Constitutional Hill

On changing the Constitution

Recent statements by politicians about the need to review the judgment of the Constitutional Court with a view to assess the need for changes to the Constitution, is often accompanied by assurances that the South African Constitution has already been amended 16 times. It is argued that the Constitution was a compromise document foisted on the people of South Africa by evil right-wingers, that the document has become a stumbling block to the effective governing of the country and hence has become a hinderance to the economic transformation of the country. Over the past year many ordinary folk, taking its cue from those talking about changing the Constitution, have taken up this whispering campaign against the Constitution.

There are two problems with this line of reasoning. First, the mere fact that the Constitution has been amended 16 times is irrelevant, as the number of amendments is not what is in issue. Rather what is in issue is the nature of any proposed amendments. Are they good for democracy and for the country or are they bad? Would they insulate the governing party from scrutiny when it flouts the law and the Constitution or would it enhance oversight and democratic accountability for any governing party? Would amendments rob citizens of their rights and their ability to have those rights enforced by the courts, or would it make it easier for citizens to enforce their rights? Would amendments hamper economic transformation by protecting the corrupt in government and the private sector, or would it advance transformation by ensuring open, accountable and transparent government with the requisite oversight powers for the courts?

What those who argue that the Constitution has been amended 16 times do not say, is that almost all of these amendments passed so far have been mere technical amendments of no real substantive or political effect. Where substantive amendments have been made, this has tended to weaken the Constitution and the checks and balances in it, instead of strengthening it, and as such was criticised by many in academia and civil society.

But most amendments have been entirely uncontroversial.

Thus the first amendment dealt with the oath of office to be sworn by the Acting President. Amendment two, inter alia, changed the name of the South African Human Rights Commission to that of Human Rights Commission. Amendment four was needed to confirm that a provincial legislature remains competent to function from the time it is dissolved or its term expires, until the day before the first day of polling for the next legislature. The fifth amendment, inter alia, was aimed at allowing a proclamation calling and setting dates for an election of the National Assembly to be issued either before or after the expiry of the term of the National Assembly. And on it goes.

So far only four sets of amendments of some importance and political relevance have been made to our Constitution. The sixth amendment stated that the head of the Constitutional Court (and not the head of the Supreme Court of Appeal) will become the Chief Justice of South Africa and also provided for the extension of the term of office of a Constitutional Court judge by the legislature. The second part of this amendment was highly controversial as it potentially affected the separation of powers and the security of tenure of Constitutional Court judges and was vigorously opposed by academics and civil society groups. It did not help that Parliament unconstitutionally tried to delegate the power to extend the term of office of a Constitutional Court judge to the President, a provision that was first relied upon by President Jacob Zuma when he wanted to extend the term of office of former Chief Justice Sandile Ngcobo.

The eighth, ninth and tenth amendments were passed to introduce the highly contentious floor crossing provisions, which allowed members of national and Provincial Parliaments and Municipalities to cross the floor during two window periods — as long as more than 10% of the members of the party crossed the floor. These provisions insulated the ANC from floor crossing (as it would have required between 25 and 30 ANC members to cross the floor together) but decimated smaller parties where even 1 person could easily cross the floor.

In 2009, after the Polokwane conference and in the face of threats of factionalism within the ANC, the fourteenth and fifteenth amendments were adopted to abolish the floor crossing, thus protecting the ANC from possible floor crossing defections by the losing factions of party elections at national, provincial and local government level.

The twelfth and thirteenth amendments provided for the elimination of cross-border municipalities by changes to the boundaries of certain provinces. These were highly contentious as citizens living in KwaZulu-Natal and Gauteng did not want to be moved to worst performing provinces of the Eastern Cape and North-West respectively. Despite valiant efforts by the people of Matatiele and Merafong, and despite some promises made to the contrary before national elections, the ANC used its then two-thirds majority to force these communities into provinces they did not want to go to.

Every proposed amendment to the Constitution must surely be evaluated on its merits. Amending the Constitution is not per se a problem. Only those proposed amendments to the Constitution that will protect the governing elite at the expense of citizens or will undermine the very nature of our Constitutional democracy, will be problematic. Each proposed amendment will have to be judged on its own merit.

Which brings me to the second problem with this talk about amending the Constitution. Those who argue that the Constitution must be amended because the Constitution has become a stumbling block to the effective governance of the country and hence in effect prevents social and economic transformation, are rather vague about how the Constitution should be amended.

There seems to be two general arguments circulating and being whispered about in this regard. First, some among us are upset that the courts can review and set aside decisions by the President, other members of the executive and other organs of state, when such decisions are not authorised by the Constitution or the law, do not comply with the Constitution or ordinary law or when these decisions are not rational (in other words, when the decisions are arbitrary, made in bad faith or capricious). This argument is based on the premise that those in government should not be bound by the law and should, in effect, be above the law.

For example, if the Constitution or an ordinary piece of legislation requires the President to appoint a “fit and proper” person to a position and he then decides to appoint somebody to that position who has been found guilty of corruption or murder, so the argument goes, it is not for the non-elected members of the judiciary to declare such an appointment invalid merely because the appointment did not meet the minimum requirements set by the law.

Such an argument is no more than an argument for lawlessness. Of course, in such a case there is nothing that prevents the legislature from amending the relevant legislation (or the Constitution – if the requisite majority can be mustered to do so) to abolish the requirement that only a “fit and proper” person should be appointed to the job. What cannot ever be accepted in a constitutional democracy, is a situation where the law and the Constitution can be flouted at will, with no recourse open to the courts to check this flouting of the law.

A second argument is made that the Constitution is a compromise document agreed on by the Constitutional Assembly in line with the 34 Constitutional Principles contained in the interim Constitution and as such lacks legitimacy because it contains many anti-transformation provisions.

Of course, the interim Constitution contained a provision that would have allowed the final certified Constitution to be submitted to voters in a referendum if two-thirds of the members of the Constitutional Assembly could not agree on the text. If at least 60% of the voters approved of the draft Constitution in a referendum, it would have taken effect. The ANC and the NP both avoided this by agreeing on the text. The fact that a referendum was never enforced suggest that the ANC was worried that its version of the Constitution would not obtain a 60% majority in a referendum. Instead both parties, after extensive public participation, agreed to a document which it could live with – although almost all commentators have since argued that the ANC out negotiated the National Party and secured a Constitution that was far closer to its original plans than they could have dreamed about.

