President Thabo Mbeki seemed rather miffed by the allegations made by Reverend Kenneth Meshoe that the President had lied to the nation when he told the South African Council of Churches to trust him on Selebi, and that no evidence of wrongdoing had been placed before him which would necessitate action against Selebi.
Meshoe’s statement comes after it was revealed that Adv Vusi Pikoli had met with the President on 10 different occasions to inform him about the evidence against the Police Commissioner. According to the President he did not lie and acted against Selebi as soon as the NPA informed him that it had a prima facie case against Selebi.
Having satisfied themselves that they had prima facie evidence suggesting that the National Commissioner had been involved in criminal misconduct, they informed me of this conclusion and their decision to charge the National Commissioner. At this point we informed the NPA that we were ready to assist them to inform the National Commissioner that he should willingly submit himself to the process of prosecution which the National Prosecuting Authority had decided to institute, which we did.
I trust that the Hon Rev Meshoe will explain to this House and the nation why he saw it fit to make the grievous and gratuitous insult which sought to challenge not only the integrity of the person of the President of the Republic, but also the Office of the President and our Government as a whole. It cannot be that this resulted only from the careless use of words!
I am not a great fan of the good Reverend, but I have to point out that there are two fundamental problems with the statement of our President about this matter.
The first problem is, well, that this statement is demonstrably false. It is true that the President asked Mr Selebi to step aside after it became clear that the NPA would not revisit its original decision to charge the Police Commissioner. What the statement fails to admit is that a warrant of arrest had already been issued for Selebi in September and that the President had been informed then about the reasons for this.
A few days after the first warrant was issued, the President suspended the Head of the NPA and the Acting Head of the NPA mysteriously had the warrant canceled. This means the NPA had satisfied themselves that there was a prima facie case against Jackie Selebi several months ago and had informed the President accordingly. He responded not by asking Mr Selebi to step aside as he claimed in his speech, but by suspending the Head of the NPA.
His statement yesterday in Parliament pretends that this first warrant was never issued and that he was never informed about the reasons for it. The President had to pretend this first warrant never happened because it was the only way to explain his previous lies to the nation that no one had come to him with evidence of wrongdoing by the Police Chief.
The truth is, the same evidence that led to second warrant against Selebi was used to get the first warrant but the first time the President failed to act. Now he is trying to rewrite history but to rewrite history he is required to lie. This is rather un-Presidential – Presidents should try not to lie so blatantly as it tarnishes the office they hold. Just ask Bill Clinton.
The second problem with the statement is that it suggests that no one in our constitutional democracy should make statements questioning the truthfulness of statements made by the President because it would constitute an assault on the integrity of the President and the Office he holds.
This view seems to be based on a misguided notion that the President’s integrity should be above questioning and that to question the truthfulness of the President would necessarily show disrepscet to the Office of the President which is not acceptable.
Fact is, the President is a politician. If he lies, we all have a right – no a duty – to call him to account and to try and get him to stop spreading his lies. If disrespect for the Office of the President results from this, it is based on the lies of the President and not on the questions posed by those who wish to expose the lies.
The Constitutional Court confirmed many years ago in the Hugo case that the President is not above the law or above the Constitution and cannot claim immunity from questioning merely because of his office.
In this case, the President clearly misled the country by claiming no one had brought any evidence to him about wrongdoing by the Police Commissioner after he had already met with the NPA boss 10 times and after a warrant of arrest was issued for the Police Commissioner. We have a right to point this out and the President cannot claim to be shielded from the truth – a truth he seems rather shy of – merely because of his office.
He is not the King, he is an elected President and should behave like one.
The problem with the likes of you is that you are always eager for a story or someone to walk the plank. Fact of the matter is:-
1) Vusi Pikoli rats on Selebi to the President, 10 or however many times. In it detailing how he wants to use a known drug lord and accused murderer as his star witness.
Appoints Mpshe
2) Presidents puts the question to Pikoli – ‘is the NPA ready to charge?’
3) Pikoli answers ‘No!’
4) Pikoli obtains warrants of arrest for Selebi
5) The president finds out (not too sure how)
6) President thinks – for crying out loud I am the president and I cannot have the nations police commisioner being frog marched to the worlds view before I recuse him from his duties. That would serious lampoon my nation and national security will be compromised
7) Suspends Pikoli, rightfully so because his handling of this matter threatened to bring the whole nation into disrepute.
