http://www.mg.co.za/article/2009-11-20-dubious-liaisons

However, I always take stories from the M&G with a pinch of salt.
—————————————————————————————————
Try this from the Sowetan – http://www.sowetan.co.za/News/Article.aspx?id=1089199

“Holding Law In ‘Contempt’
18 November 2009
Anna Majavu

“Deputy Chief Justice Dikgang Moseneke’s brother appears to be breaking the law by continuing to manage the Moseneke family business even after being struck off the roll of attorneys.”

“The amended Companies Act bars anyone who is struck off the roll from ever working as a company director, or from managing a company”.

http://www.timeslive.co.za/news/article197881.ece

“‘These shares were paying material value – I mean millions and millions of rands,’”

“Pikoli told the court that his wife told him about the shares, which she received from Gibson Njenje”

“Cilliers pointed out that on the day Pikoli’s wife received her 2% shares in Vulisango, he became the Director of Public Prosecutions, on February, 1, 2005.”

“‘I can’t say when I got to know – at the time I never made any connection between JCI and Simmer & Jack, as I had no reason to,’”

Good grief – what have we turned into?

“It is like- I felt betrayed. It was a like a situation whereby you defend someone’s integrity but only to be let down by evidence in the end.”

King, I know exactly how you feel. For me, the Hlophe JP affair was a little like this. Fortunately, I ultimately came to understand that the so-called evidence against the JP was the invention of RACISTS! Hence, my faith in him was restored.

“There is something judicially wrong about a judge actively squashing oygen in a boardrooom.”

On this point I agree 100%.

I think Professor was too quick to exonerate Judge Moseneke from any possible flouting of judicial ethics but chose to be a little bit disingenuous. Instead of admitting that Moseneke may have flouted some of the said judicial ethics Professor opted to reduce the possible flouting to Moseneke having made unwise decisions.

As a point of departure in this debate we need to note that Moseneke and his family trust are connected persons. Some of the components of the standard definition of a connected person in relation to a natural person are as follows:
i) any relative; and
ii) any trust of which such natural person or such relative is a beneficiary;

In this case Moseneke or his children or family is said to be the beneficiary or beneficiaries. Whatever the case may be, the scenario points it out that Moseneke and his family trust are connected persons. And it would have been worse if Moseneke is also a trustee of the family trust because in that way he would, in my view, be occupying an executive position.

According to the reports, the family trust is active and is currently pursuing business opportunities. Clearly, the family trust is enriching or seeking to enrich itself and by implication Judge Moseneke. Therefore the first question that has not been answered is: on the basis that they are connected persons, has Judge Moseneke disclosed the family trust and its activities to the employer?

Secondly it is well accepted in many quarters that doing business comes along with an inherent characteristic of allegations of impropriety. As the family trust, according to reports, is active and is seeking business opportunities, it is clear therefore that allegations will emerge, as they have emerged according to MG, which will smear the family trust and Judge Moseneke for being a connected person to the trust. The consequence of this is that the income that the family trust generates for the benefit of Moseneke or his relatives will be tainted in the eyes of the public and thus be income that is incompatible with the judicial office.

In my view thus professor should not have said Moseneke was simply unwise in creating the family trust pursuing business but should have been bold enough to say Moseneke may have actually flouted the judicial ethics.

What the MG missed out in its analysis is the concept of a connected person. The reported denials by the judge during the interviews are a cause for concern, given that he should have disclosed the family trust as it is a connected person.

I think Professor in this particular case has been the victim of prejudice for his admiration of Judge Moseneke. We all like the judge but objectivity should remain paramount. My conclusion is that a lot more of an investigation needs to be done before one can form a proper opinion about Judge Moseneke and his business dealings. Having said, that I see a firm possibility of impeachment here, if I may use Professor’s approach to legal issues. The JSC will have tough time. I rest my case.

.

Doctor Malale indeed.

Out of the shovel, the spade slowly emerges!

You are dead wrong. You must realise my point that I think there is something judicially wrong about a judge actively squashing oygen in a boardrooom to proffer legal wisdom to advance private profit accumulation for a trust which directly or indirectly benefits him, his family or even a friend.

The other elements are my own scornful indiscretions. I will gleefully accept the honourary doctoral certificate for exceptional double speak though!