I was struck by the news that Mnyamezeli Booi, an ANC MP facing Travelgate charges who has refused to negotiate a plea bargain and insists on being tried to clear his name, has been made Chief Whip of the ruling party. Several positions became vacant when a number of portfolio committee chairs were appointed Ministers or deputy Ministers last month, following a spate of resignations after Thabo Mbeki was recalled as President.
A Cape Times report (not available online) says Booi succeeds Nathi Mthethwa – who is now Minister of Safety and Security. He was the only MP who refused to enter a plea bargain agreement with the state after being implicated in the Travelgate fraud scandal. He insisted he was innocent and was determined to fight the charges in court. His trial is to begin in February. He has, however, recused himself from all the public hearings and deliberations on the Scorpions Bills. Booi’s promotion to Chief Whip yesterday coincided with the adoption in the National Assembly of the Bills.
Mr. Booi is of course entitled to be presumed by a court to be innocent until proven guilty. I also concede that commentators like myself or the media should not treat Mr. Booi as if he has been found guilty of any offense. He might well be acquitted and he is surely entitled to the benefit of the doubt.
Yet, I find it outragous that the ANC has decided to appoint Mr Booi as Chief Whip of his party. This is not because Mr. Booi might turn out to be a crook and a thief as no one knows whether he is guilty of the offense for which he is being charged or not. Only a court can make that decision.
But this appointment seems like the ANC is sending a big up yours to the electorate, saying that they do not care what impression they may create with us voters and that they will do as they see fit. In an ordinary democracy where a governing party fears losing its majority it would NEVER appoint a person facing such serioius criminal charges to such an important position.
This is because such a move – no matter how unfair it might eventually turn out to be to the individual involved – will send the signal that the party is not taking charges of corruption seriously and is in fact rewarding an individual for corruption.
There is a difference between perception and the facts established in a criminal trial. A political party who respects the electorate is sensitive not only to the latter but also the former. By appointing Mr Booi, the ANC has signaled that it does not really care what we think and that it is not afraid to send a signal that it would reward corruption in its ranks.
In the long run such an arrogant move will erode confidence in Parliament and in the Party. It is deeply disrespectful to one of the pillars of our democracy – the Parliament – and also unfair to Mr Booi whose trial will now take on added significance in the eye of the public.
The ANC should be careful because in politics once a master narrative takes hold it is very difficult to shake off. Now with its leader, Jacob Zuma, facing corruption charges and the whole Travelgate scandal, they are running the risk of implanting the idea in the minds of even its loyal supporters that the party is corrupt or condones corruption.
In the long run, this will be disasterous for the party. I wonder who made this decision? Jacob Zuma? Gwede Mantashe? Whomever it was, it was an unwise political decision. The person who made it should be fired.
Prof,
Haven’t you learned anything yet? For a smart man you’re taking a while to cotton on… The person who made the wise decision (as with showers and travelgate etc) will be promoted. The ANC may as well be the Alliance of National Criminals. They have made a number of faus pas that make it ovious that corruption, albeit alleged, is NOT a matter the ANC takes to heart. This is sad as it is our ruling party. It also shows that the Annual Nelson Mandela Leture in Kliptown this year meant nothing to the top brass. President Johnson-Sirleaf has helped Liberia decrease the corruption rates in the country. If it was important to our leaders they could easily do the same.
What is surprising is that we should then cry that the judiciary is encroaching on Parliament’s terrain when they are, in fact, helping to protect us from our national corrupters… But then again, I don’t know much about balancing power at the top.
Sad, sad. I had hoped that with Mbeki’s lot out we’d see a more straight, upright ANC.
That was just the tip of the iceberg. A few of the people in the National Assembly are morally bankrupt, and it becomes worse the more the unjustly enrich themselves.
I’m just wondering wont the fact that he opted to go to trial rather than accept a plea bargin he might really be innocent of the alleged crime? I really doubt a quilty person would really not accept a bargin that will allow to maintain the pecks he now enjoys.
