Irene Grootboom died last week, but we hardly noticed as we were all too busy obsessing about yet another court appearance of Mr. Jacob Zuma. She died homeless and penniless, not yet fifty years old, in the same week that robbers broke into the garage of ANC Youth League President Julius Malema’s upmarket home in Sandton and stole stuff from his C-Class Mercedes.
The ANC Youth League did not have time to issue a press statement about the death of Mrs. Grootboom. They were too upset about the break-in at the fancy house of Mr. Malema. Breaking into a C-Class Mercedes is apparently not a revolutionary act – especially if that C-class belongs to Comrade kortbroek Malema. Thus the Youth League did have time to pontificate on this break-in: who cares about a poor and destitute woman who made legal history if there is a revolution to be fought and a man of dubious ethical standards to be defended. The Youth League statement reads in part:
We hold a firm view that this dastardly act of cowardice is the work of desperate forces who believe they can intimidate us into submission. It is a sad day in our country to realise that we still have apartheid-style tactics where one’s residence is ransacked with impunity. We dare these forces of darkness to confront us openly in broad daylight. The Youth League condemns this act of cowardice in the strongest possible terms. An attack on leaders of the ANCYL is an attack on the ANCYL itself.
For me this juxtaposition seems to sum up much of what is wrong in South Africa (and with the ANC and the debate about Jacob Zuma) in 2008. Mrs. Grootboom made legal history when the Constitutional Court (those pesky counter-revolutionaries!) delivered judgment in a groundbreaking case that carried her name, giving some content to the right of access to housing guaranteed in article 26 of the Constitution.
Eight years ago the Constitutional Court ruled in Grootboom’s favour, saying that she and others living in an informal settlement on Wallacedene sports ground near Kraaifontein had a right to demand from the state to act reasonably to provide access to housing to all South Africans by devising and implementing a housing policy that did not neglect the most poor and vulnerable members of society.
Because the state’s housing policy did not cater at all for homeless people – those in urgent need – the Court declared the state’s housing policy to be unreasonable and thus invalid. But because it was careful to respect the separation of powers and because it feared that it did not have the institutional competence to dictate to the state exactly how it had to act to progressively provide more and more South Africans with better and better access to housing, the Constitutional Court found that Mrs. Grootboom could not demand a house from the state. She could only demand that the state act reasonably to implement a housing policy.
Implicit in the Court’s judgment was an assumption that the state really cared about people like Mrs. Grootboom and that, given some guidance, the government would eventually address the needs of Mrs. Grootboom and others like her. It assumed that the members of government would not spend its time fighting about positions and power, but would really try to help people like Mrs. Grootboom who had placed their names on housing waiting lists many years before in the hope of accessing housing.
Eight years later this assumption seems rather optimistic, to say the least. As the disastrous anti-poor N2 Gateway project has shown, the government often seems more concerned about what Sep Blatter and rich overseas visitors might think as they drive from the airport to the new R300 million 2010 soccer stadium, than what is best for the poor and homeless citizens of South Africa.
And aided and abetted by “revolutionary” judges like Judge President John Hlophe, the state’s housing policy now often seems to consist of attempts at removing destitute citizens from prime land close to job opportunities near city centres to far-away townships in order to make way for middle income houses for people with the necessary ANC connections to jump to the front of a housing queue.
Although many houses have been built by our government and many people provided with access to housing, the needs of the really poor and destitute – like Mrs. Irene Grootboom – still do not seem to be a priority for politicians who drive around in fancy cars and live in leafy suburbs among the despicable white racists they so enjoy to deride and whom they need to give legitimacy to their (mis)rule.
Mrs. Irene Grootboom was a true revolutionary. She put her trust in the law, our courts and in politicians to help her to get access to a house. But true revolutionaries hardly ever live happily ever after. Unlike the fake revolutionaries who steal our money and spew populist platitudes masquerading as concern for the people, true revolutionaries often die young, penniless and homeless.
Mrs. Grootboom’s death shames us all. Is it too much to ask that her death might galvanize us into re-focusing our attention on the real pressing problems facing South Africa – on poverty and the lack of opportunities facing many people like Mrs. Grootboom who do not know and could not care less about Jacob Zuma or Julius Malema or anyone else driving a Mercedes (or a Porsche)?
