I guess all politicians do it. Zuma does it all the time. Zille has done it to get rid of the Erasmus Commission. And now the whole Gauteng Provincial ANC seems to be doing it: hiding behind the constitution when it suits them.
In the case of the ANC the hypocrisy is unfortunately even more brazen than in the case of Helen Zille, as some of the same politicians who hide behind the constitution when their own is being probed, are quick to say that ¨criminals¨have too many rights, that the police should shoot the bastards, that rapists should not get bail.
So I cannot say I was too suprised when I read in Business Day that the ANC in the Gauteng legislature tried to block discussion of the Carl niehaus scandal by saying that the matter has been reported to the police and is therefore sub judice. (After all, we know from the apartheid days that the sub judice rule is – yes you guessed it – also the last refuge of scoundrels. According to Business Day:
ANC MPL Mathole Motshekga said Bloom should have read the constitution before informing the police. The law had standards on referring cases to the police and mentioning people’s names who were not involved in those cases.
I think what he meant to say is that one cannot lay a complaint with the police and make it public unless, well, unless the ANC has decided that he or she is guilty. This is of course utter rubbish.
The Constitution does say that every accused person must be presumed innocent until proven guilty in a court of law where this presumption helps to guarantee a fair trial. It says nothing about not being allowed to lay a complaint fo wrongdoing with the police against anyone and making that public.
It is of course for the dear police to dilligently investigate such complaints and to hand over the docket to the NPA who must then decide whether there is a winnable case. The statement is therefore nonsensical. Unless it is taking AS A FACT that Mr Paul Mashatile is innocent of any wrongdoing. Laying a malicious complaint to tarnish the reputation of a political opponent might well have some legal consequences in terms of the law of defamation, but in this case neither the ANC nor anyone else knows whether there is a winnable case against the Gauteng Premier. That is for a court to decide.
But who needs a court if the ANC itself – appointed by God to lead South Africa until Jesus come – has decided that a person is innocent. Fair trial rights only count for others after all.
And why is it that the same people who cry foul every time there is allegations of wrongdoing against the ANC – as if all these allegations were fabricated and it all just really is a dark plot – but think nothing to tell the electorate that the criminals must be dealt with more strictly. As if all the accused persons who are not ANC members do not have the right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty.
But this is the fact: even non-ANC members are not criminals before they have been convicted of a crime. So for Mr Zuma or the Minister of Police to say rapists must not get bail or that the Police should shoot the criminals is really encouraging the infringement of rights. If I was a rapist I would join the ANC – maybe they would tell the police to respect my rights then.
Really now? Is the matter sub judice or not?
Pierre, what’s your view on this position taken by the DA? Is this hypothetical case winnable? Zille said in a letter to Zuma:
“Above all, it would match in deed your recently-stated commitment to upholding the Constitution and the values that underpin it. If you were to be elected President by the National Assembly without having been exonerated of the charges against you in a court of law that would seriously undermine the Constitution. In fact, I have been reliably informed by senior members of the bar that your election could be challenged in the Constitutional Court. That is because your presidency would create a conflict of interest between your constitutional role as Head of State and your status as an accused in a matter that has been brought against you by the state itself.
Until such time as you are cleared in a court of law, it is impossible for you to serve your country as its President with any hope of being able to discharge the obligations and responsibilities that all of our presidents have to undertake in terms of the Constitution.”
I agree with Pierre – there is nothing wrong with the media reporting on and making public facts such as criminal charges having been laid against a senior politician.
What I do have problem with is a NDPP or a panel of CC judges making incriminating statements against individuals in the media. But then PdV has of course explained to us in detail how he – a “constitutional expert” and a darling of the media, sees no problem with our justice system being subverted into some chaotic media circus. And I have a massive problem with the NPA constantly leaking confidential information to the media as as happened unabated under both Ngcuka and Pikoli.
“But who needs a court if the ANC itself – appointed by God to lead South Africa until Jesus come – has decided that a person is innocent. Fair trial rights only count for others after all.”
