The judiciary in South Africa (as elswhere in constitutional democracies) finds itself in a precarious position. It has enormous powers to declare invalid legislation and acts by the executive and is often required to intervene in highly contentious, politically charged, matters like the saga around the prosecution of President Jacob Zuma. When doing so judges must interpret and apply the often open-ended or even vague provisions of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights contained in it.
Yet judges usually only speak through their judgments which are not widely read (but are often reported on in the media – sometimes even accurately). Judges must sit quietly while individuals like Gwede Mantashe attack them, calling them counter-revolutionaries and questioning their integrity and independence.
The question is whether this onslaught has taken its toll on the legitimacy of the judiciary, which is an essential requirement for the proper functioning of the courts and of our constitutional democracy. A first reading of a survey, conducted by TNS Research Surveys, suggest that these scurrilous attacks might well have had an effect on the legitimacy of our judiciary.
Asked whether “judges in South Africa are independent of political interference” the response was as follows:
Agree – 44% (Blacks – 49%, whites – 34%, coloureds – 43%, Indians/Asians – 23%)
Disagree – 28% (Blacks – 23%, whites – 39%, coloureds – 29%, Indians/Asians – 36%)
Don’t know – 29% (Blacks – 28%, whites – 26%, coloureds – 28%, Indians/Asians – 42%)
In a similar survey in 2000 with slightly different wording, 49% agreed, 31% disagreed and 19% gave a don’t know response. This means there has been a 5% drop in the percentage of people believing that judges are free from political interference. The Constitutional Court seems to fare slightly better, because when people were also asked to agree or disagree with the statement “I have confidence in the Constitutional Court”, the results were as follows:
Agree – 55% (Blacks – 64%, whites – 37%, coloureds – 50%, Indians/Asians – 37%)
Disagree – 25% (Blacks – 18%, whites – 42%, coloureds – 32%, Indians/Asians – 32%)
Don’t know – 19% (Blacks – 18%, whites – 21%, coloureds – 18%, Indians/Asians –31%)
What strikes me about these numbers, however, is the racial break-down of the responses. White South Africans seem far more pessimistic about our judiciary than black respondents. In line with the general trend that white South Africans feel less optimistic about our country and its institutions, a full 39% of white respondents said they did not believe that the judiciary was free of political interference.
As I do not have access to the full results from the 2000 survey, it is not possible to say whether the recent attacks on the judiciary affected the attitudes of white and black South Africans towards the judiciary equally or whether it made white South Africans more pessimistic about the independence and integrity of the judiciary.
However, given the fact that several JSC members and members of the government have recently stressed the need to accelerate the racial transformation of the judiciary, these numbers are startling. It suggest that black South Africans have much bigger trust in the judiciary than white South Africans, despite the fact that almost half the members of the judiciary are white. Could it be that the speedy racial transformation of the judiciary is less important for the legitimacy of our courts than previously accepted? If this is so, is the racial transformation of the judiciary being used as a stalking horse to create a more pliant judiciary?
Perhaps these numbers suggest that white South Africans are just generally cynical and pessimistic about our institutions because of a deep-seated Afro-pessimism unrelated to reality. Or, depending on how these numbers have changed since 2000, it could suggest that attacks by Gwede Mantashe and others on the judiciary have affected the views of white South Africans towards the judiciary more severely than that of black South Africans.
Maybe I am too naive, but the fact that 64% of black South Africans said that they had confidence in the Constitutional Court – despite the court finding against President Zuma and despite the attacks on the court by Judge President Hlophe and various other politicians, give rise for optimism. It suggests that most (black) South Africans are not so easily swayed by self-serving and scurrilous attacks on our highest court. Pity my fellow white compatriots seem more hysterical and more easily bamboozeled.
I think that public figures who level scurrilous remarks at the courts act exceedingly irresponsibly when doing so.
And I shall add that even though it appears at least somewhat unclear whether crass utterances such as those made by Gwede have an actual ill impact on the judiciary’s legitimacy, it seems that one relevant question is whether such stupid statements could do violence to that legitimacy. I believe it is at least conceivable.
