Fassbinder

    @ Clara

    I demand that you withdraw your hypocritical criticism. (Are you perchance a DA member?) Brett’s vulgar solicitations make my chastisements look trivial by comparison!

    Thanks.

  • zoo keeper

    @Clara

    “Family blog”? Far as I know I’m not related to anybody on this site.

  • Clara

    Are you a member of the human race, zoo keeper? Then it might interest you to know that all humans are related. This will annoy you, I know; but not as much as it annoys me.

  • Gwebecimele
  • Maggs Naidu – maggsnaidu@hotmail.com

    Clara
    March 18, 2011 at 16:00 pm

    Hey Claraty,

    “it might interest you to know that all humans are related.”

    Eish, I am not related to Brett.

    No even the best geneticists say so.

  • Anonymouse

    Prof – brilliant dissection and analysis of the judgment – I also think that the minority (headed by thye CJ and, again Mogoeng, who just concurred with the minority this time, without really adding an input of his own) acted in a ‘blinkers-on’ manner writing the judgment that it did. I mean, surely, Jackie Selebi would never have been prosecuted (and convicted) had the Scorpions not stood their ground as far as their independence is concerned – they even stood firm against the President of the whole country in order to do so. The Hawks (or, rather, Falcons) would never have been able to do that. Also the new Chief of Police and his cronies – I mean, laughing off the Public Protector and all?! The majority judgment is good, and I think that those who sided with the CJ’s judgment merely flipped a coin.

  • Brett Nortje

    Dworky, Maggs, bite me! Clara, we only share 98,5% of Maggs’ DNA.

    Isn’t it a bit early in a very important blog to start trivialising it? Would you you 2 kids not like to go play in the comments section of one of the lesser newspapers-on-line?

    Moderator, could we have some moderation here?

  • http://deleted Brett Nortje

    What I would like to see is this judgement influencing the civilian oversight bodies for the police and defence force. Let them assert their independence from The Party and subject themselves only to the Constitution.

  • Maggs Naidu – maggsnaidu@hotmail.com

    Brett Nortje
    March 18, 2011 at 17:57 pm

    Hey Goofy,

    “Isn’t it a bit early in a very important blog to start trivialising it?”

    Why do you think that this is a more important blog than the others by PdV?

  • Maggs Naidu – maggsnaidu@hotmail.com

    Anonymouse
    March 18, 2011 at 17:55 pm

    Hey Mouse,

    I certainly think that there’s some horse trading.

    That aside – what’s the chances that government asked the CC to review this (kinda like was done with the PP report on our General)?

  • Darwin

    All living organisms are related.

  • ewald

    Prof, is it possible to post the 1994 Etienne Mureinik article somewhere, or a link perhaps? Appreciated!

  • Clara

    If – sorry, when – the Scorpions are resuscitated, will all the cases brought against Jacob Zuma be revisited? Will the Arms Deal scandal be dusted off? And didn’t the Scorpions operate under the authority of the NPA? Who controls the NPA, then? Can we have Vusi Pikoli back?

  • Maggs Naidu – maggsnaidu@hotmail.com

    Darwin
    March 18, 2011 at 18:34 pm

    Hey Dawrin,

    “All living organisms are related.”

    Brett is the exception which establishes the rule.

    He is not even related to his parents or his children.

    But he is related to Saddam Hussein’s scud missiles!

  • Clara

    >Maggs –

    “Dawrin”

    I suspect your weekend is already well under way!

  • Maggs Naidu – maggsnaidu@hotmail.com

    Clara
    March 18, 2011 at 20:24 pm

    :P

  • Mikhail Dworkin Fassbinder

    Maggs! I demand that you join me in condemning the Western imposition of the so-called “no fly” zone against the people of Libya. The West is campaigning to recolonise Africa. General Chavez and the Dear Leader and Fidel join with progressives in resisting American hegemony! What do you say?

  • Maggs Naidu – maggsnaidu@hotmail.com

    Mikhail Dworkin Fassbinder
    March 18, 2011 at 21:08 pm

    Hey Dworky,

    “I demand that you join me in condemning the Western imposition of the so-called “no fly” zone against the people of Libya. ”

    Agreed!

    Inspired by former president Mandela South Africans must rise and raise their glasses with me in salute to Muamar Qaddafi, our Brother Leader of the Revolution of the Libyan Jamahariya, and to growing friendship between the people of our two countries.

    http://www.info.gov.za/speeches/1999/990614123p1003.htm

    p.s. Brother Leader please send money. In such ways we advance the ideals of multilateral co-operation and discipline.

  • Donovan

    Just a question, have any of you read the judgement. If you did you would know that this is neither the disbandment of the Hawks nor the reinstatement of the DSO (Scorpions). Rather it states that the Hawks are independent, however it is not operationally autonomous, and is not as independent as it should be to be an anti-corruption body since it is directly accountable to the Commissioner of Police. The judgement even goes as far to state that the DSO is not the standard for independence. Finally it also says that government is duty-bound to establish an independent and operationally autonomous capacitated anti-corruption body….the Hawks do not fit this bill.

  • Maggs Naidu – maggsnaidu@hotmail.com

    @ PdV,

    “The majority took a far more robust approach”.

    This ‘majority’ sounds pretty tenuous.

    Five judges.

    Our Concourt comprises eleven judges.

    That’s 45% – admittedly a bit more than Juju got for woodwork.

    So two were AWOL (maybe AWL).

    Nobody can say for certain what the outcome would have been if the remaining two judges were available.

    If nearly half of the judges after carefully contemplating arrived at pretty much the same conclusion as the Polokwane mob, then the decision could not have been that wrong.

    Might as well have tossed a coin.

    @ Dworky – note no hint of luck of the draw suggested.

  • http://colin@nindav.co.za Loudly South Africa

    Frightful – and frightening – that nearly half our highest, brighest and best supported the government of the day and its assault on the Rule of Law and independence of justice institutions. The unseparation of Party & State evokes apartheid and Soviet rule – what a coincidence.

  • Anonymouse

    Darwin says:
    March 18, 2011 at 18:34 pm

    “Darwin was adopted”

  • Mikhail Dworkin Fassbinder

    South Africa has established an honourable record at the UN. Essentially, its measured strategy since 1995 has been to vote AGAINST whatever Washington was FOR — whether the subject be rape as a weapon of war, Sudan, North Korea, Iraq, Iraq, or gay rights.

