Members of the Judicial Services Commission (JSC) who read the founding affidavit of Freedom Under Law (FUL) in their application to set aside the decision of the JSC not to properly investigate the complaint of gross misconduct against Judge President John Hlophe, would be hard pressed not to feel ashamed.
Whatever the legal merits of the case presented by FUL, the affidavit builds a strong case that the JSC’s decision was so absurd, irrational and arbitrary that no reasonable person would have been able to make it. FUL contends that in an effort to avoid a situation where Judge President Hlophe (who has been caught out lying in the past) would have to face cross-examination, it decided – without affording the parties any of the procedural protections prescribed in the JSC’s own rules – that even though a prima facie case existed against Hlophe, the CC judges had not been able to prove during the “preliminary hearing” that Hlophe had unduly tried to influence them.
FUL’s affidavit – although it challenges the unlawfulness of the decision on relatively technical grounds – contains powerful pointers that goes to the substance of the complaint and when one reads it one gets the impression that FUL’s lawyers believe that the JSC should have made a credibility finding against Hlophe. FUL argues as follows in this regard;
In exercising [their] constitutional duty, [the JSC] must apply the law of evidence regarding the resolution of conflicting factual versions. It is well-established that this requires a determination of the witnesses’ credibility, their reliability and probabilities. The JSC cannot abdicate this responisbility because the complianants and those against whom complaints are made are judges. If it were so, the power given to the JSC under section 177 and its rules would become meaningless whenever a judge denies a charge.
FUL points out that the JSC decision failed to consider crucial evidence which shows not only premeditation on the part of Hlophe, but supports a credibility finding in favour of Justice Nkabinde. It lists the following issues as pertinent:
-
There was a prior warning by Jaftha to Nkabinde that Hlophe was coming to talk to her;
-
There was supporting evidence of Justice Mokgoro and O’Regan (neither of whom testified at the second “preliminary hearing”) about what was said and what happened;
-
The fatal effect (both on credibility and the issue of pre-meditation) of the evidence that Justice Nkabinde had finished and circulated the note on priviledge before her conversation with Hlophe while Hlophe had claimed Nkabinde had said to him she was still busy working on that note;
-
The inconsistent media statements by Hlophe who had at first dismissed the complaint against him as “rubbish” and asked, rhetorically, how he in Cape Town could influence eleven judges sitting in Johannesburg. Hlophe at first did not admit that he had spoken to two judges of the CC about the Zuma matter, something that he later had to concede he did do by approaching each and talking to them in private in their chambers;
-
Hlophe had not provided a possible explanation why Justice Jaftha – a friend of many years – and Justice Nkabinde would manufacture the evidence which Hlophe disputes;
When Hlophe was challenged during his first interdict application to provide answers to the following questions he failed to do so:
-
does he allege that Nkabinde J is lying in her account of what happened;
-
does he allege that Jaftha AJ is also lying in his account of what happened;
-
does he allege that both Jaftha and Nkabinde allowed themselves to be coerced into making false statements against him;
-
does he allege that Jaftha and Nkabinde lied to their colleagues when, on various occasions, they conveyed what had happened between them and Hlophe to them;
-
does Hlophe allege that the other Judges of the CC have lied about what happened.
Instead Hlophe stated that these questions had to be determined at the JSC hearings. because there were no hearings, Hlophe never had to answer these pertinent questions that fatally undermines his credibility.
FUL seems to have a point. The fact that the JSC chose to believe some aspects of Hlophe’s version of events above that of Nkabinde looks in this context astounding and inexplicable. I think FUL has convinced me that no reasonable person with an open mind could possibly have come to such a decision.
Could you please upload the affidavit? I can’t find it on the FUL website, and would really like to read it.
FUL’s legal team are no fools.
FUL’s affidavit proves:
Cadre deployment to the JSC = unthinking followers of the party line = dictated from Luthuli House = subverting the rule of law.
Mercifully the free press has now fully exposed this situation.
Certainly the constitutionally intended function of the JSC was not supposed to be callously undermined by the ANC and its minions on the JSC. Those so deployed to the JSC should indeed be ashamed of themselves. They’re underminers of the constitution. Their names should be noted by civil society – so that they should never be allowed onto the Bench. Not even in acting positions.
Chris: its at http://politicsweb.co.za/politicsweb/view/politicsweb/en/page71656?oid=147163&sn=Detail
Thank you sirjay, I read the affidavit, and it was certainly not drafted by a fool. Intersting that the absence of the Premier is also mentioned as a flaw in the composition of the JSC. Was it not first mentioned in this blog?
Now my next question: Who will be the four counsel appearing for FUL?
http://constitutionallyspeaking.co.za/where-was-zille/
Sirjay – Thanks for the link. Impressive affidavit indeed. I also wonder who will represent FUL, whether the JSC will oppose the application (and who will represent it);whether Hlophe JP will oppose the application (and who will represent him); and, moreover, how the court hearing the application would be constituted. Will the North Gauteng High Court follow Mojapelo’s lead to appoint an unheard of five (or even more) judges to hear the application? Obviously Ngoepe JP may not be involved in the hearing or in the selection of judges as he was part of the minority decision in the JSC (albeit as Commissioner). Hlophe JP is playing with the big guys now.