So to capture my opinion concisely: with respect, the citizenry deserves far better than the hogwash that people such as Gwede would see do the rounds. For sure, criticise the courts. I am given to believe that great judges such as Moseneke and Cameron would probably welcome that sort of thing.
But there is of course one very important – although apparently often misunderstood – proviso: the criticism ought to be fair.
I think your fellow White compatriots are probably simply better informed.
Absolutely, and tend to follow the legal happenings of our country with much vigor as it would be perceived to “detriment” them in some regard.
And as the saying goes, “ignorance is bliss” …….
@Pierre
“It suggests that most (black) South Africans are not so easily swayed by self-serving and scurrilous attacks on our highest court. Pity my fellow white compatriots seem more hysterical and more easily bamboozeled.”
I would be careful here not to further descent into race and rather look at the over all picture of the judiciary itself that the survey finds half of south africans negative and the other half positive
I doubt transformation is the issue I doubt africanization is the issue really all the cosmetic bull as this has been tking place since the dawn of the new country south africa. Otherwise more people “masses” would be rallyed behind it
The issue is the drunking driving judge, the judiciary taking 7 to 10 yrs dragging on and on and on about zuma, the judiciary taking its time at such a snails pace over hlophe.
Pretty much the problems to me is the time it takes for the courts to act with speed, swift and justice.
Hell look at the JSC taking like how long to tell the country Hlophe is off the hook or not? Christ even Zuma’s case was dropped faster by the NPA than this bullshit. wouldnt you agree
Etv tried to spin the results as being a major blow to the credibility of the judiciary.
I see just an increase in “I don’t know’s”
The percentage of people who believe judges are politically motivated decreased.
After the passed year of attacks on the Judiciary I see that as quite positive.
Euthanasia is illegal and this is hindering the JSC in releasing its findings because as soon as they do so, it will amount to “pulling the plug” on the CC’s credibility. Those survey stats will sure be different if done after this sad story.
Yes Prof I agree.
Thanks, I was looking for that survey. Thought I’d heard wrong on etv.
@Harold
What’s Euthanasia got to do with it?
I guess the analogy went pass you ;-(
I hope this a lesson for all to stop peddling lies about the independence of the judiciary. People are not stupid out there they can see through the smokescreen. In the US, Judges are known their affiliation (Democrats or Republican) and their appointments are nothing but political. Here we try and hide our past and affiliation to accomodate people with questionable backgrounds.
Henri // Aug 26, 2009 at 2:03 pm
And I suppose the converse is true….the non-whites are probably less informed?
Henri
Listening to a number of white compatriotes argue does suggest that they are uninformed at best. But then, you would not see that, would you?
If blacks were not informed, ANC would not be having such a majority after each election. Whilst one might might criticise the ANC, on policy they are the best.
Ah….
Did it again.
It works everytime.
So easy to entice you thinskinned Black racists out of your lairs – guns ablazing…..
You just put out some bait…and wait….
Mmmm…more smut…
http://www.politicsweb.co.za/politicsweb/view/politicsweb/en/page71627?oid=140932&sn=Detail
Henri and Mzo, I have to agree white appear to be better informed when it comes to the judiciary. The Judiciary is certainly not apolitical, even your Moseneke was an ardent political activist who supported PAC before being made a judge without any practical legal experience, what do you expect? The only reason whites, in particular and cope especially, like him is because he said, in a drunken stupor, he does not care what the ANC says.
Do you then expect us to blindly believe such a drunken judge to be apolitical-why did he even say that?
Secondly, the SCA judges read politically biased newspapers and “confirm” Squires J judgment on Zuma’s politica corrupt relationship with Shaik, only for Squires to correct them later, and the political biased newspapers rubbish this correction as insignificant-where’s the SCA’s independence here?
Methinks white are not easily pliable here, that is in legal matters,but politically blacks are not easily pliable as well ask cope and da, we continually vote ANC for we know where our bread id buttered, and wont vote cope-da alliance as the da has already shown us that they would revert to the all white male cabinet reminiscent of apartheid regime-to fight black-swart gevaar!
Henri,
“I think your fellow White compatriots are probably simply better informed.”