    What could have inspired the volte face on Libya? Why, when summoned by U.S. ambassador Rice on Thursday night did our representative meekly return to his seat and vote in favour of Western aggression against the people of Libya?

    Where are all the progressives and liberals who were so fervently opposed to the U.S. war against Saddam? Does anyone believe that Col Gadhafi has been any more brutal to his own people than Saddam was? Or that Western oil interests oil feature less prominently now than they did when it was the fate of Iraq that was on the table?

  • Maggs Naidu – maggsnaidu@hotmail.com

    Mikhail Dworkin Fassbinder
    March 20, 2011 at 1:21 am

    Hey Mossad Guy,

    “What could have inspired the volte face on Libya?”

    Probably a decision from the Saxonworld Union Buildings .

    “Why, when summoned by U.S. ambassador Rice on Thursday night did our representative meekly return to his seat and vote in favour of Western aggression against the people of Libya?”

    Oil blocks are on offer by the Libyan Government – no longer on open tender as was the norm but by private, er, ‘negotiation’. It is possible that our Prime Ministry at Saxonworld was not offered the oil blocks which the wanted. So the instructions went out – ‘smash them’.

    p.s. Now that President Zuma has new friends, we are not playing with Schabir anymore.

  • Clara

    >Anonymouse:

    “Darwin was adopted”

    So-o? Hey, someone sent me a picture of the Earth. On the back it said, “Wish you were here.”

  • Maggs Naidu – maggsnaidu@hotmail.com

    Loudly South Africa
    March 19, 2011 at 13:26 pm

    Hey LSA,

    “Frightful – and frightening – that nearly half our highest, brighest and best supported the government of the day and its assault on the Rule of Law and independence of justice institutions.”

    It may well be contagious.

    “We are aware that the majority of our people, learned men and women on the bench, owe it to the (Robert) Mugabe regime, and obviously it is given that when it comes to a call when they have to make decisions, crucial decisions for that matter, they have to pay back the master. In this case, do things in favour of Zanu-PF,”

    http://www.timeslive.co.za/sundaytimes/article975643.ece/Speakers-charmed-life-spins-out-of-control

  • Sivakashi

    Prof, no sooner than you had rubbished a recent call for greater scrutiny of judgments, from the legal profession, comes this breath-taking minority judgment.

    Do you think its fair to the minority to suggest that its reasoning and the conclusions it draws can be attributed to certain fundamental ideological differences between itself and the majority? Specifically, I am asking if you see anything in the minority judgment which resembles the sort of ideological views which you have in the past said are held by the likes of Jeremy Gauntlett. My own, superficial, reading of the minority judgment is that it is overly formalistic. The lengths that the minority goes to avoid inconvenient obligations under international law would surely make ZANU-PF proud. No doubt these developments will be keenly watched by the executive!

    On another note, the CC appears to accept that a certain measure of political influence over the NPA/ DSO/ DPCI is warranted. Hence we only find references to UNDUE political interference. I’m undecided about whether the CC ‘s view on this point is irreconcilable with that of, say, Menzi Simelane. What do you think?

  • Sivakashi

    CC = minority

  • Maggs Naidu – maggsnaidu@hotmail.com

    Sivakashi
    March 20, 2011 at 19:38 pm

    Hey Sivakashi,

    It seems that you are suggesting that some of our judges “allow themselves to be (ab)used”.

    Maybe even that instructions are taken from the Saxonworld Compound.

    Love the euphemisms.

    Does :

    “attributed to certain fundamental ideological differences” = sucking up?

    “overly formalistic” = padding = making the question fit the answer?

    “No doubt these developments will be keenly watched by the executive!” = Thanks, we knew we could rely on you to protect our interests?

    “I’m undecided about whether the CC ‘s view on this point is irreconcilable with that of, say, Menzi Simelane.” = The CC is accountable to the Executive?

  • Sivakashi

    Maggs, that’s a very creative take on things.

    I would really just like some better analyses of the minority judgment than I can put together.

  • Maggs Naidu – maggsnaidu@hotmail.com

    Sivakashi
    March 20, 2011 at 20:34 pm

    Hey Sivakashi,

    “I would really just like some better analyses of the minority judgment than I can put together.”

    Ok.

    So you want the “overly formalistic” version.

    For the “executive summary”, read the minority judgement. :)

  • Mikhail Dworkin Fassbinder

    Maggs, I am convinced that we cannot properly understand the Glenister decision in isolation from what is happening tonight in Tripoli.

    My challenge for you is this: What can we, AS AFRICANS, do to protect the Libyan people against American aggression?

    Thanks!

  • Maggs Naidu – maggsnaidu@hotmail.com

    Mikhail Dworkin Fassbinder
    March 20, 2011 at 21:10 pm

    Hey Crazy Mossad Guy,

    “Maggs, I am convinced that we cannot properly understand the Glenister decision in isolation from what is happening tonight in Tripoli.”

    Both are easily understood.

    Recall that Brother leader tried in vain to become King of Africa – it was denied him for a reason.

    Recall that South Africa supported the invasion of Libya – we were ‘instructed’ to do so.

    These are not unconnected.

    Think King of Africa.

    Think Oil Blocks.

    Think Saxonworld Compound.

    Guess who is gonna be the Royal Family of all of Africa.

    Guess who is going to inherit the largest and most profitable oil concessions in Libya.

  • Anonymouse

    Clara says:
    March 20, 2011 at 14:39 pm

    I definitely do not share Darwin’s idea of evolution – I mean, if he thought he was the off-spring of amoebae / chlamydomonas or, later, monkeys, well, then I’d say he was adopted, because I’m human and I do not believe in the natural selection nonsense. Like I always say, there is intelligent life on earth, but I’m only visiting.

    Mikhail and Maggs

    Forget about Libyia and King Ghadafi – What can we do to protect our dear RS of A against American oppression? I’d say: Yes, Yes, we can(nabis).

  • Maggs Naidu – maggsnaidu@hotmail.com

    Anonymouse
    March 21, 2011 at 9:00 am

    Hey Mouse,

    “Like I always say, there is intelligent life on earth”

    Stick around and keep an eye out for our resident dufus who disproves that.

    p.s. Darwin may not have got it exactly spot on but given his youth, the limitations of science and technology at the time, his general accuracy under those circumstances, the oke has to be one of the greatest minds of all time.

    p.p.s. Not counting JR that is.