In any case, it is unclear which provisions of the Constitution hinders social and economic transformation in South Africa. The property clause is often singled out in this regard, but as I have pointed out several time before that section does not require a “willing-buyer willing-seller” land reform process. Neither does it require the payment of market value for all land expropriated for purposes of land reform. Those who claim that the Constitution obstructs social and economic change has not yet been able to point to any other provisions in the Constitution that mitt be objectionable. This is probably because there are none.

Ours is not an exclusively liberal Constitution. Although it contains a system of government based on the separation of powers and checks and balances as well as all the traditional liberal human rights like freedom of expression, it also contains a set of social and economic rights that places a positive duty on the state to take reasonable steps to provide better and more expansive access to housing, health care, education and other social and economic rights. Moreover, the Constitution applies, to a large degree, horizontally also binding private individuals and institutions like businesses. This aspect is based on the view that the human rights of an individual can be trampled on not only by the state but also by powerful private interests and by individuals.

My question would be: which sections of the Constitution exactly are those that hinder transformation? In my view there are no such sections to be found in our Constitution. Those who argue that it might be time to amend the Constitution to effect social and economic transformation need to say which sections they find objectionable. We can then have a sensible debate about this question. In the absence of such clear proposals and arguments, the mutterings and whispers about the need to change the Constitution can be treated as ill-informed and self serving drivel by those who are seeking a scapegoat to avoid accountability for governance failures over the past 18 years.

My challenge to those who whisper and grumble about the need to change the Constitution is this: either put your cards on the table so that we can debate the issue or stop your self-serving campaign to discredit the Constitution. In the absence of concrete proposals one will have to assume that those who talk about changes to the Constitution are not interested in the well-being of South Africans, but rather in retaining power and access to tenders by scapegoating the Constitution.

  • Donovan

    Prof. I do not believe that you are reactionary. I do think that your intentions are well meant.

    But on the constitution you are wrong. You ask which part of the constitution, let me attempt with my meagre legal knowledge to provide one.

    A little background first. It has been widely written that our constitution is largely based on the German constitution, and to a degree on the Canadian one. In the case of Germany, the country was being reunited after the Cold Ward. Both Germany and Canada are federal states whereas South Africa has through most of its history been a unitary, except when we liberated ourselves, we are ‘quasi-federal’.

    You also indicate that the ANC was unsure of getting the Constitution passed in a referendum, this is your speculative analysis. Let me throw in another possible or plausible reason. Maybe it was not because of fear of the referendum outcome, but because a referendum could strengthen the hand of the right wing in the National Party, weaken the ‘verligtes’, and the spectre of civil war could rear its ugly head. The ANC cognisant of the weakened state of the liberal leadership in the National Party did not wish to weaken or marginalise them even further. Just a thought.

    On the whole the constitution panders overwhelmingly to reconciliation and trying to create unity between the newly enfranchised and the former oppressors. It does this by diminishing power of the political level, particularly the ‘executive’ politician. It is widely accepted that for SA to be comprehensively stable, there has to be larger socio-economic delivery. The main engine of delivery is the sphere of local government. It is in this sphere that the ‘executive’ politician is essentially deneutered. At national and provincial levels, director-generals, and heads of department, are appointed by the executive politician, in the case of deputy-director generals and director-generals, by cabinet. However, the equivalent of the director-general at local government level, the municipal or city manager is appointed by City or Town Council. The person may be recommended by the ‘executive’ Mayor but is appointed and therefore accountable to the legislative section not the ‘executive’ politician. Effectively, the politician has no real power. The constitution entrenches this matter, and therefore, places more faith in officials or bureaucrats than the custodians of vision and views of the people.

    With the sunset clause of not removing apartheid bureaucrats, effectively the constitution put the country in permanent negotiations on transformation, as opposed to recognising that accelerated socio-economic delivery only occurs with a strong and sound political centre. The constitution effectively ties the hands of politicians.

    A passhing shot would be that, indeed, only the provincial and national spheres are regarded as the public service and the constitution entrenches that by its recognition and establishment of the Public Service Commission, whereas local government is only told that it should organise itself, so SALGA is not protected.

    Both Roelf and Cyril knew exactly what they were doing, not just creating a liberal document but a neo-liberal one, that deneuters political power, the only power poor people have access to, ensuring the market through historical imbalances remains in power.

    Hopefully we can later also debate the illogicality of the two-term ceiling for a president elected by parliament as well.

  • Angie

    The constitution as it stands is the last and most successful act of the Afrikaanse Broederbond.

  • Pierre De Vos

    Donovan, I think you identify the wrong problem. Firstly, there are no sunset clauses left in the Constitution. They all expired in 1999.

    Second, at local level town councils are democratically elected. The majority party in council decides who the mayor is. The mayor is therefore a leader of his or her party in the city council. The officials are therefore in effect appointed by the majority party (which in the vast majority of towns and cities are the ANC). Officials are therefore accountable to the majority party leadership in council of which the mayor happens to be a member. I suspect the real problem is that at local level those in charge politically often make nepotistic or just plain bad appointments of officials who are unable or unwilling to do the work for which they were appointed. The result is that Cities like Pietermaritzburg had to be placed under administration because the politicians and the officials appointed by them looted the city coffers and bankrupted that city.

    Currently about 10% of public servants are white. That number was 94% in 1994. At local government level this number of white employees is even lower. That suggests that there is nothing in Constitution or the law that hindered the transformation of public service at any level of government. Unfortunately this process has not always been managed well and for political and sometimes corrupt reasons the wrong people were appointed. It is often who you know and not what you know that gets you appointed – regardless of what race you might be. That is why ANC government recently passed a BIll to prevent the appointment of party leaders to senior positions in local government administration to try and address this problem, which they have acknowledged.

    The issue of service delivery is about capacity: there are not sufficient qualified and committed people to do the job effectively and even where there are qualified and committed people willing to work for local government they are not always appointed, often because of political reasons or because of nepotism (this is not a race issue, but a party loyalty issue, as many qualified people complaining of not being appointed for lack of connections happen to be black).

    On terms limits: this is a modern phenomenon in constitutional democracies. Some countries (like the UK) do not have these, but constitutional lawyers and political scientists point out that power has a tendency to drive those at the top just a little bit batty. That is why, for example, both Margaret Thatcher and Tony Blair were eventually ditched by their parties (much like Mbeki was ditched by his). Term limits protect all of us against the possible dictatorial tendencies of those in power and protect those in power from the temptations and the stresses that comes with having so much power. Term limits are also good for political parties as it ensures that those who fall out of favour with the leader do not lose hope of achieving their ambitions and do not form their own parties or jump ship, their expertise forever lost by the party. They hang on in the hope that their candidate will be elected President after 10 years. An absence of term limits stifles creativity in a party as well as internal democracy and has a tendency to contribute to hubris and the loss of talent.