Mqo, as Pierre points out, that’s besides the point. The ANC should set an example, that where serious allegations are made against a politician, the party should not appoint that person to a high office until such time there name is cleared.
It is very honourable of Mnyamezeli Booi to have his day in court and prove the innocence he professes – might show he has some principles. As for his appointment as chief whip – well it is hardly against what has been said before is it? Just take a look at the party leader. So they get points for being consistent in their reasoning.
There is another finger still firmly stuck in some unmentionable part of the anatomy ready to be flipped sometime next year and shown to the nation.
Jacob Zuma will be President of the most important country in Africa (and still be facing corruption charges).
Yes Zuma will be the president and he should stick that finger in your mouths!
What?! That dirty finger? Oor my dooie liggaam.
I’m really surprised by people who expect the ANC to act according to their personal beliefs, rituals, morals, standards and everything along those lines. First and foremost, ANC is a POLITICAL PARTY. Their core business is POLITICS. Full stop. Secondly, if Booi is the right man for the job, should he be discredited because he is a “suspect”? Thirdly, doesn’t logic suggest that if and when Booi is convicted, then he would have to recuse himself. Why do people preempt and even try to speculate because any outcome would logically be catered for?
“Secondly, if Booi is the right man for the job, should he be discredited because he is a “suspect”?”
The answer is simply a resounding yes.
This is a high and respected public office for which we as citizens demand integrity.
The point is NOT if he is guilty or not.
The question is that political parties should respect the citizens of the country and not appoint people to positions as long as their is a serious allegation against them.
Is that clear enough?
The ANC is truly and deeply corrupt. They need to be thrown out of office ASAP.
Another apparent indication that the ANC sans Mbeki is not taking an anti-corruption stance.
http://www.mg.co.za/article/2008-10-26-why-was-i-shifted-kgalema
Sy vinger gaan nerens naby my nie! One doesn’t know what else he uses to pleasure his many women…
Stalin, don’t be sick, its just not pretty. We can also do it but try not to.
As for the comment that he should only be discredited if and when he is proven guilty in a court of law. I’m sue many of us can see why that cannot work. The ruling party’s chief whip CANNOT be embroiled in scandals where misappropration of state funds is concerned. Its like saying that you’ll trust a suspected drug dealer to rehabilitate drug addicts, it will not work. Why should we then trust a suspected “thief” to instruct members to toe the party line, weed out corruption and expose those who are abusing their power? Is it because ANC politicians can be el diablo himself yet we still view them as angelic? I think that is a terrible way to conduct our political affairs. Maybe we should give democracy a try, it might just work.
what is so difficult to understand , the presumtion of innocence is up held and that is that. No amount of wise words or spin from you or any other commentator can change that .it is a fact that he is innocent and must be dealt with as such…… The ANC like any other ruling party in the world will have its gaffs, bottom line is challenge them on what is factual….and for now as it stands he is innocent. long live the rule of law, long live the ANC
Perhaps this means that the future is now…with Zuma to take charge, such individuals would be ruling this nation.
From a corrupt executive to an equally capable legislature, being overly guided by politics of the stomach!
Bad move by the ANC.
I disagree in this instance
Stalin and Realistically Speaking, you are just wasting your reasonable brains, this lot dont get it, it’s a fait accompli Msholozi is our President and for Prof. to claim that the ANC doesn’t care about its constitueny in appointing Booi, well we are ANC’s constituency and not the disgrintled or DA conjstituency and we dont complain!
This is exactly what I am trying to save our country and our people from. You cannot have people of low moral and ethic standing in control of the country’s prized institutions. I we do that, we are starting the reversal of the african renaissance.
Mdu, why don’t you complain? Is it the fact that Booi is standing up to dem beastly Scorpions that makes you love him so?
Mdu,
Not all of the ANC’s constituents share your views -hence the recent resignations and crossing over to the breakaway faction and other political parties (AZAPO and UDM) according to new reports.
We do not yet know how many votes the ANC is going to loose as a result of its lack of respect for its constituents, but there are definitely a large number of constituents who are unhappy about the things mentioned in this post.