  • Darwin

    Anonymouse says:
    March 21, 2011 at 9:00 am

    “I definitely do not share Darwin’s idea of evolution – I mean, if he thought he was the off-spring of amoebae / chlamydomonas or, later, monkeys, well, then I’d say he was adopted, because I’m human and I do not believe in the natural selection nonsense. Like I always say, there is intelligent life on earth, but I’m only visiting.”

    Rattus/Mus aka Mouse:
    I am very disappointed in you. I suggest you stick to legal matters where you have earned my respect in the past. I have missed you on the blog lately.

  • Maggs Naidu – maggsnaidu@hotmail.com

    Anonymouse
    March 21, 2011 at 9:00 am

    Hey Mouse,

    “Forget about Libyia and King Ghadafi – What can we do to protect our dear RS of A against American oppression? I’d say: Yes, Yes, we can(nabis).”

    As the saying goes, be careful what you wish for ….

    The ANCYL says while presented as a means of protecting Libyan civilians, UN resolution 1973 “is meant to impose the West’s takeover of Libya, because of its oil endowments”.

    And there’s the Guptaian determination somewhere in the Freudian slip.

    The ANCYL says it will “strongly raise its concern over South Africa’s foreign policy and outlook within ANC structures and with the department of international relations and corporation.

    http://www.timeslive.co.za/local/article978604.ece/The-ANCYL-says-the-West-wants-to-takeover-Libya

  • Henri

    Here is Carmel Rickard’s take on the JSC’s disrespect for the High Courts and their function:
    http://carmelrickard.posterous.com/

  • Anonymouse

    Darwin says:
    March 21, 2011 at 11:17 am

    I was just gnawing again – as mice usually do. But, I’ve already made an input in this article from the legal angle. See:
    Anonymouse says:
    March 18, 2011 at 17:55 pm

  • Darwin

    Anonymouse says:
    March 21, 2011 at 11:54 am
    Darwin says:
    March 21, 2011 at 11:17 am

    I was just gnawing again – as mice usually do. But, I’ve already made an input in this article from the legal angle. See:
    Anonymouse says:
    March 18, 2011 at 17:55 pm

    I have seen it but was referring to your absence from the blog in recent times. Have you completed your studies?

  • Anonymouse

    Darwin says:
    March 21, 2011 at 12:02 pm

    Yep – Now ‘Doctor Mouse’

  • Darwin

    Anonymouse says:
    March 21, 2011 at 12:27 pm

    Yep – Now ‘Doctor Mouse’:

    CONGRATULATIONS!!!!

  • Anonymouse

    Darwin says:
    March 21, 2011 at 12:31 pm

    Thanks. When I did my initial B degrees, I thought I knew everything of everything. When I completed my Master’s degree, I thought that I knew nothing of everything. Sadly, now that I’ve completed my Doctor’s degree, I’ve discovered that I know everything of nothing.

    Henri says:
    March 21, 2011 at 11:29 am

    I of course agree with especially Harms DP that the JSC (which is by-and-large a political body for the election of judges) does not respect the courts, especially the SCA (as in this case) by not being frank and open in its papers when appealing a High Court decision. I mean, what’s with all this cloak-and-dagger stuff when dealing with complaints against judges? Such approach will not promote trust in the judiciary, but is sure to breed contempt.

    However, back on the topic at hand – After having read the CC judgment as a whole, I cannot but wonder why the minority (headed by Ncgobo CJ) took such a superficial view of the Court’s role to oversee government’s respect of the Constitution – accepting that there will be no political influence in the Hawks’ decisions (or at least that such was not proven)! The Arms Scandal, the Hlophe matter, the Selebi thing, the recent Public Protector thing (although, this came probably after the matter had already been deliberated) all seem to indicate that government (read, ‘the ANC’) is not shy to interfere in the decisions of the Police, the NPA, other supposedly independent bodies and even the courts. But, then again, I’m amazed that ANCYL has not as yet said “Told you so!” in the light of its criticism of Moseneke DCJ with reference to the Polokwane debacle. One further positive thing from this judgment, is the fact that the courts (in this case the CC) do not operate in hiearchy when deliberating judgments – the CJ’s vote counts as much as that of an ordinary CC justice. Had that not been the case, one must question the ability of the President to exercise a political choice when appointing the CJ.

  • Maggs Naidu – maggsnaidu@hotmail.com

    Anonymouse
    March 21, 2011 at 12:51 pm

    Hey Mouse,

    “I cannot but wonder why the minority (headed by Ncgobo CJ) took such a superficial view of the Court’s role to oversee government’s respect of the Constitution – accepting that there will be no political influence in the Hawks’ decisions (or at least that such was not proven)!”

    It seems the minority missed that the National Commissioner of the SAPF (aka the General) is a career politician appointed from the ranks of career politicians by career politicians (a large number of whom are at least suspected of being highly corrupt).

    But then as you suggested earlier, some among us are just visiting this planet!

  • Anonymouse

    Maggs Naidu – maggsnaidu@hotmail.com says:
    March 21, 2011 at 15:12 pm

    Exactly!!

  • Maggs Naidu – maggsnaidu@hotmail.com

    Anonymouse
    March 21, 2011 at 9:00 am

    Hey Mouse,

    “Like I always say, there is intelligent life on earth”.

    Did Newton imply that for every intelligent life there’s a equal and opposite goofhead?

    Or was it Einstein who postulated that the sum of all human intelligence is constant i.e. for every genius there has got to a whole bunch on the other end.

    If they didn’t then they ought to have – it seems that the bounds of idiocy knows no limits.

    While you’re chewing on that how about these WTFs to celebrate Human Rights Day from http://carmelrickard.posterous.com/judges-should-speak-plainly-when-they-make-de :

    ‘This case illustrates the need for our constitutional jurisprudence to find the space in appropriate cases to move away from unduly rigid compartmentalisation so as to allow judicial reasoning to embrace fluid concepts of hybridity and permeability in those matters.’

    – ‘The relationship between the separately protected rights should thus be regarded as osmotic rather than hermetic. Seepage should be understood not as a form of analytical blurring to be avoided, but rather as a desirable mechanism for ensuring that constitutional interests in appropriate cases are properly protected, and constitutional justice fully achieved. And hybridity should be recognised for what it is, the co-existence and interpenetration of more than one guaranteed right in a particular factual and legal situation.’

    – ‘(B)oth the arrestor and the arrestee are ad idem that the raison dêtre predicating the plaintiff’s arrest, was effected with the prescient settled intention to expeditiously present the plaintiff to court in order to facilitate his immediate release on bail.’