You are absolutely correct,
We have a problem of illiteracy in this country, the result of it is that people exercise their decision making power contrary to their interests without consciously realising that.
For example, democracy is one of the best principles, but it works well if the composition of parliament is divided into small percentages of different parties.
In a situation like ours, where almost all people vote for one party, it becomes difficult to implement policies that may be found to be against fellow party members. (Dropping of Charges, 15 years schabir Schaick into 3 months actual imprisonment, NDPP thrown out, as a way to clean the road to the UNION buildings, etc).
I am of the view that if we were to vote whist being adequately informed, we would have a multiparty state that also has the checks and balances.
We also do not have enough of case law in our constitutional law, (save for s35 cases), especially with regard to chapter 3 of the constitution. The reason is primarily that arising issues are suppressed because of so called comradeship, but if one checks closely, legal scholars have to read the text of our vague constitution and guess what could be the solution.
We keep complaining that incompetent party members are being deployed into key positions, despite a conscious knowledge that this is how politicians and politics work. (Remember the definition, shown before,).
So Prof, I concur with Henri, that the majority of the members of our society (Black South Africans) are not well informed, and we cannot therefore say, their decisions are carefully taken.
One day my Aunt told me that she was told not to vote for any Party because their company will be closed down if any other party is to win the elections. This is a pure example of how our people are manipulated to believe the impossible.
Our youth (young girls) are promised to get money if they are to have babies, instead of free education if they are to be educationally competent. They then see having babies as more rewarding than being educated.
I saw last time, people were picketing because they wanted a salary ( at least R1500) of not working whilst we have security guards who earn less than that, so in this context, to resign would be better than job hunting.
One party is not enough and education if the key.
I am of the opinion that the JSC has the same thinking as the ruling party ….
They only have to answer for their works when the Messiah returns!
Interesting survey, which may bury Palo Jordan’s remarks (in Beyond the Rainbow) that the judiciary suffers a crisis of legitimacy.
@Mdu: “we know where our bread id buttered.”
Says it all, right.
Mdu, what makes you rule out the construction that Moseneke DCJ merely sought to express his commitment to judicial independence?
Leigh, if you want to express your commitment to independence, then why did he not simply say so? That is ” I am committed to judicial indepence”, you the reason he did not say this simple thing is because he is biased and was angry that the person whi had appointed him DCJ was ousted in Polokwane, that is why he said this,finish and klaar!
Mdu, your statements are scurrilous and also plain wrong. Moseneke was a Senior Council at the Pretoria Bar and had many years of legal exeperience behind him before he was appointed to the bench. Your statement that he spoke in a drunken stupor is defamatory and you have absolutely no basis for saying this. What happened to innocent until proven guilty? Oh I forgot it only applies to some.
On Shaik the High Court stated there was a “mutually simbiotic relationship” between Shaik and Zuma and that this led to the conviction of Shaik for bribing Zuma. (Remember Shaik was convicted of bribing Zuma. because he paid Zuma millions and then Zuma did favours for him and Zuma has never explained why he took this money and did the favours and why we should not suspect him of corruption, despite having promised that he would “reveal all” once charges were dropped!) The media adopted this phrase to “generally corrupt” (as it was used by prosecutors). In the case on forfeiture of state’s assets (NOT on Shaiks conviction on criminal charges) the SCA wrongly used the second phrase which has exactly the same meaning as the first phrase (albeit less catchy). Judges make mistakes. Where such mistakes goes materially to the law or the facts a judgment can be overturned on appeal or it can be reviewed. This was not amaterial mistake and while embarrasing for the SCA has absolutely NO bearing on the guilt of Shaik or the proven facts which suggest that Zuma was bribed by Shaik. The only thing we do not know is whether Zuma had the intention to be bribed or not because Zuma unlawfully ahd the charges against him dropped.
Leigh, almost forgot to add “in vito veritas” so as he was drunk he boasted off his true colours that he is politically biased against the “Polokwane mob”, as bigoted and politically biased newspapers and disgruntled politicians refer to the ANC nowadays.
Oh,Pierre now that you respond, can you respond to my question about the lies of M & G about Hlophe?
Mdu, thank you for your spirited response. But with respect, I think it is problematic for two reasons.