9) Mpshe was Pikoli’s deputy, but still feels the need for a committee to test the veracity of the claims against Selebi. Prof does not find this strange. Mpshe also doubted Pikoli’s judgement on the matter.
10) Anyways, committee agrees that there is a case to answer.
11) Mpshe tells the president that the NPA is ready to proceed.
12) President calls Selebi in and tells him the options. Selebi chooses to retain his salary and attempts to salvage his name.
You see, whether Pikoli told Mbeki or not, I just do not think that he sequenced his approach correctly. Given his position, there are dangers to such failures.
The president told the holy ones that if anyone came to him with information, he would act. Act, yes act. Perhaps had you, Prof, gone to the president with information on the commissioner he would have passed that info to tha NPA. He could have acted in many different ways on that information. What he was not going to do was to dismiss/suspend Selebi based on allegations that were not ready to be tested in a court of law.
If thats what you call lying, then what is ACTING CORRECTLY.
khosi you understand the president’s thinking so well, I almost wonder if you are not him – as we know he does spend some time on the Net. But your points 6 and 7 are flawed. The arrest of the police commisioner would not compromise national security, and it is not Pikoli’s actions that brought the ‘whole nation into disrepute’, but Selebi’s alleged actions.
Somehow an argument can always be constructed to protect one’s own.
alleman,
I once had aspirations of becoming a president but looking at the treatment that the current one is getting, I have resolved to live my life like Flavio Briatore. Life is sweeter that way.
On Point 6 + 7, sometimes the way a subject is handled is as important, if not more so, as the content of the subject itself. I would also argue that arresting a police commissioner, in a manner that Pikoli was driving, would test national security. But lets not distract from the good Profs subject, unless he gives permission.
You have not explained how arresting a police commissioner would test national security. And could it be that the way Pikoli handled the matter was informed by his knowledge of the president’s loyalty to Selebi?
There’s one thing you don’t seem to understand, Alleman: when the ANC leadership speaks of ‘national security’, ‘the national interest’ or ‘bringing the nation into disrepute’, what they really mean is ‘the ANC’s security’, ‘the ANC’s interest’, and ‘bringing the ANC into disrepute’.
The problem with Khosi’s argument that the president suspended Pikoli because of this plans to arrest Selebi is that the president did not cite this as a reason for suspending Pikoli. In fact, the president vehemently denied this. He mumblingly stated that the reason for the suspension had something to do with the irretrievable breakdown in the working relationship between Pikoli and Mabandla.
TebzaTheMan,
You are absolutely right.
But he also did say that the Ginwala commission has to rule whether Pikoli is ‘fit for office’. I would then say, a public prosecutor’s fitness for office also has to do with the manner in which:-
1) he arrests a police commissioner
2) the deals he strikes with offenders
3) the charges he prematurely lays against a former deputy president
4) etc
What I am saying is that Mbeki might very well have not be protecting Selebi the person(which is the jist of Profs arguement) but protecting the office of the police commissioner which will exist long after we forget this saga. Hard to distinguish, but I think it needs to be clear that the office of the police commissioner cannot not be handled as business as usuall – no pun intended. Also remember that just last week he came out strongly against people who, largely unjustifiable, look down on our police force.
Hola magenge hola mangenge. I have to agree with Alleman, Khosi seems to know the president better than he kwows himself and or he has access to information that most of us dont. How democratic is it to (bear in mind our democracy is a result of our constitutional era, in my crazy world at least) protect the office of the commissioner. To such an extent that a warrant that was issued finally got withdrawn and the head of the NPA suspended. Also the fact that there is prima facie evidence is the very reason why the should be a prosecution, or is that only applicable to people like me, Khosi. Remember what utata Mbeki said, when there was these allegations against ubaba Zuma, oh come to think of it the office Zuma held was not important. The President said the law should run its cause and the presumption innocent until proven giulty should be taken into regard. The president had shown his impartiality by suspending Pikoli and keeping Mabandla, if not tell me then what is the function of the commission, is it perhaps to bring Pikoli back.
ezase loxion,
Imagine a scene where our serving police commissioner is hand-cuffed and marched to a police station. CNN, BBC, SKY etc. I am embarrassed just thinking of it.
I have no information other than what is in the public domain, the thing is that I construct my own opinion/meaning from what is there for all to see. Not from hype and speculation, but from hard fact. Just one example, why would Mbeki embarrass himself by bringing Pikoli back. The function of the commission is to determine whether Pikoli is fit for office or not.