Naaah, I am obviously being naive. Who would care about a poor destitute woman when one has so much more important things to do – like getting into one’s C-Class Mercedes to go and give another revolutionary speech about how one would kill or die for a man who took more than R4 million in bribes from a convicted crook.
Irene Grootboom…… “To become a Modern Day Saartjie Baartman?”
This really highlights the tragedy of our country.
Pierre,
“Who would care about a poor destitute woman who has so much more important things to do – like getting into one’s C-Class Mercedes to go and give another revolutionary speech about how one would kill and die for a man who took more than R4 million in bribes from a convicted crook”.
I find your article 100% out of rubbish and contains shit comments. You can try to poison some but you poison us all.
Why is Zuma then waiting for his day in court if you (we)already have the verdict that he did take more than R4 million in bribes? Are you a law professor or a Political Science professor? Surely you not the law professor, you specialised in Political science. You have no understanding of the fundamental legal-constitutional principles. For your information, our legal system (constitution) guarantees the right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty.
Am I correct to say you are violating or and going against the provisions of the constitution (the same document you profet to be an expert in) by undermining the presumption of innocent until provenm guilty principle? Why are you then telling that YES indeed Zuma did take bribes more than R4 million? Why is he then going to court if he already guilty. Are you objective Mr professor? are your so called opinions neutral?
Secondly, The Grootboom case is the leading constitutional case under Socio-economic rights. Surely every legal schoolar knows about this case.
We all know the outcome of the case. The ConCourt ruled that Parliament/ Government should meet its constitutional obligation (socio-economic rights) to provide houses to the poor provided that it has reasonable resources to do so.
My question to you how does Malema and Zuma fit in? Was or is Zuma the current state president at the time of the judgement? Let alone Malema he wasn’t Youth League’s president at the time. Did the ConCourt ruled that Zuma and Malema should meet their constitutional obligation on socio-economic rights by reasonable looking at the available resources? Mr professor go read the judgement again.
Hence I say your article is out of rubbish and shit!
The question rather, should be: have the Mbeki goverment and parliament complied with the Grootboom ruling as stated by the ConCourt?
You Mr professor seem to ask the question as follows: Have Zuma and Malema complied with the ConCourt ruling in Grootboom? How stupid and bias this professor is
Do you really want us to comment on this crap article?
Let’s not beat about the bush……. Zuma is as guilty as hell!!!
And no amount of ranting and raving is gonna change the outcome that the court’s will reach –>lindelani maseko
Professor, I don’t think you can blame JZ for not worrying about Mrs Grootboom and how the State failed her.
His currently (and frantically) making sure that his Socio-economic rights are gonna be seen to by the state once he gets into his orange suit.
This story about Irene tells one that it is better to have good leaders than to have a good constitution. My dear friend calls thsi the human factor!
So why comment Lindelani Maseko?
Fact: Zuma was Depuy State President at the time that the judgment was delivered.
When I first read Prof de Vos’s post I thought that its funny the ANCYL statement shows that this act, a criminal act, has have some sort of political motive. Why is it that the robbers did not just see a fancy car in an affluent suburb and break into it? Is it that impossible to concede that this was just a crime? Maybe its because the ANCYL jumps around protecting criminals so they can’t also say that this is just theft (which is in essence what JZ did by taking what is not his). Or its because we don’t feel that crime is a serious problem in this country until one of our politicians is affected? Its such a tragedy when the KZN Premier’s house is burgled the public must care.
I would imagine Prof de Vos is making a comment about the politicians who claim to be pro-poor being the same people who live in exclusive areas and drive cars with hefty price tags yet still suggest that SA should be more socialist.
Lindelani, I feel that your post on the issue was just directed by your blind rage or your dislike of Prof de Vos or of his opinions. I believe he did clear up the question of whether or not the average Joe can have an opinion as to Zuma’s guilt by moral convictions. I, in any case, don’t feel that we are all under a duty to presume accused persons innocent, the accuser can’t possibly do that, nor his or her family and friends. Its only the courts and the Justice system that have that duty. You’ll find that professors of Political Science know quite a lot about the constitution and the rights that constitutions generally preserve, its part of the subject-matter of political science.
Last wek when I saw the news report on Mrs Grootboom I thought how sad it was that she died before getting her house. If the decisions of the CC cannot, or are not respected then what place is there for the ideals of justice among the vast group of poor South AFricans? Where can they turn to if the people they elected to power neglect them and the justice system fails to protect them because it is not regarded as vital to democracy?
