Former US President Bill Clinton famously lied to the American people by saying: “I did not have sex with that women”. He then tried to wiggle out of a difficult question posed by a lawyer by saying: “Well, it depends on what your definition of ‘is’ is”. Former President Thabo Mbeki seems to have the same informal relationship with the truth regarding the suspension and purported firing of National Director of Public Prosecutoins (NDPP), Vusi Pikoli.
In a remarkable affidavit submitted to the North Gauteng High Court by Mbeki in support of Pikoli’s purported firing, the former President tries to wiggle out of the corner he has painted himself into on this matter.
After all, if Pikoli was really suspended and then purportedly fired for dismissing Mbeki’s request to wait two weeks before arresting former police commissioner Jackie Selebi, thereby disregarding national security concerns, surely this should have featured in the letter that Mabandla wrote to Pikoli two days before his suspension? And again, in the letter Pikoli received from Mbeki, suspending him? Perplexingly, this accusation was also missing from the terms of reference of the Ginwala Enquiry itself.
No wonder Mbeki’s affidavit is so opaque and – dare I say – misleading. Either Mbeki and his office lied to the nation when Pikoli was suspended or he is lying in his affidavit submitted to the court. But he seems less adept at this kind of fudging of the truth than Bill Clinton ever was so the result is rather embarrassing.
First, Mbeki’s suggests that in his letter in which he suspended Pikoli he mentioned the threat posed by some crimes to national security “and expressed a concern regarding the applicant’s exercise of his discretion to prosecute offenders and the potential effect of such exercise on national security”. Given the fact that Pikoli was ostensibly fired because he failed to take into account national security issues when he obtained a warrant for Jackie Selebi’s arrest, this might suggest (admittedly without saying so directly) that the President’s letter had anything to do with the Jackie Selebi matter. It clearly did not. The “national security” concerns expressed in the letter related to plea bargains and had nothing to to with Selebi.
Second, Mbeki states that section 179(6) of the Constitution “stipulates that the Minister of Justice and Constitutional Development… must ensure that the Prosecuting Authority serves the public interest“. Unfortunately there is no such provision in the Constitution. Nor is there any case law interpreting this provision in the manner suggested in the letter.
Third, Mbeki claims that he did not mention the national security concerns relating to the arrest of Jackie Selebi because an Enquiry would be held in which this question could be ventilated. This does not seem accurate, as the terms of reference of the Ginwala Enquiry refers to “the threat posed by organised crime” to the national security of South Africa” and does not mention any threat to national security posed by the arrest of Selebi. So, unless Mbeki is of the opinion that the Police itself is an organised crime ring, it cannot be true that the arrest of Selebi was something he envisaged would be dealt with by the Ginwala Enquiry.
Moreover, when the government presented its case against Pikoli at the Ginwala Enquiry it failed to mention any – I repeat ANY – concern that Pikoli’s actions to obtain an arrest warrant for Selebi was in any way threatening national security. Claiming now that such concerns was at the heart of the suspension of Pikoli can only mean one of two things: Mbeki and his underlings lied until now about the real reasons for Pikoli’s suspension or they are lying now.
Fourth, Mbeki denies that Pikoli regularly reported to him on progress in the Selebi investigation. According to Mbeki, where meetings were held with the NDPP it was to “facilitate access to information held by the SAPS”. This denial seems difficult to sustain. In an affidavit provided by Acting Head of the NDPP, Mokotedi Mpshe, Mpshe claims that the NDPP had met with the Minister and Mbeki on ten different occasions to inform them about the Jackie Selebi matter. Moreover in a fourteen page letter written to Mbeki on 7 May 2007 by Pikoli, the President is extensively informed about the Jackie Selebi investigation. Anyone who reads this letter will have difficulty in agreeing with Mbeki’s contention that he was not informed about the investigation. But I suppose it depends on what your definition of “regularly” is.
Interesting, Mbeki now claims that when he suspended Pikoli he “did not purport to place verbally before [Pikoli] all the grounds” for his decision. This means that Mbeki is now admitting that he misled Pikoli and the public and that the grounds given to Pikoli and later communicated to the nation for the suspension were not the only reasons for his suspension. Despite claiming at the time that the suspension was due to a breakdown of the relationship between Pikoli and the Minister, Mbeki now claims there were other grounds never communicated to us and that his spokespeople lied when they denied the suspension had anything to do with the Selebi matter.
Mbeki also has to explain why he did not respond to Pikoli when he said he would give the President one week to prepare the environment for the arrest of Selebi and he does so by contradicting himself. First, he denies that he did not raise the national security issue with Pikoli when he suspended him but a few paragraphs later he states: “I fail to understand how my failure to complain directly to what I viewed as a fait accompli can be construed as a lack of concern that I was not informed of the intention to obtain the warrants.”