Drafted and settled by pro’s [I think Trengove SC and Judge Kriegler would have finally settled the papers], the FUL affidavit is the type of “sample” that should be kept by students, articled clerks, junior counsel, etc. Especially relating to style and form. See paragraphs 1-42 thereof.
And a salute again to the late prof Etienne Mureinik who had a major hand in the drafting of the PAJA act.I think the result is that the right to just administrative action is at this stage possibly the most accessible and enforceable constitutional right in SA.
The accusation by Hlophe, J that the original complaint was motivated by an ulterior motive to “get rid of him” is logically unsustainable. How can a person claim to know the motives of the two most senior judges in the land? And then state this as fact! A judge, of all people, should know that cannot be stated as a fact whyen there are other possibilities involved, including that they were misinformed and were trying to uphold the Constitution.
This should be interesting…a big plus for me is that it will be impossible for the usual chorus of racism, anti-transformation, etc etc to fault the legal reasoning contained in the affadavit – it’s a solid piece of work. Not that this will stop them no doubt, but hopefully their sabre-rattling will be ignored when everybody realises that there is no credibility to their claims. And then, hopefully, this will be settled once and for all, legally and properly.
@ Anonymouse, Chris and Henri:
Agreed: great affidavit. Not the sort of affidavit one would relish trying to answer.
@ Sirjay
Thanks for the link.
Henri: “I think the result is that the right to just administrative action is at this stage possibly the most accessible and enforceable constitutional right in SA.”
And just possibly the only defensive route remaining for the hope of SA. The honorable Lady is off her knees.
I have read the FUL affidavit very carefully.
With respect to all, it reeks to me of extreme HLOPHEPHOBIA!
Mikhaik: are you suggesting this phobia isn’t rational?
“The JSC failed in its constitutional duty to comply with the rule of law, including the standard of rationality and legality, and its duty to assist and protect the courts in order to ensure its independence and dignity. Finally, it did not respect, protect, promote and fulfil the rights of litigants before the courts over which the fourteen judges preside.” Founding affidavit in Freedom Under Law’s application to the high court, October 2009
Actually Mikhaik, and I do appreciate your satire which is so close to the bone it confuses me at times. However, I did not read in the above quote or within the affidavit’s entirety any HLOPHEPHOBIA, only an honorable and courageous attempt for a justice vital to the future, and present, of South Africa.
Perhaps for great satire, if you’re not already a fan, try http://www.mg.co.za/zanews
The focus on the reluctance of judges Jafta and Nkabinde to lodge a complaint as evidence that the whole business was contrived is not logically or legally valid.
I am not sure if the F.U.L document says this, but the alleged “crime” of Hlophe, J was not against the two judges, it was against the court as a whole, against the Constitution, and against the people of South Africa as a whole. Any one of us who became aware of the facts logically had the right to lay the complaint with the J.S.C..
Also, once the matter has been brought, judges Jafta and Nkabinde did not possess the discretion to let it rest. They do not have the right to keep quiet about a crime against all of us.
That Mamphela Ramphele makes the affidavit is just fantastic.
It’s kind of hard to fight an affidavit with cries of racism when Steve Biko’s lover, and one of the countries foremost black intellectuals are on the other side of the affidavit.
What she is doing is of course entirely in step with black consciousness. Biko said that a time is coming where blacks should talk less about black problems in reference to whites. It is a negative exercise. That was many years ago. That time has long come.
Mikhaik Dworkin Fassbinder says:
October 16, 2009 at 18:36 pm
Hey Dworky, tell me what I am thinking.
71. …. Jafta did not at that stage form the impression that Judge Hlophe was trying to influence the outcome of the Zuma/Thint cases.
Eish!
83. After hearing of Judge Hlophe’s approach to Justice Nkabinde, Justice Jafta formed the impression that Judge Hlophe had sought to influence the outcome of the Zuma/Thint cases when they had had their conversation in March 2008.
Ah, now he gets it!
95.1. Without invitation, Judge Hlophe visited the chambers of Justice Jafta. Again without invitation, he raised the matter of the Zuma/Thint cases that had been heard by the Court. In the course of that conversation, Judge Hlophe sought improperly to persuade Justice Jafta to decide the Zuma/Thint cases in a manner favourable to Mr Zuma
Not according to para 71.
95.2. …Without invitation, Judge Hlophe initiated a conversation with Justice Nkabinde about the Zuma/Thint cases that had been heard by the Court.
In para 77 He emphasised the importance of the issue of privilege – so what’s with the “Without invitation”?
95.2. ….In the course of that conversation, Judge Hlophe sought improperly to persuade Justice Nkabinde to decide the Zuma/Thint cases in a manner favourable to Mr Zuma.
In para 78 Justice Nkabinde had “formed the impression” – Steroids? Red Bull gives you wings?
Maggs: I fail to understand what you are saying.