For a start, you seem to rule out the construction which I suggested simply because you did not like Moseneke DCJ’s alleged choice of words. That to me smacks mightily of unfairness towards him.
And secondly, the ANC affiliates were precisely the one’s who demonstrated a patent lack of regard for the proper province of the judiciary. So perhaps that wise man Moseneke DCJ’s expression of commitment to judicial independence was accurately (and may I add bravely) directed towards the appropriate party.
Mdu, sorry to pre-empt the Professor’s answer to your question about Hlophe. But to my knowledge, Hlophe has yet to establish that the M&G published falsehoods or at least distorted material about him.
My question to you is simply thisw: why is it that you believe anything that Hlophe says without expecting him to tender proof? Even though people have apparently deposed to affidavits on his behalf, we should wait to see whether the M&G proffers any papers.
@Mdu
“Do you then expect us to blindly believe such a drunken judge to be apolitical-why did he even say that?”
you showing symptons of dimentia, parania and abnormalities in the perception or expression of reality with an acute case of memory lose that your post looks like a ambulatory disorder.
Firstly stop over exaggerating “drunken judge” highly doubt the judge was drunk
short term memory lose
“it is not what the ANC wants, or what delegates want, it is what is good for the people”.
Nothing wrong with that statement, if you can stop smoking the devils lettice and gain your memory back you will know that during this time the ANC was accusing the Judiciary of being anti revolutionists.
So becuase you seem to battle with english: what that statement says is The judiciary does not give a shit about the ANC or anyother delegate but gives a shit about the people of south africa, in more simple meaning he is making a statement standing up for your rights
Mdu carrys on like a mull
“Secondly, the SCA judges read politically biased newspapers and “confirm” Squires J judgment on Zuma’s politica corrupt relationship with Shaik, only for Squires to correct them later”
um corrupt relationship did exist. do we need to go back to this to try and explain what the entire judgement to you,
Mr. Zuma had a corrupt relationship, in that the payments made by Mr. Shaik to and on behalf of Mr. Zuma were for corrupt purposes.
“shown us that they would revert to the all white male cabinet ”
please give me all the names of her “ALLL WHITE MALE CABInets last time i checked i saw some color in there, not exactly all white is it? is the mayor of capetown white?
ANC has the best polcies of deployment thats for sure
“apartheid regime-to fight black-swart gevaar!”
Yes Mdu lol…….You remind me of a song lets sing it to you
Maybe I’m The One
Maybe I’m The One Who Is The Schizophrenic Psycho (yeah)
Maybe I’m The One
Maybe I’m The One Who Is The Paranoid Psycho
Leigh, but Pierre sprinted to write a piece about Hlophe despite Mzo’s prudent warnings about the article on M & G being possibly disputed by Hlophe, which he has done, and the Prof is now mute.
Henri // Aug 27, 2009 at 8:13 am
Henri, nice try…..get caught making racist statement, you just simply give it back to the person catching you.
It’s sad, really sad!!
Mdu
“Oh,Pierre now that you respond, can you respond to my question about the lies of M & G about Hlophe?”
Let me answer this one for you, prove to me the alligations are lies? infact we cant even prove that they are true becuase its not tested in court, what you basing your argument on is someones opinion on the matter
Mdu i thought you were a lawyer, damn thats shocking
Chris, your drivel stinks of an unbearable halitosis, so I wont revere it with a response,okay, so continue joking.
Mdu, Leigh is correct. First, there is of course a chance that the M&G just made up the whole story (and maybe there is life on Mars). It may well be that Hlophe’s denials are untrue (he has a history of false denials). Neither you or I can say for certain which is more true. That is for the press ombud to determine (or even better for a court to determine when Hlophe sues the M&G and submits to cross examnination, something I would be rather surprised if he ever did.) In any case, he does NOT deny everything in the article. For example he denies havings aid he would not shake Langa’s hand because he does not want to shake the hand of a white man, but he DOES NOT deny havings aid that he does not want to shake the hands of a white man – the man he was referring to was just someone else.