The law should exist to protect people, the state should serve them, the politicians should serve them too. Why should those in power have fancy cars, wonderful salaries and live wonderfully when they fail to do their job? They should have made sure Mrs Grootboom got a house out of embarassment. They didn’t. Of course we must start being accountable for what we have done, or are neglecting to do, in our country. JZ was the Deputy-President fo South Africa at the time so I will bunch him with all the other officials who wantonly disregard the people they serve and further their own interests at the expense of the poor.
I hope that this doesn’t offend any sensitivities, I am probably also a counter-revolutionary now.
Nkululeko,
I think Pierre is the law professor and his (academic legal opinions) opinions are considered by the court of law when making an informed decision, especially in matter of crucial public interest such as the current one of president Zuma.
Besides his cases being of high public interest, their nature are kind of ‘new’ to our constitutional jurisprudence. Also look in the Hlope matter, his application to high court is ‘strange’ in our legal fraternity thus court will utilise all sort of constitutional guidelines (including considering academic legal opinions) to reach the informed decision.
Now my concern is that Pierre is one of these so called constitutional experts (and also the academic) who might be given such opinions.
Without presenting further counter argument I believe the level of hate, prejudice and the uninformed prejudgemental attitude Pierre has against Zuma is questionable and is of serious concern.
Poor old Lindelani ! Comprehension’s clearly aren’t your strong point ! How on earth did you manage to extract this:”Did the ConCourt ruled that Zuma and Malema should meet their constitutional obligation on socio-economic rights by reasonable looking at the available resources? Mr professor go read the judgement again.”, from what the prof wrote !!
I think what the Prof was getting at, and correct me if I’m wrong, was, that instead of the people, who have a voice and public influence focusing on and remembering/honouring those members of society who’s action’s and sacrifice have contributed to a improved standard of living for all south african! The Youthful Mr Malema choose to issue a statement accusing ‘counter revolutionaries’ of breaking into his car !
Instead of focusing on conspiracy and wild accusations, Malema could have used the opportunity he was presented with to address a real issue that is threatening South Africa….CRIME ! But I suppose for him beleiving he is at the centre of some huge political plot, is simple much more fun !
Lindelani, a quick lesson: (1) I am not a judge hearing the case against Zuma so I am not infringing on his rights to a fair trail. (2) I am not saying anything that the highest court of the land has not confirmed, namely that Shaik bribed Zuma – that is why Shaik is serving a 15 year jail sentence -albeit from a hospital bed. Calm down brother, because anger and hysteria does not allow for serious reflection and critical thought….
Pierre,
You miss my point once again. I am not talking about the Shaik’s conviction hear. “I am not saying anything the the highest court of the land has not confirmed, namely that Shaik bribed Zuma”
I totally disagree with your statement. Shaik was not mainly convicted because he bribed Zuma. In Shaik’s trial, the question before the court was not whether Shaik did or did not bribe Zuma. Shaik stood trial for his own corrupt dealings, eventually Zuma’s name got dragged-in when evidence was heard.
The judge made mere remarks (which he denied afterwards) that there was a generally corrupt relationship between Zuma and Shaik. Pierre, you wrong. The judge never ever said that ” SHAIK YOU GUILTY FOR ILLUCITING BRIBES TO MR ZUMA” I dare you to prove that. It’s not on record.
So now would you please explain where did you obtain that the Court found Shaik of bribing Zuma (that is why he’s imprisoned).
Once again you failing to get your facts straight Mr professor.
Gazzo,
Why is Pierre not addressing his concerns to the first stateman being Mbeki? is it because Mbeki is paying Pierre’s salary?
I don’t understand how on earth a person can jump the gun and blame someone who is in the bottom of the list (MALEMA) leaving the majority of the decision makers untouched.
Nkululeko,
” Why should those in power have fancy cars, wonderful salaries and live wonderfully when they fail to do their job”
I totally agree with your statement this is very much wrong. I think this statement should be directed to Mbeki and his cabinet not to Zuma.
Given the latest dissapointments of the Eastern Cape and the Western Cape premiers for not working for the upliftment of the poor in the province, I regard this to be a practical demonstration by Zuma in favour of your statement (above).
“JZ was the deputy president of South Africa at the time so, I will bunch him with all the other officials who wantoly disregard the people they serve aand further their own interests at the expense of the poor”
Nkululeko I once again I agree Zuma has to be bunched with the rest of the cabinet and parliament for failing in this regard. Indeed he was the deputy at the time of the Grootboom judgement.