This does not seem to make sense and seems like an obvious contradiction. I suppose it is difficult to keep your story straight if your story keeps on changing. But I suppose it depends of what your definition of “directly” is.
This affidavit tries to argue ex post facto that Pikoli was suspended only because he obtained an arrest warrant for the National Police Commissioner. But the Presidency at the time explicitly denied that this was so. I am not sure Mbeki appreciates how poorly this admissions in his affidavit reflects on the credibility and integrity of the Presidency during his term.
The only possible conclusion one can draw from this affidavit is that – like Bill Clinton – the former President is rather economical with the truth. What we do not know is whether the lies occured when Pikoli was suspended or whether they are happening now.
Oooh! Now you’ll really have Khosi after you Prof! Anyway – I liked reading this post.
Brigitte Mabandla’s affidavit: http://www.politicsweb.co.za/politicsweb/view/politicsweb/en/page72308?oid=129088&sn=Marketingweb%20detail
Vusi Pikoli’s affidavit: http://www.politicsweb.co.za/politicsweb/view/politicsweb/en/page72308?oid=129032&sn=Marketingweb%20detail
Thabo Mbeki’s affidavit: http://www.politicsweb.co.za/politicsweb/view/politicsweb/en/page72308?oid=129024&sn=Marketingweb%20detail
From Pikoli’s affidavit:
150.1. I met with the Minister and briefed her on the Selebi investigation on 13 occasions in March 2006, in August 2006, on 9 November 2006, on 16 November 2006, on 11 March 2007, on 13 March 2007, on 17 March 2007, on 28 March 2007, on 8 May 2007, on 25 June 2007, on 11 September 2007, on 18 September 2007 and on 23 September 2007.
150.2. I furnished the Minister with written reports on the Selebi investigation on 19 March 2007 and 19 September 2007. I also gave her a copy of my report to the President of 7 May 2007.
150.3. I met with the President and briefed him on the Selebi investigation on ten occasions in March 2006, in August 2006, on 9 or 10 November 2006, on 14 November 2006, on 20 November 2006, on 11 March 2007, on 9 May 2007, on 20 May 2007, on 15 September 2007 and on 16 September 2007.
150.4. I submitted written reports to the President on the Selebi investigation on 7 May 2007 and 16 September 2007.
about time pierre, Pikoli back in the picture. Ive been outspoken about this guy and mark my words pikol will be back at the helm of the NPA.
Thanks for the links pierre
Come now Pierre, stop arguing for the sake of arguing.
I will give you the benefit of doubt, but everything is down to interpretation but lets put the affidavit into context.
The former President Mbeki is answering to an affidavit submitted to the court, by Mr Pikoli, in his disputing of his dismissal by the former President Motlanthe. It has to be born in mind that Motlanthe dismissed Pikoli based on the finding made by the Ginwala commission that Mr Pikoli showed a lack of understanding and appreciation to national security issues. This was after Ginwala found that despite the reasons put forward for his suspension, Pikoli was indeed fit to hold that office. So the reason for the suspension or their validity are not in dispute here as Ginwala has dealt with that. Furthermore, the former President Mbeki is neither changing, nor defending, the reasons initially brought forward. He is saying that those were not the only reasons for the action he took in suspending Pikoli. He, further says that nothing compelled him to disclose the full set of his dis-pleasures with Pikoli, since an enquiry was going to be set up on the matter. It is, to me, this enquiry that was, then, going to spell out the, in full, the detail for Pikoli’s eventual dismissal.
Now, Pierre, in this context, where is the lie that Mbeki and his office, or even this affidavit told? I will allow you to say that he could have been more forth coming with all his dis-pleasures. But still, had he done that, you would have screamed ‘NATIONAL SECURITY, THE LAST REFUGE FOR DIRTY SCOUNDRELS’. And maybe he understood the dangers of using national security as a way explaining untested executive decisions.
Now lets deal with another attempt at misguiding us on the matter.
“Anyone who reads this letter will have difficulty in agreeing with Mbeki’s contention that he was not informed about the investiagtion.”
Pierre, former president Mbeki never denied knowledge of the investigation. All he said is that he was surprised to hear of the warrants, that the NDPP had against the police commissioner, when he had facilitated that the police should co-operate with the NDPP office on the investigation.
There is more holes in your article but I will leave the likes of Vuyo to shred it apart.
@ Pierre De Vos // May 15, 2009 at 9:40 am
150.3 of Pikoli affidavit only indicates that meeting did indeed take place but it does not prove regularity of such meetings. Looking at the spread of the date, the meetings do look, at best, ad hoc.
If this was you attempt to prove that 24.3 of the former President’s (Mbeki) affidavit is wrong, then look closely because that section refers to ‘reports’ not meetings.