If Hlophe J denies most of what Judge Nkabinde says transpired in their meeting, I wonder what they actually DID talk about. Has Judge Hlophe said why he wanted to visit Judge Nkabinde? This was not the friendly popping the head round the door routine… there was a definite purpose. In variance to her version, what does he say his purpose was?
Its a Friday night Mike, quiet, pity as I love to post on friday evenings when the work is completed for the week, well almost.
I think your question has hit the nail on the head: “In variance to her version, what does he say his purpose was?” !!!
Time for some great Graem Beck wine. Cheers.
Maggs, I think you are thinking exactly what I am thinking ….
That this affidavit bears the hideous stench of the foulest HLOPHEPHOBIA yet concocted!
Am I right, or am I right?
Kameraad, I agree with you that it is comforting that Ramphele deposed to the affidavit as it further undermines the already unsustainable view that the proceeding is motivated by racism. And even an unsavory motive (which I do not believe can be reasonably deduced from the facts) would not touch the substance of the application. The affidavit clearly discloses a very cogent basis for the view that the JSC was very much out of order. And this is a way to remind it that it that the rule of law applies to it just as it applies to everyone else.
Mikhail Dworkin Fassbinder says:
October 17, 2009 at 1:14 am
Yo Dworky.
I’ve shared my views about Hlophe with you before, but what better than to quote Barry Bee Benson who at one point (in the history classic Bee Movie) turns to the jury and cries, “He’s not a good fella…he’s a bad fella!”.
That said, I think that I am thinking there’s some tweaking and massaging going on here.
The Eureka moment of Jafta (para 83 vs 71) seems to stretch the imagination a wee bit, not too much just a teeny tiny bit – I think that I’m wondering whether there was some catalyst for the metamorphosis from “did not at that stage form the impression” to “formed the impression”.
I think that I’m thinking that “Without invitation” three times in para 95.1 and 95.2 sounds unconvincing – what is the saying about repeating the truth enough times and it becomes believable?
I think that I’m thinking that “formed the impression” went on a extreme makeover to transform into “sought improperly to persuade” between 25 April and 17 June.
But then I think that I am thinking that Hlophe is the bad guy anyway and he’s got to go – so what the big deal with some sugar and spice and all things nice to make sure he goes, one way or the other?
I think that I am thinking that “Hlophephobia” is a bit extravagant – his ph is now exactly seven.
Any ideas on what I am actually thinking?
sirjay jonson says:
October 16, 2009 at 21:45 pm
Maggs: I fail to understand what you are saying.
——————————————————————————————————-
Hlophe has got to go, what actually happened and the motives of the people involved is not important or relevant.
The truth, as they say, is stranger than fiction.
Mikhail, Maggs,
If there is anything fishy about the “Jafta shift”, then that is precisely what would have been dealt with under cross-examination. But Hlophe et al did EVERYTHING (inlcuding manufacturing a sick note) to delay the process until the Zuma-appointed JSC members could come in and sway the process.
Just as there was a “free Zuma” brains trust, it is clear if one reads between the lines that there has been a “free Hlophe” branis trust, and action committee. I also seems clear that there must be some significant overlap as the President and his advisers have clearly been part of the “free Hlophe” plan.
Remember how anything and everything was tried (except of course for Mr Zuma himself) to have the Zuma corruption case disposed of. Well, Judge Hlophe was clearly part of that plan. He may not have interacted with Mr Zuma directly, but he clearly interacted directly with the Zuma branis trust (anyone want to look up telephone records for Judge Hlophe and Paul Ngobeni?).
In each case, the pretence of legality, a veneer, has been employed towards utterly unlawful ends. Very Mugabe-esque…
@ Leigh
I am not so impressed that Ramphele signed the FUL affidavit. (Take a look at her recent rantings against Affirmative Action.) Tragic that Biko’s lover should have come out as a RACIST HLOPHEPHOBE!
@ Maggs
I fear my powers may be waning.
Mike Atkins says:
October 17, 2009 at 10:10 am
Mike, I have said before that I think that the body that got together is not the JSC, they are just a gang of commissioners.
Kriegler/FUL were correct to challenge the decision but left a lot to be desired in the way they went about this.
Zille is uncharacteristically quiet although her constitutional rights have walked all over.
I don’t think that Hlophe was part of the Zuma strategy on the corruption charges – I think he was the lone ranger trying to act more important than he is and it backfired.
As much as I don’t think that Zuma was part of the “free Hlophe” campaign, I cannot see parliament impeaching Hlophe if it eventually got to that point – I still think that he will be “redeployed” or retire soon.
@ Mikhail
Good morning to you. A number of people have used the term ‘Hlophephobia’. I have come across it on this blog and also, I believe, in press publications. But despite its prevalence, I have yet to encounter a definition of it.
I am sure you have your hands ‘FUL’ battling mother colonialism and her wretched offspring such as the rule of law and critical thought. But if you would drag yourself away from the protest for just a few moments, I would very much appreciate a definition of ‘Hlophephobia’.