What I fighting for here is the singled-out (isolation) approach or should I call it an NPA approach adopted by Pierre in this regard.
Pierre is not blaming the Mbeki cabinet nor parliament for failing to comply with the Grootboom judgement. He attaches blame to Zuma and Malema as if they are the current heads of state.
This is the same isolating wherewithall blameworth approach that angers the rest of South Africa in relation to the Zuma “charges”. People are not saying Zuma is innocent or should not be charged, NO NO WE ARE NOT SAYING. What we saying is conduct the full inquiry/investigation and charge (and sentence) everyone who’s involved (including most of cabinet ministers and Mbeki) do not single-out Zuma.
Come on now the impartial prof did say zuma received a 4mil rand bribe from shaik. To think zuma is wasting so much money in his defence yet the fortune-telling prof knew all along is sad,poor zuma. What did this grootboom die of? Was her death accommodation(less) related? I think the great prof is a typical white whiner! It would make more sense if u took a swipe at manto tshabalala
Wow, I have been ‘scanning through’ the debate and what I pick up is just what Pierre mentioned. The debate went from the great Ms Grootboom right back to Jacob Zuma’s corruption trial and Julius Malema’s E Class (Yes E Class, not C Class).
I have to agree that Pierre has a point. Somehow our morals as South Africans have failed us. We lost sight of the true problems this country face to the politics surrounding the Zuma trial and Julius Malema’s public statements.
Let us get back to the real issue that should be debated.
1) What is the true interpretation of ‘progressive realisation’, considering that Ms. Grootboom died while waiting for a house?
2) What impact does ‘progressive’ case law, like the TAC and Mazibuko cases have on this interpretation?
3) How will this assist the ‘poor and needy’ people which truly placed there trust in the ANC government that they voted for?
I think we should go to the townships and go and ask someone who has been on the waiting list (for a lifetime I’m sure) about their view of the break-in at Sandton of the E-Class Mercedes of Julius Malema and the impact this has on their right to access to housing. I think we should go to the townships and ask this same person his view on Jacob Zuma’s corruption trial in light of his right to access to housing.
Let us face fact, the wonderful Grootboom judgment failed Ms Grootboom and many others who are still waiting for houses.
lindelani maseko // Aug 12, 2008 at 12:37 pm
……………………………………………………………………….
Man I give it to you… You are stiff, stubborn, pertinacious, adamant, insipid, stupid, an imbecile, an ineptitude, etc…
In law there is a corruptor and a corruptee… If there is someone (Shaik) who is serving a jail term for corruption, surely there must be another person (Zuma) who was, and not might be, involved in the corruption…
Make your own conclusion in view of the Professor’s deduction based on facts by the way…
Lorenzo,
“Let us face fact, the wonderful Grootboom judgement failed Ms Grootboom and many others who are still waiting for houses”.
You urging that THE WONDERFUL GROOTBOOM DECISION FAILED MS GROOTBOOM AND MANY OTHERS because of Zuma “corruption charges” and the brake in to the Malema house? How wonderful?
Lindelani you are showing cumbersome signs of psychological imbalance for someone in our career. Except for the rantings of a raving lunatic it seems that you have an over whelming compulsion to have the last say and it seems each of the people who are geniunely trying to gide your thoughts in the right direction ends up as your next victim. I believe this is the reason why you cannot learn anything new.
I hope you try to address these problems in your own time from now on as I’m quite disturbed by your latest comments.
Stalin, what is a white winer?
Lindelani, Prof de Vos is not one of the sources of our (SA) law, so I do not understand why you say his opinion is considered by the courts in order for them to make an informed decision. You will remember again that documents submitted in court as evidence / exhibits do not automatically become admissible, so I do not see the basis of your fear about Prof raising his opinion in this blog. You will do well do revise your law 1 study guide (if you have ever been a law student at all) because, the way I see it, if I refer you to a text book I will be asking for too much.
At the same time I must mention that you are indeed one of the important and interesting contributors in this blog. The problems I have with you, as some of my colleagues have stated in this blog, you seem to allow the hysteria and emotions in you to dominate your thinking and eventually the presentation of your argument. At the end of the day, it is the same bull of hysteria that dominates your arguments than facts or the opinion you are trying to put across. The other problem, which clearly shows the camp to which you belong, is illogical and selective thinking. That is why you do not understand the link between Zuma, R4m, Shaik, Grootboom’s judgment and Malema in Prof’s article and other comments posted.