Khosi I am NOT arguing for the sake of arguing. This is serious because it amounts to a flagrant abuse of power. In any event you are wrong, wrong and wrong. The Presidency at the time denied that the suspension had anything to do with the pending arrest of Selebi (see Pikoli affidavit). Now they claim it was THE reason. Either they were lying then or they are lying now. Mbeki has said on several occasions that he had seen no evidence of wrongdoing on the part of Selebi and that anyone with information about wrongdoing should bring it to him because he had not seen it. The letter of Pikoli demonstrates definitively that this was a lie. Of course he is changing his story. If you say the reasons for the suspension is X and Y, make a case against Pikoli on the basis of X and Y and deny that the real reasons for the suspension is Z and then a year later say, well the real reason was Z, you have clearly been caught out in a lie.
An afterthought: I am starting the wonder whether the letter purported to have been written by Mbeki to Mabandla in the week before the suspension and produced at the Ginwala Enquiry (only after attempts were made to hide the existence of the letter) is genuine and whether it was not concocted after the fact to hide another letter written to Mabandla which instructed her to ensure that the Selebi arrest is stopped. The purported letter makes no sense in the context and does not explain Mabandla’s illegal instruction to Pikoli to stop the arrest. Given the tissue of lies spun in this case, I am beginning to wonder about a fabrication of evidence by the Presidency at the Ginwala Enquiry. At the very least, the contents of this letter is so queer and uninformative that it suggests that Mbeki had not clue of what he was doing.
Khosi, I suppose it depends on what your definition of “is” is….
(1) Does the Labour Relations Act, in any way, have relevance to Adv Pikoli’s position?
(2) Does PAJA in any respect have a bearing on the situation?
Actions that do not have a basis in both good faith and rationality must surely be subject to legal review, albeit that there might be different routes to achieve such review. I expect that this affidavit actually helps Adv Pikoli in his legal battle.
When one commits reasons for a decision t o writing, unless one makes provision for other “unspecified reasons (with some justification for not specifying them), then one must expect that those reasons are taken at face value.
Are there any constitutional obligations that Mr Mbkei, prma facie, has now by his own admission violated? If so, what are the (even hypothetical) legal sanctions that would apply in such a case?
If there have been constitutional violations, does this provide an extra avenue for Adv Pikoli to contest his ultimate dismissal? Did Mr Motlanthe, or Parliament, by extension, also violate the Constitution?
The difference in quality and truthfulness between Pikoli’s affidavit and Mbeki’s is extraordinary. Who, after reading TM’s almost juvenile submission would ever consider him an intellect. You suggest ‘embarrassing’, I say ’shocking’. Its not only very poorly written, it’s deliberately misleading, revealing much more than a dismissive and arrogant attitude, Did he actually have counsel helping him prepare this, and if not, why? And if so, wow, get new counsel. Its as though he doesn’t even consider the matter important.
Does Mbeki not grasp or consider that the Polokwane times will forever reveal the history of early South African democracy, and will forever be studied. It’s no wonder he was so hopeless as president, far above his head, out of his league. Only in Africa. I mean, what does he smoke in that pipe?
In contrast, Pikoli’s is brilliant and I can only imagine these two affidavits will be well utilized in future for lectures on how to, and how not to prepare an affidavit.
As TM’s shows an indifferent and inept attitude, Pikoli comes shining through, his intellect, patient attitude, humility, respectfulness, principles and abilities, firing on all 12 pistons. Who in their right mind, but those who have something to hide, would release a man of such quality and capability. If I needed an advocate, I would look no further. Hopefully, it’s South Africa’s version of David and Goliath, and with the same outcome.
So Prof: much of the evidence is now public, how do you think the bench will react?
Mike the Labour Relations Act does not apply. Pikoli argues that PAJA applies to the decision by the President to fire him. I am not sure whether it does or not. What we have to go on is the Masethla case, but the position of the NDPP is very different from that of the head of NI. Even if Paja does not apply the Rule of Law requires that a decision taken by the President must be taken in terms of the law and cannot be taken for a reason not provided for in the law. Pikoli could only have been fired if he was not a fit and proper person and this is an objective test. Pikoli argues that the President erred by misconstruing his powers. He felt himself bound by Ginwala but the Act requires the President to make up his own mind. In any event, the President misconstrued the findings of Ginwala. It also requires that the decision should be rationally related to a legitimate government purpose. Pikoli argues the decision was taken for an ulterior purpose.
The only thing I wished Pikoli added to his affidavit when talking about circumstantial evidence was the “ad hoc parliment committee” to help back up that section and quotes from the minorty groups in that committee.
I do hope you does bring them to dock
Pierre, where does Mbeki say that the REAL reason for the suspension was as you say Jacky Selebi.
