“Ek steel nie van arm mense nie, want my ma was self ’n kombuiswerker. Laat dié mense wat aanbeveel dat my leefstyl geoudit moet word, eerste in die ry staan. Laat alle hoëprofiel-leiers geoudit word. As hulle skoon is, dan weet ons dit én dat hulle beter as God is.”

Translated:
“I do not steal from POOR people [only rich ones], because even my own mother was a domestic worker. Let those people who advocate an audit of my [extremely extravagant lfestyle] be first [in the row to be audited]. Let all high-profile leaders be audited. If THEY [unlike me] are clean, we will know that, and that they are better than God!”

Boy! Hee’s gooood!

Malema said he did “not need the permission of white political messiahs to think”.

Indeed.

What’s stopping him then?

I am delighted we agree on former President Mbeki being afforded an opportunity to defend himself and his views.

I happen to disagree though on a platform for his defence for the following reasons;

1. In a court of law, Mbeki would have a lot to lose, most notably his freedom by being sent to prison, which may in turn prompt him to defend himself and his government’s policy more vigorously. Needless to say, he would have to adduce evidence which will shed light for us into the views that he held so dearly and spearheaded his government’s policy in respect of the subject matter (HIV/AIDS),

2. The head of the commission so formed may not be empowered to force him and other witnesses to testify whose evidence may be relevant and/or controversial (remember the commission on whether Adv. Vusi Pikoli was fit and proper person to continue to be our DPP in which Bridgette Mabandla refused to testify on her role in the matter?). Such refusals render commissions waste of taxpayers’ money,

3. The Constitution – (s 84(2)(f) – requires that commissions of enquiry be appointed by the President. That President being Jacob Zuma, the commission so appointed may be regarded by some quarters as merely the continuation of the battle between the two leaders on a different front and would greatly diminish its credibility and effectiveness, and

4. Knowing the enmity between the former President Mbeki and President Jacob Zuma or at least their being at loggerheads with each other could result in the appointment of such a commission or its findings doctored to favour the manipulator with the obvious results that the people on the ground would be the ultimate losers…

Based on the above, I still advocate a full trial for genocide against Mbeki. I dare the authorities in this regard. The implications of the full on trial being too ghastly to contemplate, I can safely assume that such a trial would never see the light of day. There is a lot at stake here from drug-producing companies to the removal of the dark clouds looming over the former President’s head which would continue to make the ANC decision to remove him justifiable as long as they remain above his head.

I completely agree with Ishmael on Malema’s intentions. I think he loves the spotlight, and will crush any chancers (Manamela in this case) attempting to steal/share his limelight.

It is also true that Mbeki should get a chance to defend himself and explain his policies/views. I think this may be better if done in a commission of enquiry rather than a genocide trial.

Marvelous mechanism you got there for detecting duplicate comment. You surely are continuing to improve this blog. Keep up the good work…