Mikhail Dworkin Fassbinder says:
October 17, 2009 at 10:10 am
Hey Dworky – you need some inspiration.
“A mosquito named Mooseblood who helps Barry, and when someone asks him why he became a lawyer, he responds, ‘I was already a bloodsucking parasite, so all I needed was the briefcase.’”
@ Leigh
HLOPHEPHOBIA – n. Chronic aversion to Judge President John Hlophe, based upon Hlophe’s steadfast opposition to racism, unbending commitment to transformation, heroic struggle record, stellar academic contribution, and espousal of indigenous jurisprudence; afflicts largely liberal racists, esp. white lawyers nostalgic for apartheid; thought to be incurable.
Maggs,
i know that this is a tired old one, but I like it: 99% of lawyers give the rest a bad name.
I agree that Judge Hlophe may have been acting as a lone ranger (I wonder whether he reads this stuff). Howeve, Mr Zuma appointed the new JSC Commissioners just in time.
But then I ask myself why the Zuma administration would so consciously act to protect judge Hlophe, and I wonder whether it is because he has proved himself to be so loyal and true a servant, or whether he knows too much (like Schabir Shaik knows too much).
I have always questioned the concept of the “Reasonable Person”. It seems it hasn’t changed from when it was first instituted in our legal system and not at all colourless as we are made to believe.
@ Maggs,
I do tend to agree with Mike here: various points suggest that either (i), the Zuma camp sought to reward Hlophe’s loyalty or (ii), that particular camp sought to protect Zuma by ensuring that Hlophe could not be probed for answers that could ignite suspicions. So I find it quite hard to credit the view that Hlophe acted as a so-called ‘lone ranger’. The cumulative effect of (a) the timely appointment of JSC members (b) the JSC’s aversion to media access to the preliminary investigation (c) the fact that Zuma’s case before the Constitutional Court was pending when Hlophe approached the judges and (d), the resultant decision is that Mike’s analysis appears far from farfetched.
I do have a question for you Maggs: given the circumstances which I have outlined very generally, is it possible that the JSC sought to (a)reward Hlophe’s loyalty to Zuma or (b), protect Zuma by protecting Hlophe?
Please note these two points: first, I do not ask for certainty – only possibility. Second, I would greatly appreciate a direct answer from you especially to my reasonably narrow question.
@ Mikhail,
Thanks for the definition. I’ll make a note of it.
For me the most likely possibility on the facts is that the JSC simply protected Hlope because he is loyal to Zuma.
Harold Ferwood says:
October 17, 2009 at 13:52 pm
“I have always questioned the concept of the “Reasonable Person”. It seems it hasn’t changed from when it was first instituted in our legal system and not at all colourless as we are made to believe.”
I understand the concept as the judge is the reasonable person, however unreasonable he/she may be. So when Hlope RP is hearing the case, he is the reasonable person, and when Hartzenberg J is hearing the case, he is the reasonable person. I never read the Wouter Basson judgement, but I doubt if the reasonable person whould have thought the same if Hlope was on the bench.
If FUL is successful in its application, what happens to the participating members of the JSC?
Mikhaik: “Tragic that Biko’s lover should have come out as a RACIST HLOPHEPHOBE!”
What is not tragic is that she living his beliefs, principles and legacy.
Maggs: “Zille is uncharacteristically quiet although her constitutional rights have been walked all over.” Good point, and I would guess strategy on her part, knowing that you lot are all fighting the good fight, so leaves it to you. Why was she not there, I don’t know.
Although I may get lots of flack by saying this, in my opinion Zille is the one leading politician I trust. If I might add with significantly lack of humility, I’ve known powerful politicians all my life and learned early on to recognize those who are truly committed to the people first, and only to the people; its a religion to some. I had a wonderful teacher pointing this out. We forget sometimes there are people who think this way and who live their position and trust with almost every heartbeat.
“HLOPHEPHOBIA”, Mikhaik, its your term and description I refer to. First, I have often been accused of having no sense of humor so if its humor you are utilizing, then that’s why I’m asking you this question, being confused.
Is this, “in-your-opinion,” that Hlope is a giant among men and jurists, for real. Do you believe this? My grasp of him is that he is anti-poor in his decisions… and more a self enriching elitist with corrupt kingship psychosis.
Can you enlighten me in a way I can understand, irony simply not being something I grasp, a weakness on my part likely. Is irony evolutionary, or revolutionary?
Do you know that in America they grow square sheep in boxes since they are therefore easier to package and ship?
I’ve started reading R.W. Johnson’s SOUTH AFRICA’S BRAND NEW WORLD – The Beloved Country Since the End of Apartheid …
If even half of the allegations mentioned in that book is true I don’t think credibility was ever present in our legal system.
But it is obviously soothing to many to discuss and intellectualize certain issues – one can avoid the harsher reality of things and of course maintain a source of income by advocating that this credibility indeed even exists!
“Is this, “in-your-opinion,” that Hlope is a giant among men and jurists, for real. Do you believe this? My grasp of him is that he is anti-poor in his decisions… and more a self enriching elitist with corrupt kingship psychosis.”