See par 33.2; 33.4; 35.2; and – the clincher par 36.2 which states:
“… I had to confer with the NSC to establish the risk posed by this decision [not to provide more time to arrest Selebi] and considered ways of minimising any potential threat to national security…. Al I can say is that following such discussion [with the NSC] the advice I received was to suspend the applicant from office with immediate effect.”
So an admission that he suspended Pikoli after receiving advice on how to handle the refusal of Pikoli to extend the period for the arrest of Selebi. (But note the opaque wording!!! It is unclear from this wording whether the advice was from the NSC or anyone else. He might have received the advice from Monjanku Gumbi or from surfing the Internet, for all we know. I wonder, if a formal decision was taken by the NSC that the best way forward was to suspend Pikoli, would Mbeki not have said so clearly. Thus another evasion and obfuscation!)
And another clincher: par 36.4: “MY FAILURE TO INFORM THE APPLICANT THAT ONE OF THE REASONS FOR SUSPENDING HIM WAS HIS REFUSAL TO ACCOMMODATE THE NEED TO ESTABLISH AN ENABLING ENVIRONMENT…”
“I did not have sexual relations with that woman, Miss Lewinsky”.
Thabo will go down in history as more sordid than our ex-stateman Voster. The amount of drivel, backstabbing and lies this man has shuffled in his time will not go unmarked. I do hope that now that he is less-protected we as South Africans will have an opportunity to access the true information dealing with very horrific events from the killing of Chris Hani to the Arms Deal.
Pierre, we have established beyond contest that national security considerations have, at this stage, been given as ONE of the reasons. Where you fail my acceptance, is when you try to imply that such considerations were conceived to protect Selebi and not the interest of the country.
You seem to somehow link the national security considerations, in-extractable, to the accusation of trying to protect Selebi. This would be absurd given that Mbeki to this to Pikoli:-
“I would deliver the national commissioner to him personally if so required to avoid a potential shoot-out between the DSO and SAPS”
After asking for 7 days to allow for an enabling environment but failing to find reason in Pikoli, I, say to you, that the president had to choose between
1.) ignoring what the NSC informed him thereby folding his arms as Pikoli arrested Selebi thereby risking a full blown confrontation between the Scorpions and the police. Remember, the confrontation between the scorpions and Zuma’s bodyguards( who are policemen), at Zuma’s Forrest Hill home!? Remember the confrontation between the Joburg metro police and SAPS, last year?
2.) Choosing to, as he did, suspend Pikoli, and risking being accused of protecting Selebi when all he was doing was avoiding the confrontation between Selebi’s policemen, who continue to show loyalty to him, and the scorpions.
Those were the choices. What would you have done?
Both these should make it clear to anyone with a pea for a brain, that Selebi was merely a beneficiary(a temporal one) BUT NOT the reason for the suspension of Pikoli. Hence the official line from the then Presidency, was that Selebi was not the reason for the suspension. Matters around him may have been, but he was not the reason.
So there is no lie.
Can we please, for now, confine your response to your conceding or disputing that national security considerations can be dealt with, purely and honestly, in separation to the person(s) involved, without intending to protect or to cause harm to the person(s) involved. And that at best the person(s) involved can be merely beneficiaries of such.
If you agree with my assessment, then please, also agree that Jackie Selebi was not the reason for the suspension. He was, purely and honestly, a beneficiary.
P.S. We are having a very good discussion here. Can we please attempt agreement on this point because, such, will lead us closer to consensus on the issue. Indulge me, I am going to a place you might like on the issue.
It is not possible to be more sordid than Voster.
To further illustrate the semantics of the absurdity of your claims of lies, you named this article:-
“I did have national security with that man”
This has never been disputed, to my knowledge, by anyone in the Mbeki presidency. Even the terms of reference of the Ginwala enquiry, does cite national security as an issue. The same is repeated in the very suspension letter that Pikoli received.
I have told you that, sometimes, you think like a horse with blinkers on. But I guess that its true when they say that ‘in the land of the blind the one eyed man is king’, even when the one eyed man has blinkers on. That would explain the likes of sirjay jonson.
@khosi
Yes ONE of the reasons but the MAIN reasons as drafted eventualy by Mbeki and Motlanthe as well as by the “Add Hoc parliament committee” National security. if there were other reasons what were they? cos they all lead to National security.
what your failing in your argument is Pikoli had 10 meetings go count them with Mbeki and a letter was sent direct to him.
The problem that you and mbeki face is mbeki was not convinced that there was a corruption case against selebi.
Now during all these meetings Mbeki did not raise at all the issue of what time frame he needed to have an enviroment safe to arrest Selebi.
Pikoli informed six top government officials, including Justice Minister Brigitte Mabandla, Safety and Security Minister Charles Nqakula and Defence Minister Mosuioa Lekota, of the ‘serious’ graft claims against Selebi.