  • Sine

    I have always wondered why the govt never resorted to expropriation to deal with the land redistribution delay. However, I was doing a study on the legal feasibility of nationalisation last year, hence I ended up reading s25 in great detail. I found that there is absolutely nothing in the section which is preventing expropriation. In fact, I would even argue that the section encourages expropriation. It is a pity that our govt is not willing to rely on that section to speed up land redistribution. Maybe there are other reasons but the Constitution is definately not a stumbling block to it. The power of the govt to expropriate was in fact recognised by the High Court, SCA and the Constitutional Court in the Offit v Coega Development Corporation decisions.

  • Donovan

    Prof, I do not think you understand the point/s I am raising.

    Firstly, the sunset clause on retaining apartheid bureaucrats, did expire in 1999, however, the methodoology of work particularly technical work was entrenched in that period. It is not a Black or white issue in terms of transformation but a change in how things are done.

    The constitution deliberately ensures that a local government politician has less power direct or otherwise than counterparts in national and provincial government. It uses the American model of placing greater emphasis or trust on officials than politicians (this is classic liberalism of believing the market more than political leaders). Whereas the American model gives the Mayor, Governor, and President direct power in our constitution the Mayor is not given this power.

    Further, stop thinking of political parties as behemoths without varying ambitions, agenda, and views. The party thinks in terms of the party & its members, but the politician deployed to government has to think in terms of all citizens or residents regardless of party affiliation. So therefore, the party members in the executive will usually be on a different side of a debate than the Councillors (or parliamentarians) in Council. Political parties are a lot more heterogenous than you are giving credit.

    The constitution openly discriminates in how it arranges the major delivery instrument of government, namely local government, than national and provincial government. This is established fact in the constitution, to try and politicise (crudely placing cadre deployment in the debate and so forth) the matter does not acknowledge that the constitution openly does so. It places a burden different and greater than that placed on national and provincial government. You cannot expect Councillors will be able on a day-to-day basis practice detailed supervision. A Mayor and Mayoral Committee is supposed to do that but officials are not accountable to them.

    On term ceilings Prof, you do not seem to know the subject matter as well as you claim to. The UK is a majoritarian system, and therefore SA should not be comparing ourselves to them. However, note that two-term ceilings are only placed on Presidents who are (a) directly elected by their population, and (b) have ceremonial power. SA is the only country in the democratic world that has a constitution that has two-term ceilings for a president who is not elected by the people directly, and has executive power. Throughout Europe, especially Western Europe, presidents with two-term ceilings are not executive, and are separate from the Head of Government. Executive heads of government are not given two-term ceilings, and either there is a ceremonial monarch or a ceremonial president. Even length of term is not standard. There are four-year, five-year, and even seven-year terms.

    Our constitution is contradictory and apposite global logic in this regard. It suggests a lack of trust and as indicated earlier its eeks to place us always in a state of negotiations long after democracy and commitment to democracy has prevailed.

    There are no wolves at the door, baying for blood, and promising to blow the house down. Our constitution is a product of the fear of the unknown of the 1990s. It must be changed to reflect optimism and hope.

  • Jama ka Sijadu

    Transformation of the Judicial System and the Role of the Judiciary in the Developmental South African State

    http://www.anc.org.za/docs/anctoday/2012/at08.htm#art1

    “The Constitution is an embodiment of the values that the ANC stood and fought for.

    The ANC-led government will defend these values at all cost, including the independence of the judiciary and the rule of law that are the bedrock of our constitutional democracy. This re-assurance comes against the backdrop of irresponsible commentary that has been published recently, which is intended to instill fear that the ANC is hell bent on revoking the fundamental rights and freedoms that many had fought and some died for in order for all of us to reap the benefits of a free society. We want to allay those fears and reaffirm our commitment to the Constitution and its values in our quest to building a non-racial, non-sexist and prosperous democratic South Africa.”

    Whose fooling who?

  • Zoo Keeper

    Donovan and Prof

    Guys, the ANC had the majority to change the constitution at will until the last general elections. And change the constitution it did – last Bill was the 17th Constitutional Amendment Bill. Prof can advise how many made it through, but I make this point to show that whatever was the result of the CODESA negotiations has been superceded by subsequent events.

    With the majority to change the Constitution, the ANC has had ample opportunity to do what it pleased with it.

    If there is still some aspect of this law which has not been solved, referring to negotiations pre-1994 is no longer relevant. You should rather ask why the ANC didn’t make the changes whilst it had the chance.

  • Maggs Naidu – Zuma must go!

    Sine
    March 23, 2012 at 13:19 pm

    Hey Sne,

    “It is a pity that our govt is not willing to rely on that section to speed up land redistribution.”

    Perhaps it’s because our attention is focused elsewhere!

    http://mg.co.za/article/2012-03-23-sexwales-prints-all-over-r10bn-tender

    http://mg.co.za/article/2012-03-23-zumas-praetorian-guards

  • sirjay jonson

    There are many different types of people with different morals, ethics, beliefs and desires but I tend to break them down into two types, those who are interested only in their own advancement and beliefs, and those who are sincerely interested in their culture’s and their community and society’s needs. Going a step further, perhaps the highest of these are those who really care and thus dynamically act for the welfare of all others regardless of their nationality, sex, orientation or pigmentation.

    As most know, Democracy was established initially by the Greeks for the ruling classes, nevertheless it is both unique and a miracle. In all successful societies and tribes when enlightened leaders were/are present there have been and are three primary concerns… survival, harmony both within and of society and the avoidance of tyranny. Democracy was and is the only political possibility humankind has found to successfully answer these three concerns. ALL equal under the law and the rule of law is paramount; these two are the foundation pillars in fact. Without them there is no Democracy.

    What I don’t understand in South Africa, are folk like Donovan who posted first above. How on earth, I ask myself, can an obviously intelligent man believe what he is writing when it is effectively devoid of common sense? His comment about restrictions on term limits sums up his entire statement, and says much about him, and like many ANC spokespeople’s shameless opposition to the primacy of law, their double speaking and fork tonguing of the Constitution, thus questioning Democracy, as if they know better. And for God’s sake, folk like Donovan (no namesake to the singer fortunately) is in Africa. Is he oblivious to the the history of the post colonial big man African states and the horror they create? In what he says, should I think he cares.

    They speak so well the snakes in the grass. If you listen carefully however, you can hear if not sense the hiss which comes through in their attitude of disdain and delusional superiority, but ever so smoothly.