And how would you describe Kriegler???????????????????
Dave A says
17 October 2009, 07:14:49 PM |
“If FUL is successful in its application, what happens to the participating members of the JSC?”
Whoever is a member of the JSC at the time will be participating – so if FUL is successful it will probably be the very same men and women who decided not to proceed with the investigation who will have to investigate. One might say they will not be objective. Perhaps so, but they will be the members of the institution ordered to do their job properly. Should they come to a conclution so unreasonable that it can be said that they didn’t apply their mind to it, the decision can be reviewed by a court again.
My prediction is that Hlope will oppose the application, challenging FUL’s locus standi.
Please read “conclusion” for “conclution”. Is there some way to edit a post?
Harold: perhaps it should have been titled: South Africa’s Brave New World. As for Kriegler, I would describe him as a knight, a hero, a selfless man of honor, courageous… am I being sentimental?
Leigh says:
October 17, 2009 at 14:18 pm
I do have a question for you Maggs: given the circumstances which I have outlined very generally, is it possible that the JSC sought to (a)reward Hlophe’s loyalty to Zuma or (b), protect Zuma by protecting Hlophe?
———————————————————————————————————-
Whatever views we express are based on speculation – there’s no way we will know what really happened, ever.
I don’t hold the view that Hlophe showed loyalty to Zuma or that the JSC was trying to protect Zuma – this is all so messed up by many divergent interests.
Chris says:
October 17, 2009 at 21:57 pm
so if FUL is successful it will probably be the very same men and women who decided not to proceed with the investigation who will have to investigate.
——————————————————————————————————–
Not so.
It was ten members of the JSC who made that decision – it ought to have been 13.
Maggs: “this is all so messed up by many divergent interests”.
That’s exactly it.
So how do we find the middle path, that which serves the people, that which is truthful, honest, worthy.
@Dwork
You really must take care to not compromise your carefully cultivated image as the acerbic-tongued, misanthropic Scarlet Pimpernel of few words that flies the flaming two-faced flag of non-alignment on this blog. It just didn’t seem possible that you would allow the unusually spirited nature of your posting on the ‘jolly-Afrikaner’-site to be so liberally (oops; pun not intended) sprinkled with your pearls of wisdom(not) — in one sitting!!…(damn, another unintended!). I mean, normally you’re a lot more miserly in casting dem pearls… and more assured in your pre-casting routine?? I can however understand that you would feel compelled to show your grudging allegiance to the Mutual Admiration Society that ‘Leigh’ has got purring along so nicely. Or was it my suggested list of South African heroes from the good ol’ days, on the ‘President Zuma’-site, that prompted you to overplay your hand in such unbecoming fashion? Either way, your ungainly tumble from the self-constructed tightrope of amateurish irony(maybe) to the cesspit of sarcasm is not a pretty thing to behold.
Briefly: You should probably brush-up on some of that same “psychoanalysis” which you so kindly identify in my postings. It could probably – for starters – have ensured that your ‘fishing-expedition’ in identifying my personal background , (or would that be a ‘harpooning-expedition’ in your case?), meet with a little more success. I’m sorry if my reference to African Philosophy 101 muddied your waters a little, but I have, (sadly), not yet ingested “Critical Theory”. And your smug old-boys club would certainly be more au fait, than I, concerning the prescripts of “mildly-leftish Media Studies”. I wouldn’t touch anything “mild” with a barge-pole – 90% of your quasi-intellectual colleagues use a “mild” dose of fascism to justify their brand of fence-sitting, on a daily basis.
Briefly, again: Yes, the forum does “go under the name Constitutionally Speaking”… but it ostensibly also “…deals with political and social issues in South Africa” — as stipulated by Professor de Vos. I am sorry that you are occasionally faced with contributions from those of us whom would choose to draw attention to the more tiresome aspects of the ‘real world’, and disturb your pretentious meanderings within the ivory-tower, but… get lost! I will repeat what I have previously alluded to: the circular reasoning and re-hashing of legal argument, in a desperate show of ‘academic’ analysis, with not even a veneer of intent to make any kind of constructive contribution to the South Africa we live in … is sheer indulgence, and amounts to nothing more than mental-masturbation.
Briefly, again: Western ‘reason’ — that much-vaunted pillar of ‘foundational-thinking’ which ‘Leigh’ and other one-dimensional sophists are so fond of deploying in demonstrating the supposed shortcomings in African-oriented contributions on this blog — IS but a cultural construction. Is your sneering reference to ” a tiny nugget of undergraduate social science” an indication of your contempt for that concept of ‘limited application’… or are you merely trying to paper-over the obvious shortcomings in the ‘Leigh’- approach? I would guess that you, personally, hold no brief for that concept of ‘reason’ as cultural construction… but then you would have to also admit that — logically speaking — ‘Leigh’s’ paternalistic lecture to ‘Khosi’ proves that she is obviously absolutely clueless in that regard. Maybe she needs an injection of Social Science?? Because her own brand of ‘reason’ aint so great either: I notice that she has yet to respond to ‘Maggs’s charge of a lack of consistency in her reasoning, (on 15/10- 14:01; on the ‘jolly-Afrikaner’-site)?