A quote by Mbeki:\
‘I have said this before, many times, that if there was anybody with information that shows National Commissioner Selebi has done wrong things, I would act on it.’
In Mbekis affidavit
Mbeki claims he was only informed of Selebi’s alleged involvement in organised crime but failed to provide him with detail of such alleged misconduct this however is not TRUE.
Mbeki has only now admitted that he tried to delay the arrest of suspended police chief Jackie Selebi.
Now to argue about someone who firstly was not convinced of the chargers that he needed to create this so called enviroment is simply delluded and would have not put in the immediate effort that this issue deserved as ALL role players were informed.
in order to come to a consensus you must first agree that Mbeki was not convinced of the chargers against Selebi.
Khosi, your defense seems to be that the Presidency lied because of national security. Or am I missing something? Is it every acceptable to lie to the nation? If so when? Fact is: the Presidency gave one set of reasons for the suspension of Pikoli (i) to Pikoli (ii) the nation and (iii) Ginwala Commission. Now Mbeki is giving a different set of reasons for the suspension.
Questions abound. Why – if this was really about national security as the affidavit claims – was this denied at the time by the Presidency and why was it not pursued at the Ginwala Enquiry? Why only “reveal” this now, 18 months later? Why did the President not request an extension from Pikoli for another week and explained to him the reasons for the request (given the fact that the President had no legal authority to order the NDPP to stop the arrest)? Why does the affidavit not state categorically that the NSC advised him to suspend Pikoli on national security grounds but instead fudge the issue by failing to indicate WHO advised him about the suspension? What did the President actually do in the week from the time Pikoli met him to “prepare the ground” for the arrest? Why did the President claim later – on several occasions – that no one had given him any proof of wrongdoing by Selebi when the Pikoli letter clearly did give this information several months before and the NDPP on several subsequent occasions furnished said information? Why was it necessary to lie and obfuscate if this was so clearly about the national security? Why hide this from Pikoli, from the nation and from the Ginwala Enquiry?
Problem is, when the lies pile up and one is caught out – as Mbeki now has – it is very difficult to trust anything said by the orchestrator of the lies, especially when the new version magically conjured up here and never before revealed to anyone – so neatly serves ones own interests and so neatly ties in with the findings of the Ginwala Enquiry. In the infamous Downing Street Memo it was revealed that when George W Bush wanted to invade Iraq and met with Tony Blair Bush had indicated that the intelligence would be fixed to support the invasion. One has to be really trusting beyond belief or blinded by loyalty not to conclude that this is what happened here. Who are you going to believe: your very own eyes, or Mbeki?
Pierre De Vos // May 15, 2009 at 2:10 pm
Please read what I am saying with care. I am saying THERE WAS NO LIE.
You say:- ‘Fact is: the Presidency gave one set of reasons for the suspension of Pikoli (i) to Pikoli (ii) the nation and (iii) Ginwala Commission. Now Mbeki is giving a different set of reasons for the suspension.’
Please refer to point 12 of Mbeki’s affidavit. Also go through all the press releases by the Presidency on the matter and you will see that the difference is a construction of you mind. There might have been additions to what was originally disclosed, but none was changed
You say ‘Why – if this was really about national security as the affidavit claims – was this denied at the time by the Presidency and why was it not pursued at the Ginwala Enquiry?’
As I indicated earlier, national security was never disputed. the very suspension letter and the enquiry, are clear on this.
You say:- ‘Why did the President not request an extension from Pikoli for another week and explained to him the reasons for the request (given the fact that the President had no legal authority to order the NDPP to stop the arrest)?’
But he did and Pikoli refused and that is why we are here today.
You say:- ‘Why does the affidavit not state categorically that the NSC advised him to suspend Pikoli on national security grounds but instead fudge the issue by failing to indicate WHO advised him about the suspension?’
It does so clearly and I quote you quoting Mbeki:-
”
and – the clincher par 36.2 which states:
“… I had to confer with the NSC to establish the risk posed by this decision [not to provide more time to arrest Selebi] and considered ways of minimising any potential threat to national security…. Al I can say is that following such discussion [with the NSC] the advice I received was to suspend the applicant from office with immediate effect.”
”
“In the infamous Downing Street Memo it was revealed that when George W Bush wanted to invade Iraq and met with Tony Blair Bush had indicated that the intelligence would be fixed to support the invasion. One has to be really trusting beyond belief or blinded by loyalty not to conclude that this is what happened here. Who are you going to believe: your very own eyes, or Mbeki?”
I have earlier cited two instances where what Mbeki feared happening, actually did happen. My eyes have seen what Mbeki feared.
Come now, Pierre, this is turning to ridiculous. I am stopping here. Please FORMULATE you responses
@ Chris Mcdaniel // May 15, 2009 at 2:09 pm
‘in order to come to a consensus you must first agree that Mbeki was not convinced of the chargers against Selebi.’