You can also ask who needs a court hen you have a NDPP who can decide in advance if “prima facie evidence” is good enough to stand up to cross-examination.
“You can also ask who needs a court hen”
Who indeed? I should think we all could do with a court hen. Preferably with teeth.
That prima facie evidence has survived all of Zuma’s appalls thus far. Oops, I meant appeals. Sorry.
We must’ve had a pretty bright NDPP.
@ozoneblue
“What I do have problem with is a NDPP or a panel of CC judges making incriminating statements against individuals in the media”
hey? isnt that why the NPA has a spokeperson? to inform the public on incriminating citizens? lol.
CC judges making incriminating statements? lol like who…… oh hlophe ( your hero)
“And I have a massive problem with the NPA constantly leaking confidential information to the media as as happened unabated under both Ngcuka and Pikoli”
lol like???
“You can also ask who needs a court hen you have a NDPP who can decide in advance if “prima facie evidence” is good enough to stand up to cross-examination.”
well who needs a NDPP who can think for himself? baaaaa baaaa.
@Montana
Bill of rights and constitution
Section 33 Just administrative action
be just and promote an efficient administration
a Zuma administration can not be promoted as efficient if he is to run the country from court rooms
Chapter 3: Co-operative government
be effective, transparent and accountable to the Republic as a whole.
Chapter 5: The President and the national executive
The President selects and appoints the Deputy President and the ministers in the Cabinet. The President can also appoint Deputy Ministers to assist members of the Cabinet. The President can dismiss any of these people he or she has appointed.
The Deputy President and the ministers are all accountable to the President and to Parliament
the conflict with chapter 5 is Zuma appoints a justice minster to influence in charges againts him “legal solution”
chris mcdaniel @ 9:23 am
FYI – LOL is an Internet abbreviation for “Lots of Laughs”. It doesn’t substitute the need for a rebuttal based on reasoning and facts.
ozoneblue // Feb 23, 2009 at 10:01 am
or it could stand for Lots of Love, which you clearly need….do you need a hug today? a little touchy today arnt we?
chris mcdaniel @ 10:07 am
No I’m quite fine. Perhaps since you are in trolling mode as usual why don’t you instead study a bit of USA history this morning.
Watergate:
“The scandal revealed the existence of a White House dirty tricks squad, which was behind an orchestrated campaign of political sabotage, an enemies list, a “plumbers” unit to plug political leaks and a secret campaign slush fund associated with CRP, all with high-level administration involvement. It brought into the open the involvement of Attorney General John N. Mitchell in the dirty tricks, funds and cover-up, as well as key White House advisers…”
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Watergate
Guess who is the South African equivalent of the Attorney General.
ozoneblue // Feb 23, 2009 at 10:21 am
lol now im a troll, wow now we getting into insults, i think you need a hug today? didnt you get any last night?
So now we can compare south africa and america? when it suits you? such a joke….. I give up who is south africa’s equivalent of attorney general?
oh pikoli you mean? wow so pikoli is the same as John N Mitchell? i had know idea pikoli is convected of illegal activities and imprisoned?
so you say pikoli has committed conspiracy, obstruction of justice, and perjury? Please Proivide evidence? cos really you strick me as someone one who tends to over exaggerate and get his knickers in a twist to easily
i guess thats why the international prosecuting authority gave him an award?
very interesting you bring up “watergate” as Mbeki is africa’s Nixon and Zuma will be africa’s Bush just abit more stupid tho.
chris mcdaniel @ 10:47 am
Oh dear – I see we are not very sharp this beautiful Monday morning. The answer to the question:
Guess who is the South African equivalent of the Attorney General in the USA ?
…is …. now wait for it :
The National Director of Public Prosecutions also known as the NDPP.
Chris, it’s funny too that the South African media named all the front page scandals after the Watergate hotel where Forest Gump discovered the men with torches and called the police.
Check: Travelgate and oilgate, also some others.