    I can only assume it is because such folk lack knowledge of global historical evidence and are dominated by intensive self deluded self interest. Another possibility is that they are very young and don’t understand life, or more likely they simply don’t care about the welfare of others in general.

    I suggest one has first to be both honest and honorable to successfully practice Democracy.

    Absit invidia

  • Lisbeth

    sirjay:

    Quidquid id est, timeo Danaus et dona ferentes …

  • ozoneblue

    “Currently about 10% of public servants are white. That number was 94% in 1994. At local government level this number of white employees is even lower.”

    And everything is so much better now.

    http://www.thenewage.co.za/44092-1007-53-Public_Works_in_a_mess

  • ozoneblue

    Jama ka Sijadu
    March 23, 2012 at 14:08 pm

    “We want to allay those fears and reaffirm our commitment to the Constitution and its values in our quest to building a [-non-racial], non-sexist and prosperous democratic South Africa.”

    LOL.

    “Non-racial” as in – WHITES, COLOURED, INDIANS and AFRICAN.

  • Maggs Naidu – Zuma must go!

    ozoneblue
    March 23, 2012 at 21:05 pm

    OB,

    “Non-racial” as in – WHITES, COLOURED, INDIANS and AFRICAN.

    :P

  • sirjay jonson

    Lisbeth
    March 23, 2012 at 20:28 pm

    Had to do with the deceptive Trojan Horse as the false gift. Democracy is to the world what Christ is to Christianity and Shiva to the Hindu, not that I’m suggesting any links therein, just an analogy.

    Love, common sense and the welfare of our global community is one of those gifts bestowed by the Greeks which doesn’t warrant natural fears to ‘beware’.

  • sirjay jonson

    Lisbeth
    March 23, 2012 at 20:28 pm

    Aphrodite being as linked with love as cupid.

  • sirjay jonson

    Maggs Naidu – Zuma must go!
    March 23, 2012 at 21:45 pm

    “Non-racial” as in – #*^#$%, COLOURED, INDIANS and AFRICAN.

    Feeling a little blue on TGIF eve.

    Ag shame.

  • sirjay jonson

    Lisbeth
    March 23, 2012 at 20:28 pm

    Can’t resist Lisbeth:

    Amicule, deliciae, num is sum qui mentiar tibi?

  • ozoneblue

    Maggs Naidu – Zuma must go!
    March 23, 2012 at 21:45 pm

    Reminds me a lot of Verwoerd’s Apartheid though.

    “Separate development” and “self-determination” for “back tribes” only LOL

  • sirjay jonson

    Maggs Naidu – Zuma must go!
    March 23, 2012 at 21:45 pm

    Maggs, your lead – Zuma must go!

    Not so sure I agree with you. Do you think Molanthe and our Sports Minister, both supporters of juju are better. You do realize that things can actually get worse, and possibly will.

    In my humble opinion, if I may, better to let JZ serve his two terms; gives more time and incentive to insure that in the following election after the next, is that 2018 or 2019, possibly folk will be thinking more clearly. At least with Zuma we can trust he continues to make mistakes as usual, which the CC will correct.

    Sometimes I agree with ‘better the Devil we know’. And strategy is always vital.

  • ozoneblue

    sirjay jonson
    March 23, 2012 at 22:24 pm

    “Not so sure I agree with you. Do you think Molanthe and our Sports Minister, both supporters of juju are better.”

    Not “better” for South Africa – better for him though cause he is a professional black and he thrives on politics of racial entitlement.

  • Paul Kearney

    Interesting stuff but it’s amazing to see the comments from Donovan who surely can’t live in a South African municipal area, or even in Africa; wanting the two term ceiling reviewed. Good response from PdV. I agree with commentators who note that the problem is not the Constitution but incompetent and corrupt government.

  • Lisbeth

    sirjay Jonson
    March 23, 2012 at 22:07 pm

    I know you wouldn’t.

    We really must stop meeting like this, amicule/deliciae!

  • Zoo Keeper

    Donovan

    I would strongly suggest that a constitutional lack of trust, in fact active distrust, in politicians is a must for a successful democracy to survive.

    There may be ceremonial monarchs and presidents in other democracies, but they have their own histories and how they got there. Just because they might have functional democracies does not make their system superior to ours. In fact the idea of traditional leadership, whether its a Tswana king or British queen, is to me entirely opposite to democracy. The royal family in England makes for good tabloid, maybe that’s why they’re still there? :)

  • ozoneblue

    Zoo Keeper
    March 24, 2012 at 15:19 pm

    “I would strongly suggest that a constitutional lack of trust, in fact active distrust, in politicians is a must for a successful democracy to survive.”

    Exactly. It is called apathy, cynicism and nihilism. It is in fact the death of democracy, the beginning of a global capitalist dictatorship were governments and elected leaders are nothing but puppets controlled by powerful multinational corporations.

  • Mikhail Dworkin Fassbinder

    “the sunset clause on retaining apartheid bureaucrats, did expire in 1999, however, the methodoology of work particularly technical work was entrenched in that period”

    Donovan is right. In particular, it was the habits, protocols and practices of WHITISM that became entrenched, and continue to poison the slender sapling of our nation.

    Thnks,

  • Mikhail Dworkin Fassbinder

    Lisbeth/Sirjay:

    Malema est tener. Is has multus disco. Tamen ANC est solus secui ut can reddo aspirations nostri populus.

    Gratiae summopere!

  • sirjay jonson

    Zoo Keeper
    March 24, 2012 at 15:19 pm

    British Royalty is the principal draw of tourism in the UK… worth many many millions yearly, if not billions, and that’s in pounds. Wisely they have long acceded Democratic authority to the people. A lesson for the Swasi king, perhaps?

    Also neat for those of us who dreamily believe in princesses and heroic princes.

    I think it was one of the Saudi Kings who stated: British Royalty will be the last monarchy to survive. Of note, perhaps they deserve their station. The Queen is the largest land owner in the world, much loved by many, and the British Empire, as much as it is hated by some SAfricans, was the largest and most successful empire in world history. The RC (extension of the Roman Empire) Church still lingers well behind in 2nd place.

  • sirjay jonson

    Lisbeth
    March 24, 2012 at 14:06 pm

    “Deliciae”: now this is a word utterly swollen and exploding with meaning. And so many think Latin is a dead language.

    Would make someone a good handle.