I does not matter whether he was convinced or not. The issue is, did he suspend Pikoli to protect Selebi!? Which I say, is not true.
What I do know, today, is that the NPA themselves are not convinced of the same said charges. Which tells me that, it is likely that they(NPA) has never been convinced. Otherwise, they would not be asking for extensions.
The other question is why Mr Mbeki required two weeks to arrange for the arrest of Mr Selebi.
If there was indeed such a problem within SAPS that they would unlawfully impede a legally correct action on the part of the NPA, then why has this problem subsequently not been addressed?
#
Bruno // May 15, 2009 at 1:45 pm
“It is not possible to be more sordid than Voster”.
As I said, “time will tell”.
Khosi
oh but that is the crux of the matter, because if the president is not convinced of charges:
a) because selebi is his friend or boyfriend?
b) there is just this dark force out to get selebi and selebi is just a victim and mbeki is just sympthetic to selebi?
c) this is a waste of time?
The real question you should be answering as you just admitted {The issue is, did he suspend Pikoli to protect Selebi!? Which I say, is not true.} is why was Mbeki not convinced of the charges in the first place? TO say this is not IMPORTANT lacks all basic understanding of what is actually happening here.
Because if Mbeki is not entirly convinced about something well then whats the rush?
HOMEWORK: give me the date of the letter “TOP SECRET Letter” that mbeki recieved?
I gave you a quote by Mbeki that he would act on it
here let me repeat it for you
‘I have said this before, many times, that if there was anybody with information that shows National Commissioner Selebi has done wrong things, I would act on it.’
Mbeki admits to delaying Selebi arrest….
act…..delay…..act……delay……act……delay……act…..delay……act….delay…..act……delay……I think you get the picture
bottom line is mbeki dispite all evidence presented to him did not act WHY???? he was not convinced
Khosi said:
“What I do know, today, is that the NPA themselves are not convinced of the same said charges”
yes now tomorrow you can wake up and feel releived to know this….say thank you chris
http://www.legalbrief.co.za/article.php?story=20080212081504862
Mike Atkins // May 15, 2009 at 3:10 pm
very nice question
why hasnt this problem been addressed esp under MBeki’s watch
@ Chris Mcdaniel // May 15, 2009 at 3:38 pm
I think you have just wasted your time and broadband on rubbish.
khosi // May 15, 2009 at 3:58 pm
Tsk tsk Khosi i expected better from you. the reasons why there are extensions is because of the weapons the two parties are busy choosing, the actual battle hasnt started yet. inother words the actual corruption case hasnt started yet its all been about access to information first.
to say that im wasting my time on rubbish well just goes to show how ignorant you are and lack of character to admit your worng.
Mbeki admits to not appriciating the evidence now you and mbeki want the npa and pikoli to appriciate security? thats a bit rich dont you think.
what you failing to grasp which you said about the shoot outs with the DSO and SAPS and metro and SAPS is that all of this was under Mbeki’s watch he has done nothing to sort this issue out and then you guys bitch about national security? and huff and puff about 2 weeks?
No sir!!! becuase of your incompetant president who lacked any thought of intelligence or how to govern a state there would be no need to create an enviroment for issues between two state bodies wanting to have a western shoot out.
Becuase of Mbekis lazyness and incompetance this shit happens and ends up fucking up justice and pikoli gets fired for it?
you and Mbeki live in an upside down world my friend.
was your homework on the top secret letter? I want the date?
Khosi, sorry to say but you are wrong again and section 12 of the affidavit does not help. The President mentioned two reasons for Pikoli’s suspension in his letter:
The first was an accusation that Pikoli had “entertained the granting of immunity to members of organised crime syndicates in instances where the prosecution of such people would, in the Government’s view, be in the public interest”.
The President secondly said that the Minister had told him of “the breakdown of relations between your office and hers due to several incidents, such as your testimony to the Khampepe Commission of Inquiry”.
On Monday 24 September 2007 Government issued a public statement that Pikoli had been suspended from office due to “an irretrievable breakdown in the working relationship between the Minister of Justice and Constitutional Development and the NDPP”. NO MENTION OF SELEBI OR NATIONAL SECURITY.
“The President considers the relationship between the Minister and the NDPP central to the effective administration of justice and the smooth functioning of the National Prosecuting Authority. The relationship breakdown had adverse implications for the NPA and the functioning of the criminal justice system.”
The DG in the Presidency Reverend Chikane, also told the media on Monday 24 September 2007 that Pikoli had been suspended because “something had gone wrong in the exercise of (Pikoli’s) reporting to the Minister in terms of the Constitution”. NO MENTION WAS MADE OF SELEBI OR NATIONAL SECURITY.