Khosi
I am embarrased just thinking of the police commissioner being charged in open court – never mind not having been handcuffed like he had his Buffoons do to Adv Gerrie Nel. Whether he submits himself to trial or whether he has been arrested to be brought to trial is really irrelevant in the light of his public image – taken the seriousness of the allegations against him. Is he better than the poor suspected criminals of this country? He should be ashamed of himself not having stepped down silently – for personal reasons, perhaps – but rather having stayed on as Police Commissioner and the head of Interpol in the face of clear indications that he is going to be prosecuted next to self-confessed gangsters, racketeers and murderers (who are his close friends)! And, TM should be ashamed of himself for only sending him on long (paid) leave pending the outcome of his trial, but, at the same time, having suspended JZ from office of Deputy President and Vusi Pikoli from office of NDPP (both without pay) even though they have not (by then) been charged with criminal cases. Tsk, Tsk. What a man Thabo has turned out to be!
@Khosi On the issue of being embarrassed when seeing the police commissioner in handcuffs on CNN, BBC, SKY etc – If I had time, I’d say something about caring what one’s own countrymen think – and also mention Biko’s name etc. But I guess you could make such an argument too, if you weren’t on the wrong side of the argument here to do that.
Anon,
I would even be more ashamed if Selebi found himself back in his post, but I fear the he might be let of the hook by the weakness of the star witness against him.
Selebi and JZ are not the same thing. Selebi has allegations against him, in JZ a court found of an improper relation he was involved in. I am not too sure if one can fire a person based on allegations. I know that a person can be suspended but I also do not know how the veracity of that suspension is determined i.e. paid/unpaid.
Alleman the infallible,
I am not too sure what Biko’s role in this discussion is. Please ellaborate. Of course, anything other that your side of the argument has to be the ‘wrong’ side.
Biko would never have used ‘embarrasment before CNN, BBC, SKY’ as an argument to protect a leader from criticism.
But let me admit that your other arguments like ‘the reatment that the current one is getting’ , and ‘put his body in the firing line again’ reminded me that I used to like and respect Mbeki a lot. And I have no doubt it must be awful to be him right now. I know I would not be able to survive the amount of criticism and hostility he is facing.
I agree with you Alleman, Mr Mbeki must be an extremely strong mentally to withstand the barrage of criticism that’s coming his way.
Khosi
Here we go on that ‘allegation debate’ again. Earlier you appeared to have argued that, now that there is ‘proof’ (as opposed to mere ‘allegations’) against Selebi the President acted against him (by giving the NPA the ‘green light’ to continue with the criminal case and granting Selebi long – indeterminate – leave, with full pay); while the President could not be criticised for not having acvted earlier when there were still only mere ‘allegations’ against him. You don’t seem to understand the way the criminal prosecution system in South Africa works. Once again, where there is ‘evidence’ available on the police docket to justify a prosecution (in other words – enough evidence to provide a ‘reasonable suspicion’ that a person has committed a prosecutable crime – often [but wrongly] referred to as a prima facie case), the suspect will be (or rather should be) charged in a court of law, and the state will then formulate its allegations in a charge sheet to which the accused person must then answer in court. (Such evidence must obviously have been available on the docket when Pikoli applied for and was granted a warant for the arrest of Selebi in the first place – viz section 43 of the Criminal Procedure Act 51 of 1977.) The court will then decide whether the allegations have been proven, not the President, who, in Selebi’s case, had to decide whether he had to be suspended pending his/her trial. The President then went and chose to suspend the head of the NPA (Pikoli) instead so as to de-rail the prosecution against Selebi, and to let Selebi continue being the Chief of Police while being friends with racketeers and gangsters. However, when another (acting) head of the NPA, acting on advice of a few other experts, decided to continue with the prosecution and a High Court refused Selebi’s attempt to end all attempts to prosecute him, Thabo Mbeki had no choice but to ‘act’ against Selebi. It does however strike a discordant note that the President of the country goes to the extent of suspending the head of the NPA for trying to prosecute a suspected criminal, but not the suspect who is now going to be prosecuted. As far as Zuma is concerned, the findings made by Hillary Squires J, the SCA and the CC, have not yet proven that the allegations against Zuma are true so that he has to be convicted – his guilt (or innocence) still has to be established during a trial before a court of law, and chances are (however slim, provided the evidence against him and Shaik remains available and truthful) that he may yet be acquitted on the charges against him. The Shaik trial might have strengthened the hand of the NPA against Zuma, but that does not mean that the case against Zuma is an insurmountable edifice that cannot be breached. However, when there were still only allegations against him, the President suspended him – whereas in the case of Selebi – he was only sent on long leave! A shame, I tell you.