Mdu, Stalin and Realistically Speaking it really worries me that you don’t complain about this. The ANC is responsible to YOU, not the other way around.
Wessel ans Shakira, let me say that I did specify that I am not talking on behalf of disgruntled FORMER ANC consituency, but on behalf of me those who are not disgruntled, Shakira those whjo are leaving the movement are the sore ones.
Spoiler why should I complain if nothing wrong has been done, especially when Booi is doing exactly what you are accusing Zuma of evading, asking for his day in Court, sometims I wonder about the bona fides of people who detest the newly crowned ANC heavyweights?
Mdu, if you look at my blog my bona fides is clear. I am pro Cosatu, have been anti-Mbeki and supporting Zuma in as far as he was best placed to end the destructive Mbeki era.
I am on record of having high hopes for the likes Gwede Mantashe and Kgalema and the ANC minus the likes of Lekota.
This does not make me an unquestioning sycophant because that will damage the ANC and the country.
I want the ANC to lead through example and do whats best for everybody, not a few individuals.
And if you really are a patriotic South African who believes in the best for our society, so should you.
Mdu, you language speaks volumes perhaps.
“crowned ANC heavyweights”
It speaks of an attitude where you think that we serve our leaders and not they us. The power is in your hands brother, make them know it.
Mouse
I hope you are not one of those referred to in this article! http://www.thetimes.co.za/News/Article.aspx?id=871271
Wessel, point taken and I am happy about your first response as for the second one let me just say I said it just to rub it in for those who hate the current leadership, as for sycophancy I am the last to be like that hence my disillision with TM, whom I had so admired!
Mdu,
Disgruntled constituents, but constituents nonetheless.
I must say however that the fact that Booi is insisting on going to trial makes me want to believe in his innocence. I think that if you are guilty and you could get away with a slap on the wrist if you admit your guilt, than you would admit your guilt and not insist on going to trial to clear your name.
I however agree that the fact that he has not been found guilty does not mean it is ok to appoint him as the Chief Whip. He should first be allowed to clear his name.
shakira // Oct 27, 2008 at 1:54 pm
“He should first be allowed to clear his name.”
…………………………………………………………………………
I think your argument is based on an over-rated “doctrine” designed specifically to curtail or at least control the ruling party’s internal activities. The ANC has a right, which it has duly exercised, to appoint anyone whom it considers a right candidate for any post it deems fit and that includes being its Chief Whip. This noise made by people who are not even members of the ruling party is disturbing.
Booi has not been found guilty of anything, in fact, he has not even seen his day in court. He is eager to prove his innocence in court. To my amazement, (non-ANC members) people are calling for him to recuse himself from the post to which his party has deployed him. If this were allowed to stand, then the proverbial can of worms would be opened into our society. The South African society should disabuse itself of the “doctrine” of recusal at the face of an allegation procured mostly by minority parties. Imagine the number of vacancies which would result if each an every time someone made an allegation about a person occupying a certain post would result in the resignation of that person holding that post.
We cannot over-emphasise the importance of having in power people who would be worthy of public confidence as that would be in compliance with the ethos and telos of our Constitution but we cannot allow the minority to determine the activities of the majority party by prescribing the people who should occupy certain posts or by prohibiting, through allegations, certain people from holding certain posts. This would be the case if each allegation resulted in a resignation or recusal. I cannot counternance that.
We should respect the courts enough to allow them to do their duty and then we can call as loud as we can for people to resign after being found guilty in a court of law. This call for Booi to recuse himself due to him being “politically tainted” is tantamount to pre-empting the due legal process to be followed against someone who is an accused. Let us respect the judiciary and not only when it suits our objectives. This call to wait for the due legal process is very strong in this case as Booi has rejected a plea bargaining…
I will always agree with Mdu.
Sne,
I would have agreed with you if what we are dealing with here are just allegations or rumours of criminal conduct. In such cases of course it would be silly to suggest that a person should not be appointed to a position because its so easy for anyone to make a baseless allegations against him.