Mdu // Aug 27, 2009 at 10:33 am
Im allowed to take the piss
your an idiot
Leigh & Mdu
I must say I’m also a feeling a bit of injustice because Prof kept telling me about how respectable this Sello guy was and how he would probably have tapes and all – damn, he stopped shot of saying “I have no doubt, what he’s saying is true”. However when it transpired that all those assumptions from Prof (about Sello’s proffessionalism, tapes etc) were baseless he was never, shall we say, man enough to come and admit that he got it wrong. That’s the least we expect from someone who claims not to have anything against Hlophe the person, but just his actions.
Having said that, I agree with you Leigh, as for whether the allegations against Hlophe were indeed true or not, no one can say for sure at this stage. A complaint has been lodged and M&G is supposedly standing by their story – can we all just wait for the outcome of that before we again embarass ourselves!!
We’ve heard Sello’s “side of the story”. Personally I am not convinced, but luckily it’s not me who has to be convinced. Let’s wait for the Ombudsman to decide the matter and thereafter criticize or praise the finding.
Pierre De Vos // Aug 27, 2009 at 10:34 am
“….. but he DOES NOT deny havings aid that he does not want to shake the hands of a white man – the man he was referring to was just someone else”.
Prof, please let it go. This is the most ridiculous statement you can make. Read Hlophe’s letter to the CJ again. He says Sello (not him) referred to the guy as a white person and he (Hlophe) explained why he did not shake the guy’s hand. On Hlophe’s version, it is quite clear that the person’s skin colour was NOT the reason Hlophe didn’t want to shake hands with him – he refused to shake hands with the guy BECAUSE he had accused him of something he (as far as he’s concerned) did not do.
A Prof should really not give such scandalous interpretations, it can’t be good for the students who are supposed to be our future lawyers!!
I do not mean to play at being the wise head in the mix – chiefly because any attempt at that would be out of character
But let me say this: many of us have strong opinions about Hlophe. And as the Professor has ably pointed out before, we should be aware that many of the more impassioned submissions about Hlophe obscure truer issues which are very painful for some.
So my point is this: let us vigorously debate Hlophe and other topics which go to the heart of our constitutional democracy. Let us also expect our peers to bravely make concessions where the facts denote that concessions ought to be made. And let us make those concessions where we are somewhat off the mark.
But I for one would hate to see this excellent blog which offers us the chance to present our views about the issues of the day descend into a context plagued by personal animosity.
Other than today’s sermon, keep up the good work everyone.
MZO
“On Hlophe’s version, it is quite clear that the person’s skin colour was NOT the reason Hlophe didn’t want to shake hands with him – he refused to shake hands with the guy BECAUSE he had accused him of something he (as far as he’s concerned) did not do.”
you getting your event horribly scewed
he denied having told the reporter that he refused to shake Chief Justice Pius Langa’s hand”
Mzo you got it wrong there.
Chris
Read Hlophe letter again and tell me what his explanation was with regard to his refusal to shake (a white man’s) hand. Once you’ve done that, we shall talk.
Mzo
http://www.mg.co.za/article/2009-08-08-i-am-not-going-to-shake-a-white-mans-hand
Mg.co.za
“Hlophe said after the Johannesburg hearings that he flatly refused to shake Langa’s hand, adding: “I am not going to shake a white man’s hand.”
http://www.politicsweb.co.za/politicsweb/view/politicsweb/en/page71656?oid=139492&sn=Detail
” I was shocked to learn from the Mail and Guardian report that I had said that I refused to shake your hand at the meeting in Johannesburg of the JSC’s investigative committee. The report could not be true first because, I did twice shake your hand at the meeting in Johannesburg, second I could never have spoken in such disparaging terms about you.”
??
Mzo
http://www.mg.co.za/article/2009-08-08-i-am-not-going-to-shake-a-white-mans-hand
Mg.co.za
“Hlophe said after the Johannesburg hearings that he flatly refused to shake Langa’s hand, adding: “I am not going to shake a white man’s hand.”
http://www.politicsweb.co.za/politicsweb/view/politicsweb/en/page71656?oid=139492&sn=Detail
” I was shocked to learn from the Mail and Guardian report that I had said that I refused to shake your hand at the meeting in Johannesburg of the JSC’s investigative committee. The report could not be true first because, I did twice shake your hand at the meeting in Johannesburg, second I could never have spoken in such disparaging terms about you.”