Alleman,
Its all these selfless actions that make me and many leap to his defence the way I do. Because for each of his weaknesses he never puts himself first(bit of a paradox).
Anon
I think we both know that our argument is a subjective one.
Khosi
I am not so sure that our argument – whether in the one case there are (were) only allegations of a person’s guilt (Selebi) whilst in the other there is (were) proof of a person’s guilt (JZ) – is a subjective one. Looked at objectively, the President acted (or over-reacted if you want) in JZ’s case while there were nothing else but evidence on record in another trial (not his) or on the police’s (or Scorpions’) docket that there is a reasonable suspicion that JZ is guilty of certain crimes – while, in Selebi’s case, there also existed evidence on a police (Scorpion) docket to to raise such a reasonable suspicion, the NPA went as far as to obtain a warrant for his arrest, and then the President reacted by suspending the NPA boss (in effect at least stalling Selebi’s prosecution) and, only after the new NPA boss and a few other experts confirmed the reasonable suspicion, and a High Court rejected Selebi’s argument, did he allow the NPA to continue with its job. Nothing subjective of drawing an inference that, in the case of JZ, Mbeki was partisan to the NPA’s cause by suspending JZ, whilst, in the case of Selebi, he was clearly partisan to Selebi’s cause, in the process almost de-railing the prosecution (but at least stalling it) and, when eventually he acted, he did nothing but allow Selebi to take long (paid) leave and to say that, now that it has been proven that there is a case for Selebi to answer, the law must take its course. And, in the process, he fired the NPA boss, who is not even being charged with suspected commission of a crime. Where is the balance (or consistency) one should be able to expect from the head of state?
Anon,
At what point did I say that JZ was guilty? And at what point did the president say that?
You see, you are now dragging me into arguing against JZ. I will not do that, I will defend him as much as I defend TM. I am still going to make sense of this report though: – http://www.iol.co.za/index.php?set_id=1&click_id=13&art_id=vn20080220113209695C907278
What I say to you is that based on the information – in the public domain – that was presented by the prosecutors and the court findings, the president acted correctly.
Khosi
Firstly, thanks for guiding me to this article in Argus of 20 Feb 2008 – however, nothing new is being said there that has not already been said, namely: JZ alleging that Mbeki and others conspired against him to have him prosecuted, whilst Pikoli was axed for not falling in with the conspiracy. That is however besides the issue. As far as your saying that JZ is guilty while Selebi currently only faces ‘allegations’, I can do no more than quote from one of your posts above: “Selebi and JZ are not the same thing. Selebi has allegations against him, in JZ a court found of an improper relation he was involved in. I am not too sure if one can fire a person based on allegations. ” You have done this previously as well when it was pointed out that you were pro-Mbeki and anti-Zuma – and there too you responded that you would defend JZ just as vigorously as you are Mbeki, but still that the criticism against Mbeki isn’t justified – I think there you tried to bring race, religion and so on into the argument, which was rightfully stopped by Prof De Vos on the previous postings. However, saying that one defends someone (JZ) just as vigorously as the other (Mbeki), while in the same breath invoking arguments in JZ’s case to prove that in his case Mbeki was right in suspending hime but in Selebi’s case, he was also right in not suspending him, but rather to suspend the prosecutor – does not seem to match and I sense a forked tongue. All I can do is ask of you to become real, to see what the facts say, and, therefore, to see that the President should admit that he has for undisclosed reasons been partisan towards one person’s case but vehemently opposed to another’s; that such actions were not justified; and that he has been very parsimonious with the truth in the case concerning Pikoli and Selebi. I, on the other hand, tend to believe the NPA when it says (whether through Ncguka, Pikoli or Mpshe) that it has a prima facie case (or rather a reasonable suspicion) against both JZ and Selebi, that they have committed crimes (and serious ones at that) and that theyt have enough evidence available to tghem with which, should it be accepted as proven in a court of law, they would be able to prove JZ’s and Selebi’s guilt beyond reasonable doubt. I think that the available reports are clear enough to prove that, but not to justify the difference of approach to the two cases as evidenced by Mbeki’s actions.