  • http://deleted Brett Nortje

    Maggs, as usual your contributions are invaluable.

    To single out, especially the depth of analysis of the ANCYL position on Libya was astonishing. But then, so is your whole analysis of the Libya affair and South Africa’s position on it.

    Your explanation of how enforcement of a no-fly zone – to deny Michael Jackson air superiority over unsupported rebel land forces – became carte-blanche to attack ground targets made for riveting reading.

    I really appreciated the data you provided showing how every recession since the 1970s energy-crisis can be linked to a surge in oil prices, which provides convincing support for the thesis that the West and especially the EU favour armed intervention in the Middle East to stabilise oil prices to prevent their countries falling into a double-dip recession. War has been an instrument of foreign policy for centuries and it is interesting to watch how it becomes an instrument of economic policy in the New World Order in the era of globalisation.

    Thank you, Maggs! Well done!

    I cannot wait for your contributions on the shouting down of Patricia DeLille by liberation forces at a Human Rights Day gathering sponsored by the ANC!

  • Maggs Naidu – maggsnaidu@hotmail.com

    Brett Nortje
    March 21, 2011 at 21:50 pm

    Hey Brett,

    Nice to see you – I hinted to you in an exchange with Mouse earlier.

    Anyway happy Human Rights Day (even if you don’t quite qualify).

  • Mikhail Dworkin Fassbinder

    @ Maggs/Brett

    Yes, President Zuma has finally spoken up against the American aggression against the people of Libya. But is this not an instance of too little too late? The Western airstrikes have aleady crushed the loyal forces attempting to crush hooligans and terrorists in Benghazi! I demand that South Africa lead the African Union in finding African Solutions for African problems!

    Thanks

  • http://deleted Brett Nortje

    Like Rwanda, you mean?

  • Maggs Naidu – maggsnaidu@hotmail.com

    Mikhail Dworkin Fassbinder
    March 22, 2011 at 9:08 am

    Hey Mossad Guy,

    “Yes, President Zuma has finally spoken up against the American aggression against the people of Libya.”

    The thing is that we supported the resolution of the UN. (This one http://daccess-dds-ny.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/N11/268/39/PDF/N1126839.pdf?OpenElement)

    Pretending now that the resolution meant that the UN speaks nicely to Bad Gad is really dof – it seems more of a case of running the hares and hunting with the hounds.

    “It wasn’t us” also will not be convincing.

    There was a time, post 1994, when South Africa was a proud nation standing behind its decisions. Mandela famously told the developed nations to piss off when attempts were made to tell us who our friends should be.

    Now we’ve opted for chameleon diplomacy.

    Blame the powers at The Compound!

  • Maggs Naidu – maggsnaidu@hotmail.com

    Brett Nortje
    March 22, 2011 at 9:25 am

    Hey Goofy,

    I declare today a holiday for you – Sub-human Rights Day!

  • Michael Osborne

    @ Maggs

    I agree, SA’s position on the implications of Resolution 1973 does seem a little naive. (BTW, nice to see Mr Holmisa carving out an independent foreign policy stance for the UDM, complaining that SA was “duped” into supporting the resolution.)

    Meanwhile, see below a piece by Robert Fisk (London Independent), that rehearses the very same arguments (its all about the oil, civilian casualties, double standards, you-supported-him-once, western hypocrisy, etc.), against intervention in Libya that we all heard with respect to Iraq.

    I can’t wait to hear an explanation from the liberals who so loudly opposed the “liberation” of Iraq why they now so applaud the intervention in Iraq.

    Libya: The Wearingly Familiar Odor of Regime Change
    First it was Saddam. Then Gaddafi. Now There’s a Vacancy for the West’s Favorite Crackpot Tyrant

    by Robert Fisk

    So we are going to take “all necessary measures” to protect the civilians of Libya, are we? Pity we didn’t think of that 42 years ago. Or 41 years ago. Or… well, you know the rest. And let’s not be fooled by what the UN resolution really means. Yet again, it’s going to be regime-change. And just as in Iraq – to use one of Tom Friedman’s only memorable phrases of the time – when the latest dictator goes, who knows what kind of bats will come flying out of the box? One thing we can do is spot the future Gaddafis and Saddams we are breeding right now – the future torture-chamber sadists. (Getty; EPA)
    And after Tunisia, after Egypt, it’s got to be Libya, hasn’t it? The Arabs of North Africa are demanding freedom, democracy, liberation from oppression. Yes, that’s what they have in common. But what these nations also have in common is that it was us, the West, that nurtured their dictatorships decade after decade after decade. The French cuddled up to Ben Ali, the Americans stroked Mubarak, while the Italians groomed Gaddafi until our own glorious leader went to resurrect him from the political dead.
    Could this be, I wonder, why we have not heard from Lord Blair of Isfahan recently? Surely he should be up there, clapping his hands with glee at another humanitarian intervention. Perhaps he is just resting between parts. Or maybe, like the dragons in Spenser’s Faerie Queen, he is quietly vomiting forth Catholic tracts with all the enthusiasm of a Gaddafi in full flow.