Briefly, again: ‘Leigh’s’ posting on the ‘jolly-Afrikaner’-site, (at 16:05), perfectly illustrates the infuriating obfuscation that supposedly passes for legal discourse. I note, Dwork, that you correctly identify the phenomena which I had (scathingly) referred to previously — you merely choose to, sarcastically, label the phenomena in question as “jurisprudential obscurantism” and / or “neutral legal formalism”. ‘A heap of dung by any other name would smell as shiiiiit’?? Re-naming it won’t make it go away — thank you for confirming its existence. Why would ‘Leigh’ choose to take up the cudgels on behalf of those Afrikaans-speakers who feel aggrieved at the supposed trampling of their rights within the field of Education? Sheer bloody semantics and argumentative ’shit-stirring’, with all due respects. What is achieved by ‘Leigh’s’ obsessive “what if”, “let us assume”, “if so”, “I would imagine” and “what happens if” etc. etc. etc. etc. , concerning a matter that the CC has already dealt with and given a final ruling on?? We don’t need futile little academic exercises that can only provide further ammunition to the reactionaries on this blog or, more importantly, to those groupings in civil-society who grasp at any sign of support from supposedly ‘intellectual’-circles. When an African dares voice his or her dissent with a ruling handed down by the judicial system, (or express dissatisfaction with the pronouncement from a court of law), that African is torn to shreds by a ‘learned’ Establishment that insists such dissent is an indication of the inherent lack of respect for the rule of law and the Judicial system in South Africa. Such criticism is immediately trumpeted as proof of the threat which the courts face from a hostile new regime!! Why does ‘Leigh’ feel justified in keeping an agenda of dissatisfaction within Afrikaner ranks alive with pointless nagging, about an issue that she supposedly has ‘academically-inspired’ issues with, without any grounds for personal involvement….. if she, in the process, is demonstrating an unwillingness to accept the CC’s judgment as the final say in the matter?? Why isn’t anyone in that ‘learned’ establishment telling her to shut-up and to respect the outcome of the court’s decision??
Briefly, again: Dwork, you state, (on the ‘Zuma’-site), that “…we recall that one of the reasons the Hlope JP matter had to be dropped was because it would be just too upsetting to have pillars of the black elite hacking each other in public. People would lose respect”. You use that old smear-tactic of just merely hinting that it was ‘the black-elite’ themselves who made that call; but you don’t bother to actually provide the detail?? : It was the great luminaries within the Legal Establishment who first made that call…. supposedly in the interests of the credibility and the stability of the legal system of South Africa. The old-guard, in all their righteous splendour, predicted that the reputation of the legal system would never recover from such a display of infighting within the old-boys club; (how rich!!!!).
Briefly, really: As ‘Harold Ferwood’ has stated above, “I don’t think credibility was ever present in our legal system”.
You apparently enjoy this incestuous circle, where reactionaries who ‘play the game by the rules’ are treated with patience — but where Africans are informed that, although “you have a culture that is obviously dear to you” your views are “disquieting”, (quote ‘Leigh’ on both counts), when they dare to suggest that their own heroes might be less naked than those who hail from the old South African establishment-circles!! The legal system has long lost all credibility at street-level, at magistrate’s-court level, at Supreme Court level– and no amount of obsolete ruminations and perpetual navel-gazing about the technicalities of CC-judgments that have already been finalized will change that. The man-in-the-street will not have his faith restored in the legal system by seeing Judge Hlophe disgraced, or not. He knows that,(in 9 cases out of 10), it all boils down to the quality of representation you can buy in any case. The man-in-the-street will have that faith restored when Justice and Truth are real values; not concepts scoffed at by bitter little men who have in the past regarded those values only as stumbling-blocks.
@ George
Thank you for your kind words.
I would be so happy if you would teach us a little more about this “Real World” to which you refer. Is it a realm of Platonic essences? Where is it exactly? Could we go there one day? Do they accept credit cards?
Just some quick notes:
1. You can sign up to Leigh’s Mutual Admiration Society (“MAS”), at http://www.respect.leigh.wise.co.ru. A small administration fee will be charged to your account.
2. I am happy to direct you to Critical Theory readings, if you like.
3. I appreciate your deprecation of all things “mild,” George – and dread to think what you could do with a little Tabasco!
sirjay jonson says:
October 17, 2009 at 23:11 pm
So how do we find the middle path, that which serves the people, that which is truthful, honest, worthy.
———————————————————————————————————-
Rather search for the holy grail, cold fusion or dark matter.
Mikhail Dworkin Fassbinder says:
October 18, 2009 at 9:55 am
Hey Dworky, stop hassling George (FYI Mozambique Peri-Peri sauce needs more coolant than Tabasco).
You’re a seeker – so help me with this.
At the end of March “Justice Jafta did not at that stage form the impression that Judge Hlophe was trying to influence the outcome of the Zuma/Thint cases.”