Mdanisi,
I didn’t Pierre’s opinions will be considered by courts. I may be considered by courts.
I think you should know, as young as I am (24), I know I am going to be influential (in future) in this country believe or not.
We still have a long way to go
lindelani, what is your oppinion on the matter of Mr Mbeki and the R30 million bride ?
Although I’m inclined to agree that we should not condemn JZ too much before the court has it say (although technically Pierre is within his rights and the Shaik judgment is there for all to see), I feel that JZ and Julius and Mbeki should hang their heads in shame re the Grootboom case.
Lindelani, explain to us why you like JZ so and why he can’t be replaced by another leader? I have asked you this many times, but you always evade the question?
JZ does not have a particularly pro-poor history in government. Tell us why you think he is irreplaceable? Why can somebody like Gwede not do his job? Please, I implore you, explain your thinking.
Mdanisi .sne and godbless i think u r all too hard on lindelani. He does come out with his guns blazing however when u put yo own irritation aside he does back up his assertions with logical and reasonable arguments. Such annoyance at him could just be a reflection of yo own camp esp mdanisi. Wena sne u cant convince people but insulting them, they tend to close shop and retaliate. Godbless a white whiner is a white south african,prof and the likes
And there I thought a white winer was one of those chewy sweets that get stuck at the roof of your mouth.
Stalin, Cosatu have accused Mbeki of showing Stalinist tendencies. Are you perhaps him?
nkululeko
“Where can they turn to if the people they elected to power neglect them and the justice system fails to protect them because it is not regarded as vital to democracy?”
We live in a democracy????
Lindelani
“Without presenting further counter argument I believe the level of hate, prejudice and the uninformed prejudgemental attitude Pierre has against Zuma is questionable and is of serious concern.”
At least there is rationale behind his point of view? You talk blindly in favour of JZ despite his obvious flaws and offer no counter evidence other than ‘conspiracy’ as if that is a rational defence.
Anyway, this article isn’t about JZ. His name may have been mentioned but it’s not about him! It’s about a government that doesn’t stick to it’s word and that is too concerned with its own political agenda than it is the poor people of this country. They buy fancy toys for themselves to ‘pat themselves on the back’ for a job well done but have they actually done any particularly good job? Not in my eyes.
Just let the JZ thing go. He’s guilty until proven innocent in the minds (note: “minds” intended as the PERCEIVED image that we have of your cult leader. Not a legal concept, as you may be unaware) of 95% of this country whether you or the courts like it or not.
Stalin, on white winers… What do we regard Jeremy Cronin as? I think that we should try looking at the reasons for white winers’ opinions and not just that they’re white, we’ll probably find that there is reason behind the evil whiteness.
Lindelani,
I never knew that you thought JZ might just be guilty. I think that he is most welcome to give TRUTHFUL evidence at his trial (eventually) and if it implicates others it can them be used as a basis to prosecute, as there will be greater reason to investigate. Also, why should we not think that where people have a generally corrupt relationship that they were both aware of the benefits of the corrupt activities which one or both are engaged in? We should open our minds up to the idea that he is corrupt (morally and not legally) and possibly even worthy of being investigated.
You will not that I think that all people involved in shady deals should have their day in court.
And Gazzo didn’t blame Malema for the crime rate or say he should have done something about it. He was merely saying the ANCYL could have used the opportunity to speak out against crime instead of talking absolute nonsense.
General comments:
I often wonder how democratic SA is, especially after Rickieboy asked if it was.
I really hope Lindelani isn’t influencial in SA , if he has the same views as he matures.
Wessel! You know Khosi is Mbeki. Why are you asking Stalin such a question?
Nkululeko, mandela addressed white whining to point that his lips were anaesthesised and swollen from the white ass smooching. The only reason white people complain is because they are not in charge politically and will look for anything to moan about unfortunately there is plenty courtesy of mbeki and his ites
Stalin, how dare you! Show some respect! Madiba was anything but a “kiss ass”, he was repeatedly offered early release on condition that he undertook to abandon the struggle. But he refused everytime, and as a result remained in prison! Does that sound like a man who is going to allow himself to be a political pawn for either white or black.