    So let’s twitch the curtain just a bit and look at the darkness behind it. Yes, Gaddafi is completely bonkers, flaky, a crackpot on the level of Ahmadinejad of Iran and Lieberman of Israel – who once, by the way, drivelled on about how Mubarak could “go to hell” yet quaked with fear when Mubarak was indeed hurtled in that direction. And there is a racist element in all this.
    The Middle East seems to produce these ravers – as opposed to Europe, which in the past 100 years has only produced Berlusconi, Mussolini, Stalin and the little chap who used to be a corporal in the 16th List Bavarian reserve infantry, but who went really crackers when he got elected in 1933 – but now we are cleaning up the Middle East again and can forget our own colonial past in this sandpit. And why not, when Gaddafi tells the people of Benghazi that “we will come, ‘zenga, zenga’ (alley by alley), house by house, room by room.” Surely this is a humanitarian intervention that really, really, really is a good idea. After all, there will be no “boots on the ground”.
    Of course, if this revolution was being violently suppressed in, say, Mauritania, I don’t think we would be demanding no-fly zones. Nor in Ivory Coast, come to think of it. Nor anywhere else in Africa that didn’t have oil, gas or mineral deposits or wasn’t of importance in our protection of Israel, the latter being the real reason we care so much about Egypt.
    So here are a few things that could go wrong, a sidelong glance at those bats still nestling in the glistening, dank interior of their box. Suppose Gaddafi clings on in Tripoli and the British and French and Americans shoot down all his aircraft, blow up all his airfields, assault his armour and missile batteries and he simply doesn’t fade away. I noticed on Thursday how, just before the UN vote, the Pentagon started briefing journalists on the dangers of the whole affair; that it could take “days” just to set up a no-fly zone.
    Then there is the trickery and knavery of Gaddafi himself. We saw it yesterday when his Foreign Minister announced a ceasefire and an end to “military operations” knowing full well, of course, that a Nato force committed to regime-change would not accept it, thus allowing Gaddafi to present himself as a peace-loving Arab leader who is the victim of Western aggression: Omar Mukhtar Lives Again.
    And what if we are simply not in time, if Gaddafi’s tanks keep on rolling? Do we then send in our mercenaries to help the “rebels”. Do we set up temporary shop in Benghazi, with advisers and NGOs and the usual diplomatic flummery? Note how, at this most critical moment, we are no longer talking about the tribes of Libya, those hardy warrior people whom we invoked with such enthusiasm a couple of weeks ago. We talk now about the need to protect “the Libyan people”, no longer registering the Senoussi, the most powerful group of tribal families in Benghazi, whose men have been doing much of the fighting. King Idris, overthrown by Gaddafi in 1969, was a Senoussi. The red, black and green “rebel” flag – the old flag of pre-revolutionary Libya – is in fact the Idris flag, a Senoussi flag. Now let’s suppose they get to Tripoli (the point of the whole exercise, is it not?), are they going to be welcomed there? Yes, there were protests in the capital. But many of those brave demonstrators themselves originally came from Benghazi. What will Gaddafi’s supporters do? “Melt away”? Suddenly find that they hated Gaddafi after all and join the revolution? Or continue the civil war?
    And what if the “rebels” enter Tripoli and decide Gaddafi and his crazed son Saif al-Islam should meet their just rewards, along with their henchmen? Are we going to close our eyes to revenge killings, public hangings, the kind of treatment Gaddafi’s criminals have meted out for many a long year? I wonder. Libya is not Egypt. Again, Gaddafi is a fruitcake and, given his weird performance with his Green Book on the balcony of his bombed-out house, he probably does occasionally chew carpets as well.
    Then there’s the danger of things “going wrong” on our side, the bombs that hit civilians, the Nato aircraft which might be shot down or crash in Gaddafi territory, the sudden suspicion among the “rebels”/”Libyan people”/democracy protesters that the West, after all, has ulterior purposes in its aid. And there’s one boring, universal rule about all this: the second you employ your weapons against another government, however righteously, the thing begins to unspool. After all, the same “rebels” who were expressing their fury at French indifference on Thursday morning were waving French flags in Benghazi on Thursday night. Long live America. Until…
    I know the old arguments, of course. However bad our behaviour in the past, what should we do now? It’s a bit late to be asking that. We loved Gaddafi when he took over in 1969 and then, after he showed he was a chicken-head, we hated him and then we loved him again – I am referring to Lord Blair’s laying on of hands – and now we hate him again. Didn’t Arafat have a back-to-front but similar track record for the Israelis and Americans? First he was a super-terrorist longing to destroy Israel, then he was a super-statesman shaking hands with Yitzhak Rabin, then he became a super-terrorist again when he realised he’d been tricked over the future of “Palestine”.
    One thing we can do is spot the future Gaddafis and Saddams whom we are breeding right now, the future crackpot, torture-chamber sadists who are cultivating their young bats with our economic help. In Uzbekistan, for example. And in Turkmenistan. And in Tajikistan and Chechenya and other “stans”. But no. These are men we have to deal with, men who will sell us oil, buy our arms and keep Muslim “terrorists” at bay.
    It is all wearingly familiar. And now we are back at it again, banging our desks in spiritual unity. We don’t have many options, do we, unless we want to see another Srebrenica? But hold on. Didn’t that happen long after we had imposed our “no-fly” zone over Bosnia?
    © 2011 The Independent

  • http://deleted Brett Nortje

    Maggs Naidu – maggsnaidu@hotmail.com says:
    March 22, 2011 at 9:29 am

    Perhaps it is ‘Quiet Diplomacy’ at work, Maggs?

    Wanna give us a list of whom the ‘proud nation’s buddies were?

    Start with Brother Leader.

    Interesting that you raise that era. I asked a friend of mine how he liked his new boss. He liked his new boss just fine. Very reliable. Whenever he needed to find him Nzo would be asleep behind his desk.

  • Maggs Naidu – maggsnaidu@hotmail.com

    Brett Nortje
    March 22, 2011 at 10:33 am

    Hey Goofy,

    “I asked a friend of mine how he liked his new boss. He liked his new boss just fine. Very reliable. Whenever he needed to find him Nzo would be asleep behind his desk.”

    I know what you mean.

    I was forced in those ‘good old days’ to work subordinate to people who would have added a lot of value if they were asleep behind their desks.

    Truck drivers, barbers, street sweepers – rejects from Europe – were ‘imported’ as supervisors, foremen, managers, general managers in highly technical environments.

    Somehow then operations went on – now we’re doing much, much better, even with those whose value add is low sleeping behind their desks. At the very least today, people can string a few words into a coherent sentence.

  • Anonymouse

    Prof De Vos – Please accept my apologies for a few other bloggers and I having hijacked this post to vent our opinions on the Libyian situation.

    Fellow bloggers – please note that it would appear that Pres Zuma (see his Freedom Day speech) had not properly read UN SC Res 1973. A copy of the res can be found here http://www.cfr.org/libya/un-security-council-resolution-1973-libya/p24426

    Note particularly clauses 4 and 5 of the Res, which read as follows

    “Protection of civilians

    “4. Authorizes Member States that have notified the Secretary-General, acting nationally or through regional organizations or arrangements, and acting in cooperation with the Secretary-General, to take all necessary measures, notwithstanding paragraph 9 of resolution 1970 (2011), to protect civilians and civilian populated areas under threat of attack in the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, including Benghazi, while excluding a foreign occupation force of any form on any part of Libyan territory, and requests the Member States concerned to inform the Secretary-General immediately of the measures they take pursuant to the authorization conferred by this paragraph which shall be immediately reported to the Security Council;

    “5. Recognizes the important role of the League of Arab States in matters relating to the maintenance of international peace and security in the region, and bearing in mind Chapter VIII of the Charter of the United Nations, requests the Member States of the League of Arab States to cooperate with other Member States in the implementation of paragraph 4;”

    Obviously, the SC in this resolution (for which the R of SA voted ‘aye’) authorizes all member states to take “all necessary measures”, except for deploying “a foreign occupation force of any form on any part of Libyan territory”, “to protect civilians and civilian populated areas under threat of attack in the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya”.