On Monday 1 October government reiterated, in a statement, that Mbeki had suspended Pikoli “on the basis of his conclusion that the relationship breakdown” between the NDPP and the minister of justice “had the potential to hamper the discharge of the Minister’s constitutional obligations and that this could affect the administration of justice.” The same statement categorically denied the allegation that the suspension of Pikoli “was meant to protect” Selebi.
On Tuesday (October 2) Mbeki was asked by a journalist whether he had seen a warrant of arrest for Selebi. Mbeki replied, “You cannot be serious. Have you ever heard of a president issuing a warrant?”
So, all along Mbeki and the Presidency gave reasons for the suspension which differs from the reasons now given. AT NO STAGE DID THEY INDICATE THAT THESE WERE ONLY SOME OF THE REASONS FOR THE SUSPENSION. Even before the Ginwala Enquiry they did not mention the arrest warrant for Selebi as a reason for the suspension.
What you want us to believe is that it was perfectly fine for Mbeki to have suspended Pikoli because of the arrest warrants but never to have mentioned this fact at all – DESPITE FURIOUS SPECULATION IN THE PRESS THAT THIS WAS EXACTLY THE REASON FOR THE SUSPENSION.
Hypothetical example: Say I am suspended from my post. Newspapers feverishly speculate this is because I sexually harassed a student. I issue several statements saying I was suspended because of personal differences with the Dean. The University issues several statements also saying I was suspended because I had differences with the Dean. At my disciplinary hearing the University contend that I should be fired because I could not work with the Dean. I never mention sexual harassment. Neither does the University. Eighteen months later when I challenge my firing in court, the University claim in an affidavit that I was suspend and later fired because a student had accused me of sexual harassment. Now according to your logic neither myself nor the University had ever lied or mislead anyone. Come on! What planet are you living on?
Once again: Who are you going to believe: Mbeki or your very own eyes.
Pierre, you need to read point 12 in relation to point 11, because it references that point. And then pay special attention to 11.2 and the fact that point 12 say:- “The first three points on the terms are mirrored in the suspension letter…”
Please read this again:-
khosi // May 15, 2009 at 1:37 pm
Please find the following, where NATIONAL SECURITY is clearly mentioned:-
http://www.politicsweb.co.za/politicsweb/view/politicsweb/en/page71619?oid=112131&sn=Detail
http://www.themercury.co.za/index.php?fArticleId=4393348
And as you would say, the money quote from The Mercury article:- “I have evaluated the information at my disposal and have reached the conclusion that you, in your capacity as national director of public prosecutions, have failed to appreciate the nature and extent of the threat posed by members of organised crime syndicates to our national security,” Mbeki wrote. “Such a lack of appreciation in itself amounts to a threat to our national security,” he said in the letter.
This is your proof that from the onset, national security was given as a reason. Please stop following lazy journalism and read the source.
Please find me a copy of the Ginwala commission that DOES NOT mention ‘national security’ and also find a Pikoli suspension letter that, also, DOES NOT mention ‘national security’
If you do that, you will win the argument.
Pierre
Please read this again:-
khosi // May 15, 2009 at 1:37 pm
I TRIED SENDING LINKS WITH THE MESSAGE BUT I COULDN’T.
On politicsweb.co.za, you will find the Ginwala terms of reference.
And
An iol report said this of the the suspension letter:-
“I have evaluated the information at my disposal and have reached the conclusion that you, in your capacity as national director of public prosecutions, have failed to appreciate the nature and extent of the threat posed by members of organised crime syndicates to our national security,” Mbeki wrote. “Such a lack of appreciation in itself amounts to a threat to our national security,” he said in the letter.
This is your proof that from the onset, national security was given as a reason. Please stop following lazy journalism and read the source.
Please find me a copy of the Ginwala commission that DOES NOT mention ‘national security’ and also find a Pikoli suspension letter that, also, DOES NOT mention ‘national security’
If you do that, you will win the argument.
Still @ Pierre
Pierre, you need to read point 12 in relation to point 11, because it references that point. And then pay special attention to 11.2 and the fact that point 12 say:- “The first three points on the terms are mirrored in the suspension letter…”
P.S. Sorry for the messy posting.
Wow, what an argument! Set emotion, prejudice, education aside for a moment. Feel it in the gut. This issue is all kok. It’s not just about political alignments, that is if we follow the search for truth. There is something even higher than justice, and its truth itself. When on the bench there is much more than just evidence, there is observation, experience, wisdom, and occasionally compassion.
Anybody in their right mind, educated, who can witness the machinations of politics and who can evaluate the value of the participants, can see the truth. Law is All, and all quality judges look to the essence of the parties who are appearing before them.
Law must be just without fear and favor, right.
Law must support the rational, the reasonable
and the dreams of a just society
Think I’m getting impatient.
Time to walk in the garden.
Litlte Thabo lies like a cheap watch.