Mzo, with respect, please read the following paragraph from the Hlophe letter again:
“This journalist who had not been invited by me became part of eight people who were at a dinner table when he causally asked me if I had really called a person that he referred to as a “white man”, a racist. I said to him that those allegations had been withdrawn before a committee of the JSC which you chaired. I explained that the matter had ended, with you suggesting that I could shake the hand of my accuser. I then remarked that although I believe that the Chief Justice’s suggestion that I shake the hand of my accuser to be noble, humane and a dignified manner of ending this issue, I had refused to do so because I was angry that such accusations had in fact been made. I was shocked to learn from the Mail and Guardian report that I had said that I refused to shake your hand at the meeting in Johannesburg of the JSC’s investigative committee. The report could not be true first because, I did twice shake your hand at the meeting in Johannesburg, second I could never have spoken in such disparaging terms about you.”
Nowhere in this ambigously phrased denial is it stated that Hlophe did not say that he refused to shake hands with a white man. He does deny having said he had refused to shake Langa’s hand. He does not deny explictly that he had said he had refused to shake a white man’s hand. He could easily have explicitly denied uttering the phrase. He did not. Why?
Mzo
Mg.co.za
“Hlophe said after the Johannesburg hearings that he flatly refused to shake Langa’s hand, adding: “I am not going to shake a white man’s hand.”
Hlophes letter to Langa
” I was shocked to learn from the Mail and Guardian report that I had said that I refused to shake your hand at the meeting in Johannesburg of the JSC’s investigative committee. The report could not be true first because, I did twice shake your hand at the meeting in Johannesburg, second I could never have spoken in such disparaging terms about you.”
??
“I said to him that those allegations had been withdrawn before a committee of the JSC which you chaired”
When did this committee take place?
Mdu, with respect, your statements on this subject and particularly when it involves anc, zuma, hlophe and mosenenke are indeed scurrilous. Just like I have said before, the sooner you edit your blind loyalty and support to the above et al the better for you and our country, particularly if you are a lawyer. It does not help much to even single out a particular point and try to correct your deliberate lies, skewed and plainly biased views. I can see that Prof Pierre, Leigh, Chris McDaniel and others are trying to take you head on some of the points you have made but I doubt if they are wining or will ever win.
Mzo, I know your strong views on Pierre’s alleged defense of Sello of M&G but please do not sink into Mdu’s pond of biases and manufactured lies.
Mayimele, thank you for your remarks about blind loyalty. I firmly believe that a constitutional democracy can only thrive if the citizenry refuses to accept that any public figures are above fair reproach.
Mdu, I truly hope you will earnestly consider Mayimele’s counsel. In terms of both content and tone, it is the sort of advice that can make a much needed difference.
Mzo, with respect (and forgive me if I am wrong here), I tend to agree with the Professor that Hlophe’s letter is ambiguous. And I for one cannot rule out the inference that such ambiguity suggests that Hlophe (a) wants to cover something up while (b) avoiding making clear lies.
To tender what I think is another instance of ambiguity reflected in his letter: Hlophe says that the journalist was not invited by him. But that does not mean that Sello did not receive an invitation from someone else on Hlophe’s behalf.
Actually, and if memory serves, that is precisely the version which Sello put forward: a friend or acquaintance of Hlophe – who was also at the dinner – is the one who liaised with Sello and that is how Sello knew to be at the right place at the right time. And incidentally, that seems to be how Sello managed to plan his itinerary from Jozie to Cape Town.
Pierre De Vos // Aug 27, 2009 at 12:15 pm
With respect you are missing the point. You want to suggest that he did not deny that he refused to shake a white man’s hand probably because he did say that. Now, I do not know if he did or he did not, but on the very quote you’ve provided Hlophe says ” (I) had refused to do so BECAUSE I was angry that such accusations had in fact been made” (my emphasis). In my respectful view, here is the explanation as to why he did not shake this person’s hand. He was angry that the person had made the allegation, it has nothing to do with whether the person making the allegation was white, red or pink.