  • sirjay jonson

    Mikhail Dworkin Fassbinder
    March 24, 2012 at 15:48 pm

    Tibi gratias

    Aequam memento rebus in arduis servare mentem

  • sirjay jonson

    @Maggs@Brett: Well you are both right. I have a thing about food security, its an obsession with me, but as you stated Maggs, perhaps rather sarcastically, yes, I’m here because it is definitely the place to be.

  • Maggs Naidu – Zuma must go!

    LOL @ Raenette Taljaard!

    Even after she studied politics and constitutional law at Rand Afrikaans University and later did her master’s degree in public administration and public policy at the London School of Economics (i.e. like Dmwangi at a graduate AND post graduate school which impresses WHITE people) she still seems like a sucker for punishment!

    http://mg.co.za/article/2012-03-24-raenette-taljaard-why-i-left-the-da

    Maybe an ambassadorship is in the offing.

    “I was deeply averse to engaging in war-like posturing with ANC colleagues whose intentions and motivations were similar to my mine — although we held widely divergent views on how best to achieve our common goals,” she said. “They were my compatriots, not my arch-rivals.”

  • sirjay jonson

    Off to Rugby now. The circus still satisfies even now in the 21st century.

  • Lisbeth

    sirjay jonson
    March 24, 2012 at 15:53 pm

    You mean “deliciæ illepidæ atque inelegantes”?

    Really, sirjay! This is a family blog!

  • Lisbeth

    “At least with Zuma we can trust he continues to make mistakes as usual, which the CC will correct”

    Much as I hate to agree with anything sirjay says, it’s probably not a bad idea for JZ to run for a second term. Especially if Cyril gets to be his running mate. Who could possibly want Motlanthe and Lindiwe Sisulu?

  • ozoneblue

    sirjay jonson
    March 24, 2012 at 17:00 pm

    “Off to Rugby now. The circus still satisfies even now in the 21st century.”

    Evil Nazi-like Afrikaner Bulls: 61
    Neoliberal “business-friendly” British outback: 8

    he he … Africa wins again

  • ozoneblue

    Maggs Naidu – Zuma must go!
    March 24, 2012 at 16:54 pm

    “Leon had appeared patient, and promised he would use his influence to influence the composition of the candidates’ list and he would act against “gatekeepers” and, in his words, “blacken the list” in order to alter the racial composition of the opposition benches.”

    That racist Jew Tony just couldn’t grasp the double-speak of and true meaning of a “nonracial” democracy yet

    LOL

  • ozoneblue

    “In 2006 Taljaard became director of the Helen Suzman Foundation, a liberal democratic think tank. She is now an independent analyst and adjunct senior lecturer in the political studies department of the University of Cape Town, where she teaches public policy.”

    “a [racist] [neo-] liberal democratic think tank”. Justabout says it all.

  • Mikhail Dworkin Fassbinder

    OZ is right.

    We will never forget the racist Jewish LIBERAL media’s DA “FIGHT BLACK” campaign! There is but one party that can represent the aspirations of our people. And it’s not the DA.

    Thanks.

  • ozoneblue

    Mikhail Dworkin Fassbinder
    March 24, 2012 at 22:19 pm

    “OZ is right.”

    LOL.

    I’m RIGHT most of the time MDF. That is why I troll pseudo-liberal stink tanks with relevant links like this.

    Mali coup leader Amadou Sanogo denounces Bamako looting

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-17498739

  • RickySA

    Donovan, your statement ” SA is the only country in the democratic world that has a constitution that has two-term ceilings for a president who is not elected by the people directly, and has executive power.” is not entirely correct. Maybe the part about the direct election but not about the executive power. Lots of presidents with executive power have two term limits: USA, France, Senegal, to name a few.

  • OCM

    Donovan states:
    “Effectively, the politician has no real power. The constitution entrenches this matter, and therefore, places more faith in officials or bureaucrats than the custodians of vision and views of the people.”

    He clearly have not worked in Government where the Director-General and staff members jump around to try and satisfy the politicians. Some of these politicians use their status to influence outcomes in departments even after they are advised that a particular cause of action is improper, thats probably one of the reasons why SA suffers from Tenderitus. This is both true under DA/ANC administrations.

  • ozoneblue

    Just to think if it wasn’t for the evil racist White people who colonised and suppressed Black people in South Africa for 3000 years we could have been a great Constitutional success. Just like in Mali and Niger.

    http://www.voanews.com/english/news/africa/Aid-Agencies-Sound-Alarm-on-Niger-Food-Crisis-142625226.html

    “Humanitarian workers say severe food shortages threaten more than six million people in Niger. Aid agencies say funding is urgently needed to stave off a food crisis in the band of dry, drought-ridden territory that stretches from Senegal to Chad called the Sahel. All together, United Nations agencies, including the World Food Program, are calling for just over $1 billion to head off the food crisis in the Sahel this year. It has become an annual refrain in West Africa, and once again Niger’s impoverished farmers and herders are at the epicenter of the crisis. ”

    Just give every impoverished African peasant a bit of land for eking out a meager existence with traditional subsistence farming and the Constitution will do the rest!

  • Maggs Naidu – maggsnaidu@hotmail.com

    ozoneblue
    March 24, 2012 at 21:17 pm

    Hey OB,

    Stop picking on Raenette Taljaard.

    She really did not think that the DA will be DAish when she joined it.

    When Leon spoke of “blackening the list” what he probably really meant was that the DA were in search of a sufficient number of “political refugees” to create a perception of “diversity” and not because he (or others influencing the shape and character of the DA) believed that Black people are people.

    Sort of like Ms Zille and her “education refugees” from the EC.

    Anyone can make the same error as Ms Taljaard – just like Ms Mazibuko thinks that she is an real leader of the DA in parliament.

    But they are young, as Dworky always says, and they will learn (like when a pit-bull shows a huge grin, it’s not really smiling at you. Run!).

  • ozoneblue

    Maggs Naidu – maggsnaidu@hotmail.com
    March 25, 2012 at 8:46 am

    “When Leon spoke of “blackening the list” what he probably really meant was that the DA”

    nah. i think he meant the DA membership must be representative of the demographics of South Africa. As is an absolute imperative in every walk of life in a representative demography.

  • Maggs Naidu – Zuma must go!

    ozoneblue
    March 25, 2012 at 10:47 am

    Hey OB – to make the DA “more representative” Helen Zille must attract more refugees from the EC.

    Do help her!

  • Mikhail Dworkin Fassbinder

    Maggs I say Madam Zille’s use of the word REFUGEES to describe black children is final proof — for anyone who still needs it — that she is a RACIST of the first order.

    After all, nearly all refugees, especially in Africa, are black!

    WDYS?