Khosi, the sentence you quote talk about an allegation that Pikoli “have failed to appreciate the nature and extent of the threat posed by members of organised crime syndicates to our national security”. This has nothing to do with any argument or contention that by arresting Selebi national security would be endangered. Yes, the words “national security” appears, but only in relation to organised crime syndicates posing a threat to it. So unless, of course, you are saying that Mbeki believed that the SAPS was an organised crime syndecate, the paragraph does not assist you in any way.
Say we adopt my previous example: If myself and the university had not only claimed I was suspended because I could not get along with the Dean but also because I did not appreciate the difficulty students faced with their studies. The word “student” would have appeared but this would not prove that myself and the University was honest about sexual harassment charges against me by a student if we had not mentioned this at all but had mentioned the word “student”. That would be an absurd conclusion to make and would push the words beyond any meaning they could possible carry. You fixate on two words – “national security” – as if the words preceding and following these two words did not matter. Surely no person – not even Bill Clinton! – would be able to do that with a straight face.
Well, Pierre I do not know if Mbeki thought that SAPS was an organized crime syndicate. I doubt that to be so.
What we do know, is that, the person that is the former national commissioner of the police is accused of having links to organized crime. He even admitted to this when he made that now legendary ‘Agliotti is my friend, finish and klaar’ remark. Obviously, its the nature of these links that is under dispute.
My 2 cents is that the president did not find it beyond the realms of possibility that the confrontation he feared could further be fueled by these very links to organized crime, as the national security council MAY have given him a depressing picture on the links between organized crime and the police (both groups are well armed).
So even in that sentence, alone, national security considerations carry a lot weight.
I must say “Khosi” has a lot of time on his hands!
I must say that I still don’t understand how advocating that Selebi not be arrested can be because there would be a scuffle between the SAPS and Scorpions. If there is a warrant of arrest its breaking the law to evade such arrest. A law enforcement officer or agent CANNOT wilfully break the law. So, Zuma’s bodyguards – who seemingly had greater allegiance to Zuma than the law – were clearly acting outside of their actual mandate. I had always assumed that where there are differing approaches between Metro pilice and SAPS, that the SAPS had greater authority unless a national and influencial body made a decision that favours the Metro police.
And this just in:
http://www.iol.co.za/index.php?set_id=1&click_id=13&art_id=vn20090518055916968C741608
Gerrie Nel is suing for wrongful arrest.
Well, I find Mbeki’s affidavit quite convincing. I wouldn’t have quite known what to do myself, with Pikoli going after Selebi (without any particular evidence, I notice). I’d have suspected that Pikoli was Zuma’s man at the time (of course, this has become increasingly obvious, which is why Pikoli will probably eventually be Zuma’s boss of the NPA).
I don’t think anyone, however, should expect any sense out of the Prof. in any article talking about Thabo Mbeki. He hates the ex-President with an even greater passion than most white South Africans do — and that’s saying a great deal. So it’s impossible for the Prof. to comprehend that Pikoli is corrupt and that, in this case, I’m confident that Mbeki is right.
Though, if he is, the truth will not prevail. Zuma and company will see to that.
I am not a legal person, so this question may appear to be a little stupid, but surely if a party to an action is given a deadline by which to respond to something, they should do so? Or is it okay to just wait until the deadline passes and then contend that it is in the interests of justice to be heard, despite missing the deadline?
I refer to the Gerrie Nel case to which Garg directed us. The police are now asking to be heard, despite missing the deadline, because they do not want to pay the R 300 000 he is asking in damages and that it would be in the interests of justice.
To my way of thinking, giving them the opportunity to be heard is not in the interests of justice. They chose not to act within the required time constraints and now all parties must once again convene to make representations on whether they should be heard anyway. And all of this at taxpayers’ expense.
We spend so much time debating disregard of the Rule of Law of our senior leaders, and yet it appears that the “rules” of law are being infringed constantly at all levels.
MFB:
Questioning motives is a logical fallacy. It does not matter whether the prof has voodoo dolls of Thabo Mbeki. If you can’t formulate an argument based on the constitution that counters the prof, then those of us who are not lawyers but who are here to find out about constitutional law would appreciate it if you met with the prof behind the bikeshed so you could kick each other in the balls and settle your little ad hominem tussle.
I for one will always think of the ANC as a bunch of terrorists who planted bombs in Wimpy. Just like most of the ANC will always think of pale males as the oppressors of apartheid. Now that’s real progress!
By the way, the very last thing Zuma and co want is for the truth to prevail. Can you say encrypted fax?
After reading all those affidavits relating to the matter, I cannot but conclude that Mbeki is a blatant liar!
Sne – I cannot but agree (Khosi – you hear?!)
Mouse,
That is one of the most difficult sentences I have ever had to write in my life. I believe the lesson I must learn is that I must always remember that we are all human.