Furthermore, Hlophe says “he (Sello) causally asked me if I had really called a person that HE (Sello)referred to as a “white man”” (again my emphasis). Again, quite clearly, Hlophe is making a clear point that the words “white man” never came from his mouth but from Sello. I honestly do not see how much more he could have done to deny the statements whilst at the same time making the point that he is not the person who referred to the person as a “white man”.
But then again Prof, these are the merits of the case which will in due course serve before the Press Ombudsman. I merely wanted to correct what I felt was a gross mis-interpretation of Hlophe’s submission in this regard.
My issue with you was never about the merits of this case, but the reliability of the reports. You based your reliance on the report on the supposed professional character of Sello (and made reference to recordings and how good a journalist you know him to be etc) and Hlophe’s supposed shady character. Now that Sello has come out and ADMITTED that he was not as professional as he should have been, I expected you to come out and say, you were wrong on that score.
Of course, you could still be right on the merits, but we’ll find out about that in due course.
mayimele // Aug 27, 2009 at 12:23 pm
I appreciate the warning about not sinking to pond of bias and manufactured lies. However, to the extent that you may be suggesting that I suffer from that I will strongly reject such and call upon you to perhaps heed your own advice.
Similarly, I reject your accusations about my supposed “blind loyalty” and really beg of you to desist from labelling people and start with debating the issues they raise and show why their opinions are wrong or right. To jump into the bandwagon of calling people blind loyalists is as dangerous as calling people racists without engaging their views.
Leigh // Aug 27, 2009 at 12:42 pm
Leigh, with respect, I fail to see this ambiquity you and Prof are on about. It seems to me that the statement is ambiguous only if you already have a conclusion you want to reach – more like clutching at straws.
Be that as it may, like I said in my previous post, that goes to the merits of the matter and we will all do well to await the outcome from the Press Ombudsman.
As for the other ambiguos statement you are referring to, to the extent that it may even be relevant, as I read Hlophe’s letter, he’s simply saying HE did not invite him and consequently, could not have been having an exclusive interview with him. Could he have said Sello pitched up uninvited? I don’t think so, because quite clearly Hlophe is aware that Sello could have been invited by someone else. On Hlophe’s version therefore (which still has to be tested, just like Sello’s) if Sello had an exclusive interview with him (Hlophe), he (Hlophe) would have invited him or at least known about his invitation.
Again, this is an issue that the Press Ombudsman will surely grapple with in establishing whether there was indeed an exclusive interview or not.
What will be old and unfit for human consumption when it eventually placed on the SA’s table?
The JSC’s cooked-up Judge Hlophe Ruling!
Prof,
Assuming that Hlophe has been framed,
Is there a rationally thinking person who can frame a Judge like it is alleged in Hlophe v Sello matter?
This question may be viewed from the perspective of someone who is making a living out of being a journalist as opposed to a rumour without origin.
It seems there could be a missing part on these allegations, I hope I am wrong.
Mzo,
On the notion that Hlophe would not shake a white mans hand only because due to the allegations, can also be racially motivated
If you think about who the person is he wouldnt shake hands with. and the significance it would of played if he did shake his hand. he acted racially
He gave a nice clue “I said to him that those allegations had been withdrawn before a committee of the JSC which you chaired”
Mzo, thank you for your -as usual-much reasoned points,but amazingly the people who accuses me of blind loyalty aka Mayimele and Leigh, are the ones guilty of it.
They blindly defend whatever the Prof. says even when he slips.As for Mayimele, not you Leigh you reason, he just labels without proffering reasons that is why I think I should just ignore him and Chris.
oh no please Mdu pleeasseee dont ignore me.
It seems counter-intuitive to attribute Gwede Mantashe as having more influence over the white segment than over the black segment in those survey results.
I wonder how much those survey stats are affected by association of (the independence of) the judiciary together with perceptions around the execution of justice. Normal people tend to take an emotionally based position first and then back it up with logic. Lawyers, of course, don’t suffer the same malady – although there may be some exceptions
I’d suggest the stats reflect an overall perception of justice as it has been meted out to a number of high profile personalities of late, suggesting problematic interference to some and justice fairly arrived at to others.