    Together with their enforcing the “no fly zone”, which was also authorized in terms of this res, the allied member states have to date operated strictly within the bounds of this res – the use of fighter jets and bombers to protect civilians and to enforce a no fly zone does not constitute the deployment of a ‘foreign occupation force’ on Libyan territory, and can be seen as the taking of ‘all necessary measures’ to protect Libyan people. Zuma’s rants that we are against the killing of civilians (which has not yet happened), and the ‘doctine of regime-change’ (which has arguably been authorised in terms of this res as part of ‘all necessary measures’) and that the people of Libyia should be allowed to seek a peaceful settlement of their problems (how peaceful can such settlement be sought when they are attacked by a despot in the extreme?) are therefore just hollow idiotic remarks to satisfy ANCYL that government voted for something less than what is currenmtly happening.

    Excuse all the typos above – this was very hastilly posted.

  • http://deleted Brett Nortje

    Maggs Naidu – maggsnaidu@hotmail.com says:
    March 22, 2011 at 10:43 am

    The people of Benghazi are overawed by your reminiscences but humbly request that you string a few words into a coherent sentence, a few coherent sentences into a coherent paragraph – and keep an eye on the timeline….

  • http://deleted Brett Nortje

    How about we have a no-Council-on-Foreign-Relations zone?

    You know how we conspiracy theorists feel about THEM!

  • Anonymouse

    This much for allowing the people of Libya to fend for themselves (solve their own problems) http://www.news24.com/Africa/News/Libya-envoy-to-UN-no-longer-accredited-20110321

    I could never understand how the RSA government (read the ANC) could keep on saying that something is an African matter and that a matter should be left to the people of that particular country (e.g., Zim, Sudan, Ivory Coast, Libya, etc.) and the AU to settle, if there is no prospect of a peaceful resolution of the problems. I think we should be worried, indeed very worried, for the day that we might be justified in calling an ANC leader a ‘tyrant’ or a ‘despot’, with clear evidence that human rights of ordinary citizens are being trampled upon – if this is the kind of response that we can expect from our fellow African states. The Banjul Charter seems to have been long forgotten when we see how the AU tries to settle human rights transgressions on African soil.

  • Maggs Naidu – maggsnaidu@hotmail.com

    Brett Nortje
    March 22, 2011 at 10:56 am

    Hey Goofy,

    Thanks.

    That illustrates better what I attempted to convey.

    Now go sleep behind your desk.

    hehehehe “How about we have a no-Council-on-Foreign-Relations zone?”.

    Yours has to be a special case of stupidity – you must have been created as an experiment by evil scientists to produce people with no intelligence.

  • Maggs Naidu – maggsnaidu@hotmail.com

    Anonymouse
    March 22, 2011 at 11:06 am

    Hey Mouse,

    “I could never understand how the RSA government (read the ANC) could keep on saying that something is an African matter and that a matter should be left to the people of that particular country (e.g., Zim, Sudan, Ivory Coast, Libya, etc.) and the AU to settle, if there is no prospect of a peaceful resolution of the problems.”

    QED.

    Follow the money!

  • Mikhail Dworkin Fassbinder

    Brett, with great respect, you have been misled by the liberal western media. Mr Ghaddafi remains, as Nelson Mandela said, a great revolutionary icon. He withstood Reagan’s bombings, and will similarly defeat the new wave of aggression. The West wants to steal Libya’s oil, just as grabbed the oil of Iraq.

    Did you know that Mr Ghaddafi holds no title or position in government? Libya is a radical direct democracy, governed by the people themselves, who spontanously decide every issue by unanimous assent!

    Thanks

  • Anonymouse

    Fieldmarshall, General, Idi Amin Dadda on the rise again? http://www.news24.com/Africa/News/Museveni-slams-Wests-action-on-Libya-20110322

  • http://deleted Brett Nortje

    Mouse, I happen to believe there should be a common civil service uniform (my preference is for blue tops and khaki pants) to distinguish for the nation who are their civil service entrusted with doing the people’s business.

  • Mikhail Dworkin Fassbinder

    @ Dr Mouse

    ….”Zuma’s rants that we are against the killing of civilians (which has not yet happened)”

    Like Brett, you are a victim of the western liberal media. Tens of thousands of civilians have already been killed by America’s laser guided cruise missiles in Tripoli.

    Are you not aware that, like Israel in Gaza, and America in Iraq and Afganistan (and, for that matter, DA councillors in South Africa), the west DELIBERATELY TARGETS innocent babies?

  • Maggs Naidu – maggsnaidu@hotmail.com

    Mikhail Dworkin Fassbinder
    March 22, 2011 at 13:46 pm

    Hey Mossad Fellow,

    “like Israel in Gaza”

    You’re gonna wear your angry face now.

    Was do you say about this, eh?

    The University of Johannesburg (UJ) has officially severed ties with Israel’s Ben-Gurion University (BGU), deputy vice chancellor Adam Habib said on Wednesday. …

    “UJ is the first institution to officially sever relations with an Israeli university – a landmark moment in the growing boycott, divestment and sanctions of Israel campaign,” it said. The committee said the decision, coming from a South African institution, was of particular significance as it could start “a domino boycott effect”.

    http://www.iol.co.za/news/south-africa/gauteng/uj-cuts-ties-with-israeli-university-1.1046158

  • Mikhail Dworkin Fassbinder

    @ Maggs

    “The University of Johannesburg (UJ) has officially severed ties with Israel’s Ben-Gurion University (BGU), deputy vice chancellor Adam Habib said on Wednesday. …”

    Certainly, this is a step in the right direction. Coincidentally, I just heard that Wits, not to be outdone by UJ, is considering cutting all ties with Columbia, Stanford, Harvard and Yale, because of Obama’s drone attacks in Afghanistan (which have killed many civilians in Pakistan.)

    A friend from UKZN added that there are moves afoot for that university to boycott Beijing university, until the PRC ends its brutal 50 year occupation of Tibet.