But on 24 April “Justice Jafta warned her to be careful because Judge Hlophe would be coming to talk to her about the Zuma/Thint cases.”
Without anything new in between, what’s going on here?
p.s. No smart Alex comments about the Dikethingy.
@ Maggs
You know as well as I what happened. The organised HLOPHEPHOBES got to him. (Bastards!)
@Pierre
“There was a prior warning by Jaftha to Nkabinde that Hlophe was coming to talk to her”
How is that deduced?
See para 71, 72, 74 and 76.
Mikhail Dworkin Fassbinder says:
October 18, 2009 at 12:15 pm
“Hlophe had also boasted to Nkabinde about obtaining a list of people implicated in the multibillion-dollar government arms deal from the National Intelligence Agency (NIA)”.
http://www.mg.co.za/article/2009-04-08-hlophe-case-hears-of-hacking-secret-nia-reports.
Our NIA is like -007. They did not spy on people to get the info, they asked Aunty Pat for it (which she got from some ANC members in the first place).
Hey I like this smart Cable Guy “But the court’s internet technology director assured her that was unlikely” (the having been deleted by the NIA that is, the same NIA that made and leaked some tapes).
Chris says:
October 17, 2009 at 21:58 pm
Please read “conclusion” for “conclution”. Is there some way to edit a post?
I use Internet Explorer 8. There is a icon “ABC Check” . Just click on it and all the wrong spelled words will be underlined. Click on the word and select the correct ones. Then click on Stop. (Same icon.)
obviously this will only harden the hearts of the JSC members – they will come to the same outcome should FUL application be succesfull. Johan Kriegler and them are just wasting their western sponsors money. They should be taking important issues affecting the poor to court, not this! I mean who cares about Hlophe and what he said where and to who? I dont!!!
@ Spuy
If you are not a ‘Dwork’-impersonator ….. right on!!!!!
@ Dwork
Can’t help you with that ‘real world’ thing man, but a willingness to attempt finding it is progress indeed — you really didn’t need to use capitals; I didn’t. But, it is in Africa… and no, Platonic essences definitely don’t feature. I know, terribly disappointing and all that, but I find Ubu-ntu, (as philosophy), a lot more compelling. (And, in reply to your snide reference that there is no word in Pedi for ‘hermeneutics’ …. and that “neither should there be”— did you know that there are no English words for Ubu-ntu? … but that there should be?).
Thanks for the invitation to the MAS… but no thanks. I realize that you might interpret this as family-member of your beloved Rottweiler, Sarcasm, but… I actually do admire the succinctness and incisiveness of your writing. However, I can find NO redeeming feature in the ‘Leigh’-brand of colonialist-detachment.
Cheers.
@ Spuy
“who cares about Hlophe and what he said where and to who?”
Spuy, a lot of us care very deeply about what Hlophe JP said, and when. When Hlophe JP testifies at a reconvened JSC hearing,, he will expose the lies that the HLOPHEPHOBES have concocted, and expose the CONSPIRACY hatched against him by racist liberals, homosexual actvists etc.
We at JFMA (”Justice for Motata Alliance”), are equally eager to take Judge Motata to the JSC. People sometimes forget that Motata J has been NO LESS a victim of the racist liberal conpiracy as has the JP.
We DEMAND that this not be swept under the carpet!
”Justice for Motata Alliance” sounds abit tired.
How about Justice Alliance for Motata – then the acronym would be JAM.
Bylines would be a lot more effective.
- The JAM in the sandwich (with some tea).
- JAM tomorrow.
- JAMaica? Nah – JAMboree.
- Traffic JAM.
Mikhail, so nice of you to make people aware of MAS. It means so much that you would do despite the vast ideological differences between us.
The Mutual Admiration Society (or MAS) actually exists wherever people take the time to earnestly consider counterintuitive or unpopular perspectives. The Professor ought to be very proud of this blog insofar as the MAS often finds a voice here through the elegant and thoughtful postings by valued bloggers such as Sne, Samantha, Sarah, Kameraad, Mayimele, Nkululeko, Mzo, Mpho, Sirjay, Michael to name only a very small few.
A society in which at least some people appreciate the value of tolerance and respectful interaction is one which I think could stand an attractive chance at prospering.
You and I rarely agree. And yet we converse fairly regularly, in moderate tones and with fairly courteous words. And in so doing, we set a decent enough example
Maggs Naidu says:
October 19, 2009 at 8:53 am
Oops – sorry Dworky – that was directed at you.
@ George
Thank you for your fascinating post.
Re Plato, I recommend Martin Bernal’s ‘Black Athena,’ which reveals that Africans (Egyptians), were the originators of all Greek Philosophy, Art, Science, etc.
Oddly, neither the Ancient Egyptians nor Plato mention Ubu-ntu. Perhaps that was Archbishop Tutu’s more recent contribution.
Chris and Pierre – FYI there seems to be a problem with the site. When I got to the botton of the comments where the ‘Leave a comment’ section is, Chris’ name and email were written in – I assume many people wouldn’t want their email address’s on show.