  • Maggs Naidu – Zuma must go!

    Mikhail Dworkin Fassbinder
    March 25, 2012 at 12:28 pm

    Hey Dworky,

    You really need to start your own “satellite blog”.

    Most refugees into Cape Town, quantitatively at least, may be Black.

    But QUALITATIVELY, the likes of Mark Thatcher, Vito Palozollo, Dobrosav Gavric and others are also Black!

  • ozoneblue

    @mdf

    “Maggs I say Madam Zille’s use of the word REFUGEES to describe black children is final proof — for anyone who still needs it — that she is a RACIST of the first order.”

    I have never doubted that Zille is a RACIST. After all she claimed to be Steve Biko’s favorite [racist] “White liberal”. I think Zille is saying that there shouldn’t be an over-concentration of poor Blacks in EC cause it is as separate Bantustan governed by the ANC.

  • ozoneblue

    “It has become an annual refrain in West Africa, and once again Niger’s impoverished farmers and herders are at the epicenter of the crisis. ”

    Oh if only our nonracial Constitution can solve the “land issue” in South Africa we will attract much more foreign aid from charitable Western donors to save us all from starvation.

    What does the pseudo-liberal stink tank at the UCT have to say?

  • Mikhail Dworkin Fassbinder

    Funny you should mention that, Maggs, because just this weekend, I have been planning a special SATELLITE BLOG. (I am going to ask Pierre please to provide a link; I will, of course, return the favour.)

    Maggs, will you consider chairing a review board? I will meet “virtually” twice a day to screen the spammers, hooligans and troglodykes are attempting to turn this this into a LIBERAL STINK-TANK.

  • Maggs Naidu – Zuma must go!

    Lisbeth
    March 24, 2012 at 18:37 pm

    LOL Lisbeth,

    “Especially if Cyril gets to be his running mate”.

    Cyril did not want to be Mebki’s “running mate” in 1999 – he rather sat in the corner (the corner which comrades make mega billions that is) and sulked all the way to the bank.

    Why do you think he will be the running mate of Zuma who’s turned out to be such a doos????

  • ozoneblue

    @mfd

    Satellite blog is a great idea. And I already have a suggestion for a logo.

    http://www.ostrichheadinsand.com/images/ostrich_head_in_sand.jpg

    or how about the Southern African Spring?

    http://www.economist.com/node/21550328

  • Maggs Naidu – Zuma must go!

    ozoneblue
    March 25, 2012 at 14:35 pm

    http://www.ozoneblue.co.za/Hey OB and Dworky,

    Not to worry, there’s already a “satellite blog” for stupid people – which can be made a lot better if you invite Prof MO to moderate it.

    http://www.ozoneblue.co.za/

    WDYS?

  • Graham

    Hey Dworkovski, I must concede that you are probably better qualified than most to expostulate on the word refugee and the context in which Helen Zille used it.
    After all, as an ex Stasi fugitive from justice yourself, you would be well versed in the subject of of fleeing or running away.

    Thanks!

  • Maggs Naidu – Zuma must go!

    Hey OB,

    WDYSTT?

    According to the minutes of an international conference on silicosis in Johannesburg in 1930, of the £15m paid out by the mining houses in silicosis compensation from 1911 to 1929, 85 percent went to whites, 10 percent of the workforce.

    http://www.iol.co.za/business/business-news/from-gold-dust-to-a-claim-for-billions-1.1263308

    Maybe Madame Zille will have a word or two about those refugees who are now wanting compensation!

  • ozoneblue

    Maggs Naidu – Zuma must go!
    March 25, 2012 at 15:06 pm

    LOL.

    Or how about this neo-liberal stink tank:

    http://www.sairr.org.za/profile/sponsors-and-donors/sponsors-and-donors

    Sponsored by the same neoliberal and “nonracial” slave masters who sponsors the AA school of UCT. Where the elitist Black upperclasses receive academically accredited brainwashing in Critical Race Theory, historic revisionism, hypocrisy, self-pity, class-denial and greed.

    “Core support

    Royal Belgian Embassy

    Anglo American Chairman’s Fund

    Oppenheimer Memorial Trust

    FirstRand Foundation”

  • Lisbeth

    Maggs:

    “Why do you think [Cyril Ramaphosa] will be the running mate of Zuma …”

    Because his name has been bandied about, that’s why. I honestly don’t know whether it was Cyril’s idea.

    Still, he might be interested *because* Zuma is “such a doos”. You never know what can happen, and then you’re next in line …

  • Maggs Naidu – Zuma must go!

    Lisbeth
    March 25, 2012 at 15:53 pm

    Lisbeth,

    “Zuma is such a doos”.

    Stop calling our President a doos, blady agent!

    I suspect though that Ramaphosa will not do that – even if Zuma wins (which is unlikely in my view) anyone joining him now must have a political death wish.

  • Dmwangi

    @Maggs:

    ‘It’s almost certain that you are “the kind of Black” who Dworky, Brett, JR would allow themselves to befriend.’

    Normally I would be mildly annoyed by insinuations about being a ‘coconut’ but as hard as I try, I can’t be bothered by Maggs’ invective.

    There is a sad kernel of truth in that statement, though. There are undoubtedly multitudes of blacks who are far more noble and virtuous than I, but who, simply because they have never heard of Aristotle or speak pigeon English or lack any educational credential, etc, are viewed as little more than primitive, savage, barbarians by the likes of DMF, Brett, JR, Sirjay, et al. Very sad.

  • ozoneblue

    Dmwangi
    March 25, 2012 at 17:21 pm

    “There is a sad kernel of truth in that statement, though. There are undoubtedly multitudes of blacks who are far more noble and virtuous than I, but who, simply because they have never heard of Aristotle or speak pigeon English or lack any educational credential, etc, are viewed as little more than primitive, savage, barbarians by the likes of DMF, Brett, JR, Sirjay, et al. Very sad.”

    Not if dem got expensive shit.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u-DyWvAaOcE

  • Maggs Naidu – Zuma must go!

    Dmwangi
    March 25, 2012 at 17:21 pm

    Hey Dm,

    “I can’t be bothered by Maggs’ invective.

    As everyone here knows I don’t do anything as sophisticated as “invective” which is reserved for the more refined and erudite, WHITE-impressing Blacks.

    Being primitive myself, speaking pigeon English and lack any educational credentials, I just do crude Ballemisations.

    But thanks anyway – the terrible three (OB, Brett, Dworky and JR) will be impressed.

  • Dmwangi

    @OB:

    Lol….I love Fela Kuti, btw.