But this case is different. We are not dealing with “an allegation procured mostly by minority parties”. We are dealing with a case here where a person has been investigated, a docket compiled and charged. The NPA has reviewed a docket compiled by an investigator and has decided that there is sufficient evidence for a person to be charged.
Even though I am not a card carrying member of the ANC I am a South African voter and have an interest in the appointments that the ANC makes, and I am entitled to comment thereon, because these things, amongst others, will influence whether I will vote for them or not.
Lindelani and Sne, Amen to that Bafwethu!
Sne
I also have some reservations about the doctrine of recusal as you call it. It opens the possibility of getting rid of someone by mere allegation. But on the other side this is not mere allegation, this is at the point where it has been investigated and the NPA believes it is winnable.
I for one am not happy about possibly getting a president with a similar cloud over his head. Do you also see no problem in that instance? What about a judicial officer?
The matter of whether the charge is relevant to the work you do and the seriousness of the charge on it’s own and in that light, also needs separate consideration. If I work in finances and am accused of fraud, the matter is more serious to my employer than a charge regarding child pornography I have at home (which is of more interest to my neighbours).
Certain trials by nature take a long time, not to mention ones going to appeal and maybe even concourt. This person remains in that position in the meantime with ample opportunity to continue if indeed guilty.
I can see how much damage could possibly be done to a person through such processes (look at Mac Maharaj). But then is that not the nature of such jobs? It’s not like you have job security there, you are a temporary servant of the people.
I lean towards recusal in certain public offices, depending on the nature of the charge and whether the NPA is going to prosecute.
z // Oct 27, 2008 at 3:09 pm
“I lean towards recusal in certain public offices, depending on the nature of the charge and whether the NPA is going to prosecute.”
…………………………………………………………………………………
Interesting to note that you do not put an opinion as to whether he should recuse himself or not…
shakira // Oct 27, 2008 at 2:51 pm
…………………………………………………….
Interesting to note how misplaced your arguments are… I will deal with your submission in turn in context…
“But this case is different.” This paragraph seems to suggest, perhaps naively I must submit, that in “a case where a person has been investigated, a docket compiled and charged.” and the “NPA has reviewed a docket compiled by an investigator and has decided that there is sufficient evidence for a person to be charged.” that we should now forget about the presumption of innocence and the due legal process and call for the individual concerned to recuse himself or resign. This cannot be allowed to stand as it has the same undesirable consequences as that of a mere allegation. The fact that the processes involving the NPA to which you have alluded above have taken place does not in itself indicate by any stretch of imagination that the person concerned will be found guilty or that we should pre-empt the due legal process. The court must still be allowed to make a pronouncement or judgment on the person concerned. Z had a better argument in this case, though he did not advance his argument further, that the office of the person concerned may have a role to play in determining whether the person should wait for the due legal process before continuing or re-assuming the post concerned.
“Even though I am not a card carrying member of the ANC I am a South African voter…” This line of argument is completely impertinent. I did not say that you cannot comment thereon. However, you went a step further than commenting and demanded that the ANC Chief Whip should “should first be allowed to clear his name.” If this does not amount to not merely commenting then I do not know what would. This is actually a demand based on incomplete due legal process aimed at discrediting the ruling party’s Chief Whip and not mere comment. For argument’s sake, if this is a mere comment, then it is not a fair comment considering the circumstances…
Bongs // Oct 27, 2008 at 1:36 pm
………………………………………………………………………………..
Definitely not. Statistically, however, it would appear as if judges and magistrates are more or less on the same levels as far as problems with alcohol are concerned. (There are many more magistrates than there are judges; magistrates are also paid peanuts in relation to judges; their frustration levels are much higher; their independence and tenure are less protected; etc.).