Adv Mokotedi Mpse in an affidavit is opposing DA’s challenge against his decision to drop charges against JZ in favour of Zuma’s personal rights. This is absurd.
http://www.iol.co.za/index.php?set_id=1&click_id=13&art_id=vn20091019044047414C225969
mayimele says:
October 19, 2009 at 11:59 am
Adv Mokotedi Mpse in an affidavit is opposing DA’s challenge against his decision to drop charges against JZ in favour of Zuma’s personal rights. This is absurd.
———————————————————————————————————
And it gets better.
http://www.timeslive.co.za/news/article157186.ece
Maggs Naidu says:
October 19, 2009 at 12:50 pm
Its about time he did. This ambiguity is causing many stomaches to churn. The case against him was a travesty to say the least. And we as South Africans will soon get over it. Look how quickly we forgave Boesak and Hansie.
“A man has no greater love, than to lay down his life for a friend”
@Dwork
There you go again Dwork… living in the past, (when convenient). You know as well as I do that a) the concept of a philosophic ‘universalism’ is still hotly debated, and b) that the ‘Black Athena’ “revelations” are not uncontested. That particular THEORY, with Egypt as birthplace of Western philosophy et al, has been co-opted and abused by at least two different sets of ‘thinkers’… in service of at least two self-serving agenda’s:
— The Western thinkers who ‘honour’ Egypt in that manner, in an attempt at undermining the relevance of contemporary African philosophy, and…
— The African thinkers who are gratified by this apparent recognition of African primacy. and therefore agitate for the acceptance of one ‘universal’ philosophy, (a stance which then, ipso facto, implies that African philosophy has to come to terms with some, unspecified, backlog in its own worldview — and / or implies that African philosophy has no raison d’ être ).
The problematic definition of a truly inclusive African worldview allows only a very tenuous appropriation of the ‘Egyptian-connection’. This fragility is of course opportunistically exploited whenever the ‘universalists’ feel the need to periodically ‘re-examine’ the basis of their own supposed ‘revelations’.
However — if you were to explore Ubu-ntu, as philosophy, you will find that some of those inherent ontological, epistemological and metaphysical concepts might very well have given rise to Platonic essences as constructs.
Either way, the CONTEMPORARY scaffolding of Western philosophy bears only occasional resemblance to the beauty contained within the field of African philosophy — as it is,(for example), elucidated within Ubu-ntu. The speculation regarding an ‘Egyptian-connection’ is largely irrelevant. The areas of divergence, TODAY — between the supposed ‘holy grail’ of Western philosophy and the roots of African philosophy — are substantial. Does one ascribe this contemporary phenomenon of apparent incompatibility to a Western philosophy which developed AWAY from its African roots… or was there no ‘Egyptian-connection’ in the first place?? That, as far as I’m concerned, is a futile line of inquiry to be pursued only by those obsessed with cultural supremacy. African philosophy is sufficiently powerful to not have to seek affirmation in any form of ‘Egyptian connection’.
Unfortunately you sabotage your scholarly walk down memory-lane with the reference to Archbishop Tutu; this tactic — of linking African credentials to a pre-Socratic age, that will always remain conditional, safely qualified and indeterminable… and then transporting us to the present, to inappropriately suggest that Archbishop Tutu would be the ONLY logical alternative source of wisdom in African thinking — is merely facetious. Try reading Mogobe Ramose for starters. Perhaps that would assist in finding your way back from Greece.
@ Leigh
Sorry Leigh, (not); but “nice”, “earnest”, “elegant”, “respectful”, “moderate tones”, “courteous” and “decent example” are only the latest examples of the fabric of the facade which rings the ideological apparatus that has been so successfully used in the ostensible ‘maintaining of standards’ — whilst deliberately ensuring that the discourse remains firmly rooted in YOUR corner of the ring. Why do you think that Julius Malema is so popular?? He is – quite understandably – exploiting the festering resentment brought on by having to witness the endless ‘wringing-of-hands’ within a comfortably smug establishment.
@maggs
It never rains but pours in the animal farm we call south africa under the new admin. We are likely to see everything that was defined wrong, illegal and undemocratic including convicts under mbeki and mandela being re-defined right, legal and democratic under the new regime. We have already seen convicted criminals turned heroes (Yenget et al) and others (like Shabir) released substantially unprocedurally whose cleansing process due to be completed he and others like him may soon be (re-) hired in high positions in government.
mayimele says:
October 20, 2009 at 9:46 am
Hey Mayimele,
The Health Professions Council of SA seems to have learned from the JSC.
“A medical doctor who has been convicted of professional misconduct after admitting to having sex with one of his patients escaped with a suspended sentence yesterday …
” … his victim had testified that he had sex with her without her consent and insinuated that she had been drugged shortly before the incident happened…
“The committee last month described Silimela’s conduct as “disgraceful” before handing down its guilty verdict, saying he had put the medical profession into disrepute.”
http://www.iol.co.za/index.php?set_id=1&click_id=13&art_id=vn20100601044730720C431775