    Wish I could get my sons to listen to Afro-beats instead of the God-awful American rap music that abounds in our house.

  • Maggs Naidu – Zuma must go!

    Zuma’s Banana Republic in full swing!!!!!

    City Press can reveal:
    » Two VIP guards jumped six ranks – from sergeant to colonel;

    » Two leapt five ranks – from warrant officer to colonel;

    » Two jumped three ranks – from captain to colonel; and

    » Two more VIP guards were promoted one level up – from lieutenant colonel to full colonel.

    http://www.citypress.co.za/Politics/News/Top-jobs-for-Zumas-cops-20120324

  • Mikhail Dworkin Fassbinder

    “Over the past year many ordinary folk … have taken up this whispering campaign against the Constitution.”

    Pierre is right. Everywhere I go these days – taxi ranks, beer halls, soccer matches, the Cape Argus, Muizenburg beach, Mr Price, Loop Street, all I hear is “ordinary folk” murmuring about amending the Constitution!

  • ozoneblue

    Maggs Naidu – Zuma must go!
    March 25, 2012 at 19:59 pm

    If it is true then it is rather disconcerting. But again it could just be more vigorous AA and BEE.

    Nothing in comparison to the incorruptible British I would say.

    “Mr Cruddas was secretly filmed saying that a donation of £250,000 gave “premier league” access to party leaders, including private dinners with Mr Cameron and Chancellor George Osborne, and with any feedback on policy shared with Downing Street.”

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-17504798

  • Maggs Naidu – Zuma must go!

    ozoneblue
    March 25, 2012 at 22:55 pm

    Hey OB,

    “Nothing in comparison to the incorruptible British I would say.”

    Too true!

    Your snippet did miss the small AND irrelevant detail below.

    Mr Cruddas quit hours after publication.

    Our “revolutionary comrades” have an interesting take on being caught with their hands in the cookie jar, building on the philosophy of our erstwhile President Mbeki of “the fishers of corrupt men” fame.

    Take your pick :

    – Take your evidence to the police;
    – Innocent until proven guilty;
    – Never surrender, take no prisoners;
    – Hell no, we won’t go!

  • ozoneblue

    Maggs Naidu – Zuma must go!
    March 25, 2012 at 23:07 pm

    I must admit the British are much more ruthless than the ANC when it comes to brutally rape and kill the MESSENGER.

    “He was speaking to the reporters posing as staff from a fake wealth fund based in Liechtenstein who were interested in doing business in the UK.”

  • ozoneblue

    Now here is an idea for SEXUAL PREFERENCE CLASSIFICATION to help TRANSFORM our white-heterosexual-male dominated society.

    ”They asked me when I first had anal intercourse, oral sex, what sort of toys I played with as a child…” Ahmet, a young man in his 20s, told officials he was gay at the first opportunity after he was called up, as he and other conscripts underwent a health check. “They asked me if I liked football, whether I wore woman’s clothes or used woman’s perfume,” he says. ”I had a few days’ beard and I am a masculine guy – they told me I didn’t look like a normal gay man.”

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-17474967

    Our gender crits at UCT will love it.

  • Maggs Naidu – Zuma must go!

    Hmmm!

    Is the SAPS soon to be headed by General Zuma????

    An under-siege top cop has accused President Jacob Zuma’s son, Edward, of exerting pressure on him to release a R15-million payment that had been frozen because of an investigation into fraud suspect Thoshan Panday.

    “I had never met him before. He said he was there to elicit assistance for Thoshan Panday. Edward Zuma claimed he was a silent partner in Panday’s business and had invested R900 000. He said he wanted the R15m unfrozen because he was not getting his dividends from Panday because the money had been frozen.

    http://www.iol.co.za/news/politics/zuma-s-son-tried-to-release-cash-1.1263335

  • ozoneblue

    Maggs Naidu – Zuma must go!
    March 26, 2012 at 7:39 am

    Why would anyone want to “freeze” money?

  • Maggs Naidu – Zuma must go!

    ozoneblue
    March 26, 2012 at 7:50 am

    OB,

    “Why would anyone want to ‘freeze’ money?”

    Maybe because they think it’s “hot”!

    p.s. In the meanwhile here’s an opportunity for Zuma to organise a government tender for a river patrol to keep away crocodiles from this part of the river and another one for lifesavers to save people from drowning in this very dangerous river.

    Pensioners from KwaNogawu village, in KwaZulu-Natal, risk drowning each month when they are forced to cross a raging, crocodile-inhabited river to collect their old-age pension.

    http://www.timeslive.co.za/local/2012/03/26/village-grannies-must-brave-crocs-for-grants

    Meanwhile the Local mayor Joshua Sikhakhane was “shocked” to hear from The Times of the pensioners’ plight.

    “If I had known, I would have asked the previous social development MEC to assist us,” he said.

    Oh well – as usual FUCK THE POOR!

  • ozoneblue

    Maggs Naidu – Zuma must go!
    March 26, 2012 at 7:57 am

    no doubt if Cde Zuma invested some tax payers money in his home town he would be accused of nepotism and corruption.

  • Gwebecimele
  • reader

    _ Never have so few
    _ been responsible for so much
    _ Meaning so little
    _ Being repeated so often

    With apologies to Churchill

  • ozoneblue

    Apologies then to that racist mass-murderer Churchill.

    Back on topic.

    “This aspect is based on the view that the *human rights of an individual* can be trampled on not only by the state but also by powerful private interests and by individuals.”

    *human rights of an individual* are trampled on by collective/group rights for sure. There can be absolutely no doubt about that. PdV please stop talking rubbish and be honest for a change.

  • Jama ka Sijadu

    First it was “Mbeki must go “, these days it’s “Zuma must go”

    Quetion is: what (if anything) will “Mkhulu” do differently?”

    http://www.businessday.co.za/articles/Content.aspx?id=168189

  • Anonymouse

    ozoneblue says:
    March 26, 2012 at 7:50 am
    Maggs Naidu – Zuma must go!
    March 26, 2012 at 7:39 am

    Why would anyone want to “freeze” money?

    The best way to stop ‘money-laundering’ is to freeze the money while it is still wet?

    On the topic – the ANC views the Constitution as nothing more than a piece of shit-paper. If you no longer like the inscriptions on the toilet-rolls currently in use, simply print others that are more to your liking – weeell, … pure white will give government carte blanche, but to appease the masses, they just change the printing. … Bah! Banana Republic!