Bongs // Oct 27, 2008 at 1:36 pm
The Rat can be excused only in so far as driving part is concerned, so far. I have always doubted his judgment on this blog at certain times. There also seems to be a pattern about the times that his judgment is found lacking. I guess the general populace is safer at those times!!! eish, if only the same can be said for us as well
Mouse,
If I did not know better I would deduce that you are making (feeble) excuses for the uncalled for behaviour of the magistrates… Prove me right by saying that is not what you are doing…
Sne,
If you read my post carefully again you will note that I have not suggested that the fact that there has been an investigation and a docket compiled and that it has been reviewed by a prosecutor that “that we should now forget about the presumption of innocence and the due legal process” or “that the person concerned will be found guilty”.
Your argument in your first post was based on the fact that people should not be asked to recuse themselves on the basis of mere allegations trumped up by minority parties. My counter argument was that Booi ‘s case is not just a mere allegation by minority parties, but that it was different from that due to the reasons mentioned above. The allegation against him has gone through a few checks to make sure that it is more than just a false allegation. First comes the allegation, then there is an investigator who investigates to see whether there is a basis to the allegation, then the next check is the prosecutor who will check to see if there is a case and who will not prosecute if there is none.
Of course the fact that the prosecutor has reviewed the case and decided to prosecute does not mean that Booi will definitely be found guilty. I have never suggested that. I said that he must first be allowed to clear his name before he is appointed to such an important position, which means I still believe that there is a real possibility that he might clear his name (in other words be found not guilty).
I am not naive about criminal investigations. I was a defence attorney for years and I know that a case which sometimes seems very winnable to a prosecutor by reviewing a docket could very well fall apart once the witnesses start folding under cross-examination.
The mere fact that I expect the ANC not to appoint him while he has this cloud of suspicion hanging over him and while he is embroiled in a legal battle does not mean I am denying him his right to be presumed innocent by the court until he has been proven guilty. I even commented in my first post that his actions of insisting on a trial makes me want to believe that he might be innocent.
How is commenting on my expectations a “demand” and “not fair comment”. Am I not entitled to comment on what my views are about apointments made by the ANC?
Persons apointed certain positions get to make important decisions about law enforcement (issues for instance the future of the DSO)and other issues that affect me as member of the public, whether I am a member of the ANC or not. I thinks its therefore justified of me to expect them first to be cleared before they are appointed.
Sne – Not really. What I’ve said does not justify taking refuge in the bottle – I admit. I was merely trying to point out that it is not only magistrates that fall sometimes, but judges as well. Come to think of it, many parlementarians have also in the past been accused and convicted of drunken driving – including the now anti-revolutionary Terror Lekota and some others that were on correctional supervision – and then, that Minister with the liver transplant. Why the fuss in Parliament about magistrates, where the own ranks have similar problems? Abuse of acohol is an illness, and shoud be treated as such – not raved and ranted about by people that are just as guilty.
Khosi – I can assure you that the times we’ve disagreed, I was not intoxicated, perhaps you were? Not that I do not take a drink from time to time – but I can assure you, I never drink and drive – and I would never ascend the bench when even slightly intoxicated. But, I take what you have said as a joke.
Khosi – but when I take the hard stuff, I do use ‘eish’, yes
This is a very interesting and eloquent discussion. To me it seems that it goes to the heart of what we see as the appropriate standard of public morality in our democracy. On the one side there are those of us who believe that public morality cannot stand or fall with conviction in a court of law – otherwise we would never be able to make a public evaluation of people like PW Botha, Wouter Basson, George W Bush or Idi Amin for that matter as none of these people have ever been convicted of any crime. We believe respect for the electorate means that political parties should also be sensitive to the perceptions of the public and should be careful not to act in any way that might suggest that the party condones corruption or criminality. This view is based on the assumption that public morality requires political parties and politicians in a democracy should respect voters and should act with care and consideration to uphold high public morals.