The fact that I am a white South Afican and the vast majority of my frinds are black, is testament to what Madiba has acheived! What you call “white ass smooching” was actually bridge building.
And as for white whining,!!! Listen Stalin, before some one is ; white, black, indian ect…. they are a human being, so when I “whine” about the statistic that one in three girls in SA will be sexually assaulted, or that we have the highest murder rate in the world, about the standard of education& health! I do so because, I see what South Africa is, and what it could be .
By saying white whining, u are soeing the seeds of division between the race groups ! A division which so many people have fought and died against !
Your comments are reckless, insensitive and you should be ashamed! Madiba acheived more good in none day then u could ever hope to acheive !
Gazzo, mandela sold black people out period! Mbeki did his betrayal in Bath sipping single malt with the enemy signing deals without consulting the people. Jail made mandela soft. He spent his entire 5yr term caressing white egos and licking white ass. What did it achieve? Pissed off white young kids at every form of transformation, pissed off rugby bosses,white business that refuses to transform. In mbeki we had a stubborn intelligent black man who refused to budge to white media and repeatedly stuck a finger at them. He had me in utter awe thats until he went beserk. In 2008 we still have white schools who refuse to accommodate black kids. All you hear from white people is how great mandela was and i think to myself it must be a dream! The same man who broke his back and begged for investors and the white media preached the opposite sentiments to international investors. The whole reconciliation has to go down as the biggest CON thd white man has ever pulled on Africans! Mandela is no hero,robben island still holds the real mandela!
Lindalani My brother you spot on. It is true that the prof’s hatred of Zuma overshadows his judgement when it comes to Zuma’s legal problems. Yes prof might not be the judge sitting in Zuma’s cases. But his oppions as an academic of law matters. I bett he sells his ideas to his own white brothers sitting in our courts.
It is true that Shaik was convicted by Squires for his own coruupt deallings not soley for bribing zuma. There is nothing like that in that judgement. Zuma’s name as lindelani alluded to : was dragged during presentation of evidence. There was no pronouncement about zuma being guilty. If this was the case, what is he still doing in our courts.
Lindelani my brother we apreciate your postings. They give the true information that our people need.
Phambili cader!!!
T,
We are getting there. TRUTH BE TOLD!
@ T….
So how would you have liked Mandela to deal with the transition?
Ass lick, youth league, Ice cream eat, dance, desk, I love lamp. Sky Ship, sweets.
I like tree.
Which trasition are you refering to. If its the Mbeki transition. Well jane that depends which shoes would Madiba be wearing. If he was wearing Mbeki’s shoes I tell you the truth he would have handed power peacefully (like he did in 1999) to zuma. But if Madiba was in Zuma’s shoes, I tell you jane he would have fought back hard with all that he has with the same revolutionary understanding and spirit like he did back in the 40′ & 50s. He would have not abandoned his believes and the hopes of millions that he happens to lead. Madiba like Zuma, would have defended the revolution not because there is divine purity in it as Barks once wrote, but because in the balance of forces, it is the one domain that is worth dying for, for the economic liberation of our people from poverty and systemic marginalization caused by decades of apartheid misrule.
This jane is how I would not only have liked Mandela to deal with the transition, but this is how he would have realy dealt with this transition.
Butterflies are flies, but with butter, as in butterflies, you could eat them I guess?
What would you say Lindelani, Mr. T (in a cup fool). Would you say a fool takes you sown to his level and beats you with his own dirty tricks? Do you think whites stole Madiba from you, because he used to be your Madiba, but he excepted offerings from movie stars and appeared in pictures with whites and not with you? Maybe you are just a selfish turd, swimming in a sea of yellow stuff. You know I’m going to master this art of writing anything that comes to mind and beat you at it. Groom shoes!
We would not have to raise corruption or Arms deals; if this money had been spent on service delivery;
“I want a porche” – has had in fingers in the housing pie; and like to fiddle with zuma’s pre-guilt.
and this is how these two are interconnected. Frankly through failure and fiddeling.
Any southAfrican who reads my website will wonder why; we have this huge naval fleet that sits in the dock.
It didn’t help the DRC, Zimbabwe, Africa or Irene Grootboom.
Despite many people saying so before the money was spent, while the money was being spent and now that the money has been spent!
Shame South Africa!!!!
Our constitutional pipe needs reloading
The greed of out politicians, they don’t even really see what is going on in front of them