  • Gwebecimele

    When the former Minister of Police gave us 3 names of individuals who were allegedely involved in some coup against Mbeki, there was an unsolicited pledge of loyalty until……………………………….POLOKWANE. Lets hope the messages by Jackson about Sisulu will live beyond Mangaung.

    http://www.sowetanlive.co.za/news/2012/03/26/zuma-must-go

  • Gwebecimele

    A defiant Malema told the youth to be fearless and forge their way to a victory in Mangaung.

    “I have never raped or killed anyone. I have also never stolen from anybody, not even pieces of chicken from the kitchen. I’m waiting for you “big head” to show me what I stole.

    “All that I have I worked for it because I don’t award tenders,” Malema said.

  • Gwebecimele

    The real nature of our courts delivered to us by our well respected Judges & Magistrates both serving and retired.

    http://www.citypress.co.za/Columnists/A-law-unto-ourself-20120324

    “The magistrate had asked if there was a translator for the accused who used a language my friend thought was one of the Sotho languages, but couldn’t be sure. No translator was available.

    The magistrate ruled that the case should proceed, presumably in the languages that were available by default, which included the Afrikaans she began with, the English she switched to, the English of the prosecutor, the African language for which there was no translator, and two “broken Englishes”, hers and that of the accused. “

  • ozoneblue

    Gwebecimele
    March 26, 2012 at 15:00 pm

    There is really no excuse for a magistrate/doctor/teacher/lecturer anybody working with the general public not be able to speak one or two of our larger indigenous African languages. That should be a prerequisite, a basic qualification I must assume.

  • Gwebecimele
  • ozoneblue

    “Ndebele is a research fellow: Archive and Public Culture Research Initiative, UCT Fellow, Stellenbosch Institute for Advanced Study”

    A elitist “UCT fellow” sponsored by Anglo American/Harry Oppenheimer Foundation joining the racist DA in a viscous and unfounded attack on COSATU and the working class.

    No! I never saw that one coming.

  • Maggs Naidu – Zuma must go!

    Gwebecimele
    March 26, 2012 at 15:15 pm

    Gwebs,

    These guys are just bored.

    It’s nonsense that our Constitution is under threat.

    The DA Youth will do much better by engaging their leader to stop her overtly racist “Professional Blacks” and “refugees” slips from showing.

    But then as Dworky always says, they are young and they will learn.

  • Mikhail Dworkin Fassbinder

    @ Maggs

    [Zille should] to stop her overtly racist “Professional Blacks” and “refugees” slips from showing.”

    Maggs is right. We know these black kids have put up with a lot at the hands of the (ANC) govt of the Eastern Cape. Mud schools. No teachers. No textbooks. No education. All of this they can endure. But to be called a REFUGEE! Now THAT is the ultimate assault on the fragile dignity of these kids.

    Thanks.

  • ozoneblue

    @mfd

    “We know these black kids have put up with a lot at the hands of the (ANC) govt of the Eastern Cape. Mud schools. No teachers. No textbooks. No education. All of this they can endure.”

    Amandla!

  • Maggs Naidu – Zuma must go!

    Mikhail Dworkin Fassbinder
    March 26, 2012 at 20:59 pm

    LOL Dworky,

    You probably know that because you and Matilda have been called refugees – it gets even worse when being referenced in a derogatory way for moving around in our own country.

    But admittedly it’s hard for me to identify with – I moved to Gauteng in 1999 and was fortunate enough to not have had Zille leading this province. Otherwise I too, like you, may have known what it feels like to be called a refugee in my own country (although I do know what it was like to have been required to get a permit to cross provinces + a lot more).

    Our Constitution says that South Africa belongs to all who live in it – but I guess that the drafters left out the small print which says *excludes the People’s Republic of the Western Cape*.

    A specially coined Ballemisation for Madame Zille and those who support he in this – “jou ma se refugee!”

  • Gwebecimele
  • Jama ka Sijadu

    Maggs Naidu – Zuma must go! says:
    March 26, 2012 at 21:26 pm

    According to the media, we are all apparently missing the point & “misinterpreting” her remarks, as we did with Pieter Mulder…
    Yet Jimmy Manyi was branded as the worst kind of racist for his “over-concentration” remarks.

    This ‘white homeland’ must be intergrated once & for all

  • Maggs Naidu – Zuma must go!

    Jama ka Sijadu
    March 27, 2012 at 11:25 am

    LOL JkS,

    As Raenette Taljaard has learned “a country deserves the opposition it gets”.

    Mamphela Ramphele is also reportedly flirting with the devil or vice versa – as Dworky always says “she is young and she will learn”.

  • Maggs Naidu – Zuma must go!

    p.s. “Context” (like the apartheid era park benches) carries the “No Blacks allowed” sign!

  • Gwebecimele
  • Donovan

    So sorry to respond so belatedly, but I have been away for a few days.

    Firstly, Sirjay, the African ‘big man’ syndrome, is true it did and probably does still occur in various parts of the world, including some countries in Africa. However, no-one is arguing against two-terms definitely not me, but having a two-term policy for a president who is not directly elected by the citizenry is not common practice, and there is no two-term policy (except in African countries) of head of government (as opposed to head of state) in the West. Further, one of the primary reasons for the ‘president for life’ syndrome in Africa, is because legislation was not passed protecting former presidents, in terms pensions for life, state residence, a former president’s office and staff, etc. So very often if you were no more president than you were effectively out of a job. Further, like the US where you cannot charge a president for what they did whilst in power. If there was legislation like this in the 50s to the 80s in the continent, then the chances of ‘presidents for life’ would have been severely reduced. On France this is a recent change after over twenty years of discussion, and Senegal took the lead from SA. There are clearly different rules for the application of democracy in Africa as opposed to the West.

    Secondly, some out here definitely cannot read, especially OCM. I am writing about the rules for local government in the constitution, not national and provincial. I truly hope you are not a lawyer otherwise I must pity your clients. So your response is irrelevant.

    These are just examples of where the Constitution could change, or be discussed or be reviewed. since Prof’s article said he could not find any place.

    And I openly state that these examples are a part of an overall thread of the constitution that was based on a fear of the future because of our divided past, and we can move on now to have more robust and direct power rather than perpetual negotiations.

  • Joy

    Coming to this site I wanted to know the procedural requirements for changing the Constitution. Can anyone enkighten me? Thanx

  • Michael Osborne

    See s 74 (on the web). Mostly, it needs a two thirds majority.

  • Patricia Whittle

    Why can’t a province propose amendments to a constitutional amendment
    bill that proposes changes to its borders, but can veto that provision?
    The Merafong judgement does not really answer this question
    convincingly- any thoughts or further sources I can consult prof?