On the other side are those who believe that until a person is convicted of a crime, it would be unfair to condemn that person and “punish” him or her – even when that person is a politician – because it would not accord with the presumption of innocence. My view is that although it might be (temporarily) unfair to the individual who is charged wrongly to require them to step aside from high public office, it demeans our democracy not to hold public representatives to a certain moral standard independent of criminal conviction in a court of law. One must always assume a person is innocent until proven guilty, but one must also be aware that in politics perception is just as important as the reality. If Mr Booi recused himself and he is acquitted, he will then have every right to take up the post of Chief Whip. Until he is acquitted or convicted, he will remain under suspicion (because the NPA – an independent constitutional institution – has decided that he has a case to answer) and it does not seem appropriate for such a person to hold high public office while under such a cloud. That is why both Mr Zuma (and to a lesser extent Thabo Mbeki) were removed from office. This rule should apply regardless of the political party involved. It is not based on hatred of an individual or prejudice against a particular political party, but on a specific view of public morality.
Perhaps what is needed is a broader discussion in our society about public morality and what we can and should expect of our public representatives in our democracy. How much do we value that democracy and to what extent do we respect the electorate. Am I old fashioned in holding this view?
“Am I old fashioned in holding this view?”
Pierre, if that’s “old-fashioned”, bring it on! The ANC, knowing that it will win next year’s election, is fit to burst with bravado and triumphalism. Why on earth should they even bother to respect the electorate?
To ‘Terror Lekota’: please prove you are who you claim you are. Same goes for people on this blog who give themselves names such as ‘Ehud Olmert’. ‘Stalin’ may be absolved, as he’s talking from the grave … really, there should be a law against this.
Prof de Vos – Not at all ‘old fashioned’. If that view is ‘old fashioned’, then I believe politics have spiraled beyond any human control – and ‘democracy’ is not worth the implications of the term at all. As long as the electorate can be blinded into following corrupt morals, just because the (corrupt) leaders manage to stay beyond the reach of the law (with taxpayers’ money and fat-cat leagal eagals’ help); and, just because they say they have won the revolution and freedom for the people. (I don’t believe them, because many other role-players were involved – e.g., they wouldn’t have gotten very far without international support – the very support they seem to reject sometimes when South Africa’s stance on international affairs becomes relevant, like the time the ol’ RSA voted against sanctions in the Zim matter and utilized its ‘struggle allies’ to clinch the veto.) But, in any event, at least, if the ANC wins the next election – and I think that is going to have to be ‘boomskraap’ to clinch it, we ‘educated’ members of the public will know that the proletariat has elected crooks to run the country. And, when we (and our children) go hungry and thirsty (have you seen the thing on 50/50 concerning the water crises that emerged since 1994?!), we will only have ‘Revolution before Education’ to blame. On the issue of PW Botha et al that you’ve mentioned, don’t you think that a case of genocide can be made out against Thabo Mbeki and Beetroot-head Msimang? Or, against the ANC, for that matter, because Khosi once said that TM’s silence on HIV was ordered by the ANC and he, as a loyal cadre, heeded the call (to state that AIDS is not only caused by HIV, but that poverty [and, possibly, apartheid, has everything to do with it!). I hope (nay pray) that (although I don’t like him much) Terror Lekota’s movement (‘Shikota’) gathers enough steam to at least bridle the once mighty ANC to the extent that it knows that not the entire electorate is stupid enough to keep on fueling its power crazy yearn for more gravy, but that the people want to be governed, not oppressed.
I know this has nothing to do with this discourse, but a stupid thought just popped into my mind (what mind?).
What could happen if ALL non-Blacks stage a three day ‘stay-away- from-work’ for absolutely no reason at all?
Anonymouse // Oct 27, 2008 at 9:31 pm
The part in the brackets is incorrect. I never said that and I do not think its even true.
“because Khosi once said that TM’s silence on HIV was ordered by the ANC and he, as a loyal cadre, heeded the call (to state that AIDS is not only caused by HIV, but that poverty [and, possibly, apartheid, has everything to do with it!)”
Put more ‘eish’ next time, it might help reduce the toxicity of you klipdrift.
Clara, what’s in a name that a rose by any other name will smell just as sweet?
Many of those who have commented, have taken an objective view of this situation in measuring Booi against the high standards expected of someone in his position. Much the same is done with Zuma.
However, if one were to take a more subjective approach, we might find that many of us would not measure up to the high standards we expect of our leaders. While some might argue that it is for this very reason that we are not in positions of public office, I believe that the average politician is merely human.