Anonymous,
I think you should stop accusing me of being anti-JZ just because I find you point of view in Mbeki unfounded. I have never said one thing on this blog that is anti-Zuma. Stop labelling me to prove that you are right about your ill-concieved argument on the president. To add to your fraud, you wear a mask to this blog.
You cannot tell me how to think by telling me that my thinking makes me anti people that are dear to my being.
You quote me, so please tell me what part of that quote is devoid of fact?
Play the facts not ME! I suppose that is asking to much of charlatan who profess to examenor or the presidents ‘contaminated’ actions.
Anonymous,
I do not understand why you found that both Zuma and Selebi are guilty and that the NPA has an unbreachable case against either one of them. The poroblem is that you are itching to see both guilty and you are then misguiding yourself into finding justified actions of the president a double speak.
REPHRASE
Anonymous,
I think you should stop accusing me of being anti-JZ just because I find you point of view in Mbeki unfounded. I have never said one thing on this blog that is anti-Zuma. Stop labelling me to prove that you are right about your ill-concieved argument on the president. To add to your fraud, you wear a mask to this blog.
You cannot tell me how to think by telling me that my thinking makes me anti people that are dear to my being.
You quote me, so please tell me what part of that quote is devoid of fact?
Play the facts not ME! I suppose that is asking to much of charlatan who profess to be an examenor of the presidents ‘contaminated’ actions.
Khosi
Last post: “REPHRASE”
“charlatan” – perhaps.
“an examenor (sic) of the presidents (sic) ‘contaminated’ actions” – indeed.
“fraud” – never – ’self-preservbvation’, perhaps.
As far as “labeling” you as someone with a specific viewpoint to prove that I am right about my “ill-conceived argument on the president” is concerned – read all your and my previous posts carefully and objectively and “You be the judge!”
Previous post: 21 Feb 09:08
Please re-read my post of 20 Feb 10:12, and esp the following quote: “As far as Zuma is concerned, the findings made by Hillary Squires J, the SCA and the CC, have not yet proven that the allegations against Zuma are true so that he has to be convicted – his guilt (or innocence) still has to be established during a trial before a court of law, and chances are (however slim, provided the evidence against him and Shaik remains available and truthful) that he may yet be acquitted on the charges against him. The Shaik trial might have strengthened the hand of the NPA against Zuma, but that does not mean that the case against Zuma is an insurmountable edifice that cannot be breached.” Once again – you mis-read my post. I never said that both JZ and Selebi are guilty, or even that the NPA has an unbreachable case against both (or any) of them. A strong prosecution case on paper, everyone knows, will not necessarily result in a conviction.
Please try and read the posts objectively before artguing a specific point.
Lastly:
Stop taking everything so personally when the falacy of an argument of yours is pointed out. Remember the following saying in Afrikaans: “As mens ‘n klip in die bos gooi en iemand tjank – dan is hy raak gegooi.” (In Zulu: “Uma umuntu ephonsa itshe ehlathini, kumemeze [nomsa kukhale] umuntu, limshayile.”)
If you do not want to be criticised, don’t participate in the debate.Note that I did not say “Ouch!” at being called a ‘charlatan’ – and I agree that some people might think that I am one. And where my initial arguments are wrong, I usually concede without much fuss – see my responses on the ’second race’ debate when Prof De Vos pointed same out.
Anonymous,
I am tired of arguing with anything that replies in claptrap, while circumventing whats being put to him (sic it).
Perharps on another subject, you will get your head on.
As far as that (your being tired) is concerned: I rest my case and I hope others would grasp the point. The President did not act in a way one would expect from the president of a constitutional state in both cases – that of JZ and that of Selebi. Furthermore, is the followingn Latin phrase appliccable to you, or me? – ‘aliena vitia in oculis habemus, a tergo nostra sunt’ (”The faults of others we notice, our own remain unseen.”) I would say ‘applicable to both’, because we both have a tendency to be drawn into side issues and miss the crux of the debate – but then again you would probably say, ‘only applicable to you’. Let’s concentrate on the new debates above and let’s leave this one (about the President, Ncguka, Pikoli, Zuma, Selebi) for another day – perhaps when the prosecutions have been finalized.