I hope they unravel the armsgate scandel soon, as Me Zille have warned, SA is in for a ride if Zuma becomes the president, I would cry for my beloved country
ozoneblue // Feb 23, 2009 at 11:34 am
rofl….really? wow here i thought Pikoli was the head of Taco Bells yeh no your to fast for me guy.
dont you have a comic strip to go and publish?
thanks for the little chuckle…i enjoyed that
back to the subjact at hand i think Montana touched on something important is a charged president unconstitutional.
what we do know is this the South African Constitution does not offer a sitting president any immunity from prosecution and it does not have a Euro-style clause that would suspend action until after his term.
The one good thing about the South african Justice process is no one can stop a court process not even jesus christ
Friend // Feb 23, 2009 at 11:54 am
lol the only difference is the ANC makes Nixon look like an amature it took 2 yrs for the watergate to come to a close.
Oilgate and armsdeal and travelgate has taken how long?
too long and justice delayd is justice denied. Oh supreme Constitution of South Africa, where art though. We need thee supremacy to uphold and positivise the messages of hope we sometimes so impulsively send out to those who has ears.
Friend @ 11:56 am
“I hope they unravel the armsgate scandel soon, as Me Zille have warned, SA is in for a ride if Zuma becomes the president, I would cry for my beloved country”
If Me Zille had the balls of a Patrica de Lille, she would have called for a full-scale, international inquiry into the arms industry. O shite – but that may scare off the “foreign investors” ?
http://www.thoughtleader.co.za/khadijasharife/2009/02/20/banking-on-liberation-bankrupting-democracy/
ozoneblue // Feb 23, 2009 at 1:27 pm
The ANC, therefore, also does not have the balls?!
Tatera @ 1:45 pm
Exactly. It is not the ANC who governs South Africa – it is in fact the “markets” and the “foreign investors”. But you may also know that when it comes to those issues – including but not limited to the corrupt arms deal the “left-leaning” faction in the ANC, i.e. the much hated COSATU and SACP, has always been on record for opposing it.
ozoneblue // Feb 23, 2009 at 2:25 pm
Exactly. It is not the ANC who governs South Africa – it is in fact the “markets” and the “foreign investors”.
rofl my ass off!!!! yes and the little green men..
“But you may also know that when it comes to those issues”
ah yes evil totalitarian abyss of capitalism bring on communism hey comrade
ozoneblue // Feb 23, 2009 at 2:25 pm
“including but not limited to the corrupt arms deal the “left-leaning” faction in the ANC, i.e. the much hated COSATU and SACP, has always been on record for opposing it.”
Why then is COSATU and SACP backing a presidential candidate who is alleged to have solicited a bribe from one of the arms companies in exchange for protection in the arms deal enquiry? Why have they repeatedly called for this charge and others to be dropped against him?
I would have expected them to want these allegations to be tested in court .
ozoneblue // Feb 23, 2009 at 2:25 pm
Tatera @ 1:45 pm
Exactly. It is not the ANC who governs South Africa – it is in fact the “markets” and the “foreign investors”. But you may also know that when it comes to those issues – including but not limited to the corrupt arms deal the “left-leaning” faction in the ANC, i.e. the much hated COSATU and SACP, has always been on record for opposing it.
You were wondering why the Prof does not bother to respond to you anymore? Read Your comment above again and wonder no more!!
Don’t know if the rest of you are feeling tired, but Iam, tired of the “same old” sense that i get whenever I read anything about politics and in particular ruling party politics these days. We know the plot by heart but feel indignant when some new dirt comes to light. Its all so predictable and tragic.
O3 – so there’s no need to vote for anybody else eh? They’ll just be victims of the markets and foreign investors too…
Read some interesting stuff on JZ in the Sunday Ind yesterday – about his shady involvement in the ANC’s NAT and the death of Ben Langa, Pius Langa’s brother at the hands of ANC assasins. As others have pointed out we didnt inherit a bunch of angels when regime change took place, anything but. The end justifies the emans seems to have been the motto, then and still is.
Ai. Is there anything more to add to this? We all know it so well, there are really only two groups left…those who can actually think, and those who refuse to believe anything that doesn’t agree with what they’ve been told to think, even if a choir of angels were singing it out above them.