One of the reasons why Madiba and Mother Theresa are so vaunted, is because they are exceptional. Were we all to be so above reproach, they would cease to be so highly regarded because they would constitute the norm, and NOT the exception.
Imagine for one second that you began your life as a dirt poor individual with little formal education and you were suddenly faced with holding the highest office in the land. Would you also not fight tooth and nail to achieve that dream? I do not know much about Booi, but somehow I think that the opportunity to hold the position of Chief Whip of the ruling party is a dream come true that he would not be willing to relinquish without a fight.
For some of us, were we to look honestly at ourselves, perhaps we would find that we too may not be so quick to take the moral high ground in a similar situation.
For this reason, I feel that the problem lies not in the individuals, but within the NEC of the ANC. One would hope that the collective conscience of those who hold the power within the organization would be of a higher standard than that of an individual faced with the choice of giving up a dream.
As a collective, their decision-making should be more objective in seeing that the ideals of their party coincides with the ideals of the people they represent. Within their hands lies the power to determine who the best people would be to assume positions of power and be the face of their organization. By their appointments, they inform their constituents and the people of this country of the standards to which they hold themselves. When these positions are filled by individuals whose personal morals are questionable, one is left with the feeling that the ANC as an organization is facing moral bankruptcy.
Samantha // Oct 27, 2008 at 11:54 pm
……………………………………………………………
I could not have said it better…
Anonymouse // Oct 27, 2008 at 5:55 pm
……………………………………………………………..
“Why the fuss in Parliament about magistrates, where the own ranks have similar problems?”
……………………………………………………………
“I was merely trying to point out that it is not only magistrates that fall sometimes, but judges as well.”
………………………………………………….
Your argument is along the lines of the Zuma supporters when they say that Zuma should not have his day in court because there are others who were not charged though they are part of his illicit frolics.
The fact that Parliamentarians and even judges also do drink and be on the other side of the law does not at all minimise the immorality and illegality of the magistrates’ drinking and driving problems, including committing other crimes like culpable homicide, destruction of property, etc.
Magistrates, as well as judges and Parliamentarians, enjoy a certain standing in our society. This, inter alia, presupposes that they must endevour to live by example at all material times. This is the corollary of, or is neccesitated by, the importance or gravity of the posts or offices they hold in our society. In order for the offices that they hold to continue to enjoy the respect and confidence of the people who are served by these offices, the incumbents of these offices have a duty to keep their conduct above suspicion, as far as this is reasonably possible.
But, as was admitted by the counsel of O.J. Simpson, John Cockran I think, one can promise that he will not commit any crime but one cannot promise that he will not be charged of any crime.
Therefore, Mouse, be a responsible citizen and most importantly, a responsible magistrate…
Sne – I wholly agree. It does hoewever become frustrating if only the bottom half of one part of the trias politica is singled out to point fingers at. But I agree, irresponsible magistrates who are convicted for driving under the influence of liquor should not be magistrates (they can indeed in my opinion be impeached – they try people for drunken driving so, if they are themselves guilty thereof, it is aggravating). But, then again, irresponsible judges, MP’s and members of the Executive should be equally subject to criticism. I know it sounds kind of Zumaish, but, like Hesiod once said, it is hard for the righteous man to be righteous, if the unrighteous is to have the greater right.
Khosi – I drink Red Heart from the Carribean, not Klippies. Sorry, the bracket sought to indicate that was not what you have said, but indeed what TM has said at occasion, to show that he didn’t remain silent..
Sne,
Thanks for that!!
It is my absolute pleasure ma’am…
What did you expect from this ANC? This is the same ANC that gave Mr Yengeni a hero’s welcome when released at Pollsmor even when he was commencing his prison sentence leading the entourage was the former speaker of parliament. My main concern is the tainting of the legislative role in the constitutional democracy. they are just reducing the role of the legislature to that of mickey mouse institution. How is it going to conduct its oversight role over the executive if people who lead the institution have corruption charges hanging over their heads…