Maybe we are beginning to see why Helen Zille is so adamant to stop the Erasmus Commission from doing its job. Newspapers this weekend reported on allegations made by Premier Ebrahim Rasool in papers before the High Court in the application to have the Erasmus Commission of Enquiry declared illegal and/or unconstitutional and they make veryy interesting reading indeed.
No wonder Helen Zille has seemingly lost the plot and continues to argue (falsely) that the Constitutional Court has said that judges should not get involved with commission’s of enquiry if there is any chance that it would be politically controversial.
This is false because in South African Association of Personal Injury Lawyers v Heath the Constitutional Court said that given the principle of the separation of powers in our Constitution, a judge should not perform a task that is “incompatible with judicial office” and that one of the factors that might be relevant in deciding whether the task is incompatible with judicial office would be whether it would “create the risk of judicial entanglement in matters of political controversy”.
But the Court also said that judges can preside over commissions on inquiry because the performance of such a function “ordinarily calls for the qualities and skills required for the performance of judicial functions – independence, weighing-up of information, and giving a decision on the basis of a consideration of relevant information”.
Maybe Ms Zille has something to hide after all? From the Cape Times comes this report:
Premier Ebrahim Rasool alleges that Mayor Helen Zille may have had a bigger role than she has asserted in the city’s dealings with the private investigators hired to probe councillor Badih Chaaban.
This is among charges levelled by Rasool in an affidavit he submitted to the High Court on Wednesday, in response to the city’s application last month to have the Erasmus Commission declared invalid.
Rasool alleged Zille had “regular Monday morning meetings” with operatives of the investigating firm, George Fivaz and Associates.
The meetings had also been attended by DA members who are not city council office-bearers. He charged that her telephone records pointed to “personal contacts” with the investigations firm.
This morning Zille dismissed Rasool’s allegations as “lies” that were “very easy to refute”.
Interesting stuff. I am looking forward to hear Ms Zille’s side of the story (apart from a blanket denial which does not really enlighten us) and to hear how she will refute these claims. If they are easy to refute, I am sure she will let us have all the evidence to refute these claims in the next day or two.
Any ideas, Pierre, what Helen could possibly have to hide? In her letter to the Sunday Times she explained that “the City of Cape Town conducted a legally mandatory and procedurally correct investigation into councillor Badih Chaaban. The city did not pay an account that should have been paid by the DA. We have handed over all the relevant evidence, to the last invoice, to the police and other investigations. If we had done anything wrong, we would have been charged by now.”
And this: “The greatest irony is that the ANC is trying to investigate us because we investigated Chaaban. Why are they so determined to protect Chaaban, a person considered so dangerous that the National Intelligence Agency wrote to the city administration warning that he was ‘involved in a wide range or organised crime activities, including dealing in false passports, the drug trade, money laundering, prostitution, human trafficking and murder’? Despite this, he has never faced any charge in court.”
One should bear in mind just how badly the ANC wants Cape Town back, and how desperately worried it is about losing the province to a DA coalition. As for the charge that the meetings with George Fivaz and Associates were also attended by DA members who are not city council office bearers, that might be explained that they also involved alleged (DA) maladministration in George, which is another thorn in the ANC’s side.
You say: “I am looking forward to hear Ms Zille’s side of the story (apart from a blanket denial which does not really enlighten us) and to hear how she will refute these claims. If they are easy to refute, I am sure she will let us have all the evidence to refute these claims in the next day or two.”
But in the very article you quote:
“Hitting back on Thursday, Zille said that her diary, which was meticulously archived and accessible to the media, would reflect that Rasool’s claims had no basis.
She also made her phone records available for media scrutiny, saying they would refute Rasool’s charge that she had had regular contact with the city’s investigators.”
That’s not just a blanket denial, but a clear response mentioning evidence, already submitted. You were out argued and then started resorting to name-calling, now you are sure a professor should go ahead on this level (Even if Zille is found guilty)?
I for one am hoping that Ms Zille comes out squeaky clean, which I am sure she is. The anc is DESPERATE to win back CT, and will stop at nothing to achieve this. Maybe the good Prof is so used to the anc’s dirty tricks that he imposes this reality on all politico’s? The anc seem very confused about this democracy business. Looks like it is OK to have elections and all that stuff, provided the anc wins. If they don’t, well then its zimbabwe here we come.