    I am quite confident that Professor Habib will, in a spirit of consistency and non-hypocricy, follow suit.

    Many thanks!

  • Maggs Naidu – maggsnaidu@hotmail.com

    Mikhail Dworkin Fassbinder
    March 23, 2011 at 21:52 pm

    Hey Mossady,

    “Professor Habib will, in a spirit of consistency and non-hypocricy”

    I was wrong about you wearing your cross face.

    This looks like a very angry face.

    I see you have ignored UCT – what about Pierre-the-hypocrite?

    BTW – have you nuked Khosi-our-resident-hypocrite -buster?

  • Maggs Naidu – maggsnaidu@hotmail.com

    Mikhail Dworkin Fassbinder
    March 23, 2011 at 21:52 pm

    Eish Mossad Guy,

    Now you’re gonna be really, really pissed off!

    UJ Israel boycott a ‘landmark moment’

    The University of Johannesburg’s decision to sever ties with Israel’s Ben Gurion University set a “worldwide precedent” in the academic boycott of the Middle Eastern country, the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) of Israel workgroup said on Thursday.

    “UJ is the first institution to officially sever relations with an Israeli university – a landmark moment in the growing Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) of Israel campaign,” the group said in a statement.

  • Maggs Naidu – maggsnaidu@hotmail.com
  • Mikhail Dworkin Fassbinder

    Maggs, I see UJs decision as a magnificent opportunity to demand that our universities cut ties with ALL universities that are based in countries whose aircraft bomb women and children in Afghanistan, Iraq and now, Libya. I look forward therefore to Prof Jansen cutting the ties between UOFS and universities in US, UK, Germany, France, Holland, Italy ….

  • Maggs Naidu – maggsnaidu@hotmail.com

    Mikhail Dworkin Fassbinder
    March 24, 2011 at 12:29 pm

    Hey Mossady.

    Let’s leave that stuff until your blood has stopped boiling.

    What do you think of our President’s proclamation that as SA, we say … no to the regime change doctrine?

    We said yes to regime change in apartheid SA, yes to regime change in ‘Rhodesia’, yes to regime change in ‘South West Africa’, yes to regime change in Mozambique, yes to regime change in ‘Portuguese West Africa’.

    Whatever is it that makes Libya special?

  • Maggs Naidu – maggsnaidu@hotmail.com

    Hey Dworky,

    Hopefully you are now calmed down and energise enough to support the ‘firm’ Israeli response.

    You’ll be sorry, Israeli university tells UJ

    Deputy Vice Chancellor Adam Habib says the University of Johannesburg has officially severed ties with Israel’s Ben-Gurion University. Photo: Independent Newspapers

    The UJ’s decision to sever ties with Ben-Gurion University (BGU) and end their collaborative research will hurt South Africans, the Israeli institution said in a statement on Thursday.

    http://www.iol.co.za/news/south-africa/gauteng/you-ll-be-sorry-israeli-university-tells-uj-1.1046732

  • Mikhail Dworkin Fassbinder

    @ Maggs

    1. I do not think you can really talk about the people’s revolts in Angola and Rhodesia as “regime change.” By contrast, for the western liberals to impose a liberal puppet regime in Tripoli would constitute a regression to colonial domination — this would indeed be “regime change” with a vengance!

    2. I am seriously considering cutting all ties to Wits, my beloved alma mater. (This would entail returning all overdue books to the Wartenweiler library.) Would you support me, Maggs?

  • Maggs Naidu – maggsnaidu@hotmail.com

    Mikhail Dworkin Fassbinder
    March 24, 2011 at 21:09 pm

    Hey Mossady,

    The books we can sort out later.

    What do you think about cheeky Salim, eh?

    “Some people have also attempted to spin the issue as if South Africa’s access to clean water depends on Israeli research. This is, firstly, a red herring, and, secondly, a racist argument,” he said.

    “Besides, Israel should be the last country anyone should attempt to learn from with regards to water policy.

    “Amnesty International, in a damning report, has accused the Israeli government of using discriminatory water policies that deny Palestinians their right to access water,” he said.

    http://mg.co.za/article/2011-03-24-ben-gurion-decision-will-hurt-sa

  • Mikhail Dworkin Fassbinder

    Maggs, we have indeed nothing to learn from the Zionists about getting water from an impoverished neighbour. I vaguely recall something called the Lesotho Highlands Project. Could you shed some light on this?

    Thanks so much.

  • Maggs Naidu – maggsnaidu@hotmail.com

    Mikhail Dworkin Fassbinder
    March 24, 2011 at 22:35 pm

    Hey Dworky-who-is-being-a-bit-naughty,

    “we have indeed nothing to learn from the Zionists about getting water from an impoverished neighbour. I vaguely recall something called the Lesotho Highlands Project.”

    It’s the other way around wrt the IZE isn’t it?

    In our case we received water from our poor neighbour.

    The IZE is depriving their ‘occupied’ neighbours of water.

    BTW any idea what happened to the exceptional prosecutor who pursued, under very difficult circumstances, the corrupt including some or other multinational and eventually succeeded?

    But he’s not as good as our Menzi Simelane, right?

  • Loudly South African

    Herr Fassbinder

    WTF does UJ bowing to leftist pressure have to do with the genocide being committed against the people he should be serving by the ANC-funder?

    I admit to my ignorance as to when Gadaffi was elected in free and fair elections. Please enlighten me.

    As for your ignorance: the “Zionist entity” has done more than allegedly steal water from its neighbours. It is the world leader in land reclamation and arid farming (e.g. drip-feed watering, plastic underlays, tunnels, afforestation, etc). If you ever emerge from ideological firewall you would find that SA is also an arid country, especially as one moves from south-east to north-west. We can learn much from their successes and mistakes. The particular research UJ has cut itself off from concerned algae growing in our rivers and threatening those who – unlike you & I – do not have the benefit of what remains of the apartheid-era water filtration plants. While the genocide from the sniper rifles Mr Radebe approved for Libya will prove dramatic results which will be splashed across our TV screens, the death and disease resulting from denying the benefits of this research to those who need it will be less dramatic and, like the AIDS holocaust ANC denialism caused, be outta site and off the radar.

    Israel are also the leaders in rehabilitating victims of racism (Holocaust survivors, refugees from Arab states, Libya). The kibbutz (collective) being the best-known solution. Again they have learnt valuable lessons which the “vanguard” are denying those who need it.

  • Maggs Naidu – maggsnaidu@hotmail.com

    Loudly South African
    March 25, 2011 at 9:14 am

    Hey LSA,

    “As for your ignorance”

    Dworky is our resident Mossad Agent – and anything but ignorant.

    Radebe may well have sold sniper rifles (and other guns which, according to Brett, don’t kill people) but did the DA take money from the Guptas?

  • Mikhail Dworkin Fassbinder

    @ Loudly South African

    I demand the intensification of the boycott of the Illegal Zionist Entity (“IZE”) by all universities. In addition, I demand that you join Maggs and me in demanding that Wits, UCT, Stellenbosch and Damelin join the boycott of universities in ALL countries which– although admittedly not as murderous as the IZE — have also deployed violence against innocent civilians, viz., France, Germany, Spain, Australia, US, PRC, Brazil, UK, Italy, Russia, Turkey, Macedonia and Nigeria.

    Re you other point: Colonel Ghaddafi was not “elected” under the liberal crudely aggregative western model of so-called “elections.” Rather, he was elevated by the spontanous and unanimous acclamation of the Socialist People’s Libyan Arab Jamahiriya.

    Thanks

  • Loudly South African

    Cde Fassbinder,

    Pace your meglomania in making demands of me, I believe in academic freedom.

    The universities you mentioned (though Damelin is a private institution – sometimes your rantings are hard to follow) played a leading role in fighting apartheid, documenting the atrocities and doing what the could to produce black graduates and initiate community projects, despite the opposition of the government of the day. Boycotting them, despite their country’s abominable policies which included violence against against innocence civilians would have made matters worse, not better. It was academics like SP Cilliers and van Zyl Slabbert (together with churchmen) who helped pave the way for enlightenment.

    Is there a reason you omit any Arab countries from the “violence against against innocence civilians” list? Apart from your own prejudices and bigotry, I mean.

    With the greatest respect, what you wrote about Gadaffi’s “elevation” is rubbish, but it also applies to his current (hopefully) “develation” and to Malan’s, Strijdom’s, Verwoerd’s, Vorster’s and Botha’s divine rights too.

    Enjoy your dark ages.

  • Mikhail Dworkin Fassbinder

    @ Loudly-South-African-Who-Seems-Unwilling-to-Comply-With-Perfectly-Reasonable-Demands

    Maggs, I need your help here!

    Many thanks.

  • Anonymouse

    Loudly South African

    Please do not miss the acidic tones of irony, sarcasm and jest in Mikhail Dworkin Fassbinder’s remarks. He always adds a twist or two in his remarks that make the people, organizations or philosophies(whom he perceivably support in his comments) look wrong and guilty. At times, he appears to be scholar of the ‘critical legal studies movement’ seeking to bash everything supposedly ‘legal’ as wrong – but then he adds twists of his own to show that the people / organizations / philosophies that us ‘ordinary’ people think he ‘defends’ are also wrong and that their actions / philosophies are just as indefensible. Please read his comments with caution before jumping on your horsey with that proudly (or rather, loudly) South African stuff.

    I also think that Habib of UJ is wrong – in my view he is nothing but an extension of the PLA’s (sometimes, extremely terroristic) opposition of Israel in the academic (as opposed to the physical) world. He, like all other ‘proper’ academics, should be able to see that everyone, including Israelites, have their own rights to political opinion and action and that, when such opinion / action can be criticized as wrong, proper academic discourse is necessary and one should not resort to diplomatic action such as that of UJ in this case, which I think is childish and, in any case, something that should be left for the proper diplomats of states to deal with. What UJ is now saying, is that it has taken the lead in breaking off all relations with Israel and that it hopes all other universities and (perhaps also) government should follow suit. I think this whole decision reeks of prejudicial thought, without having provided others (e.g., students at UJ and other roleplayers) with a proper opportunity to defend a different view – which can be regarded as bad diplomacy to say the least.

    Phew!!

  • Maggs Naidu – maggsnaidu@hotmail.com

    Mikhail Dworkin Fassbinder
    March 25, 2011 at 11:53 am

    Hey Big Dwork,

    “Maggs, I need your help here!”

    Eish.

    What can I say.

    LSA has many points.

    For example “what you wrote about Gadaffi’s ‘elevation’ is rubbish”.

    LSA does sound a bit like Juju – “that (er) ‘elevation’ in your pants is rubbish”. And LSA has also insulted you where you work, not respecting this revolutionary blog.

    Soon you may start complaining that President Gupta was ‘elevated’ when we all know, as President Mandela told the world – “Don’t tell us who our friends should be”.

  • Maggs Naidu – maggsnaidu@hotmail.com

    Hey Mossad Guy,

    Do you think that UJ should sever links with University of Zimbabwe?

    A Zimbabwean cabinet minister was arrested on corruption charges on Friday, the latest sign of tensions between President Robert Mugabe and rival Prime Minister Morgan Tsvangirai’s party ahead of possible elections.

    http://www.timeslive.co.za/africa/article987476.ece/Zimbabwe-minister-arrested-in-new-ZANU-PF-crackdown

  • Maggs Naidu – maggsnaidu@hotmail.com

    Here’s a Professor who thinks that this judgement is a load of crap.

    The Constitutional Court’s flawed majority opinion in the Scorpions case shows disdain for democracy and for political accountability, writes Ziyad Motala

    http://www.timeslive.co.za/opinion/columnists/article988909.ece/Divination-through-a-strange-lens

    Some please tell me what ‘precedent’ means in the following context – there is not a single precedent from any country in the world which the majority could cite to support their interpretation

  • Mikhail Dworkin Fassbinder

    @ Ziyad Motala

    “Constitutional interpretation sometimes involves subjects operating
    between grey and black latitudes.”

    Professor Motala seems right. Actually, I am not sure what he means. But it does sound right.

    But I am a little puzzled when Professor says that judges should not create “fringe meanings.” Is this perhaps an American locution?

  • Maggs Naidu – maggsnaidu@hotmail.com

    Mikhail Dworkin Fassbinder
    March 28, 2011 at 9:45 am

    Hey Dworky,

    “Professor Motala seems right. Actually, I am not sure what he means. But it does sound right.”

    Maybe he spent time learning ‘logic’ from Prof Fagan.

    On the other hand, maybe there’s a good reason why he’s called “extraordinary professor of law at the University of Western Cape”.

  • Pingback: Israel And Africa » Politics of Israel