Quote of the week

The judgments are replete with the findings of dishonesty and mala fides against Major General Ntlemeza. These were judicial pronouncements. They therefore constitute direct evidence that Major General Ntlemeza lacks the requisite honesty, integrity and conscientiousness to occupy the position of any public office, not to mention an office as more important as that of the National Head of the DPCI, where independence, honesty and integrity are paramount to qualities. Currently no appeal lies against the findings of dishonesty and impropriety made by the Court in the judgments. Accordingly, such serious findings of fact in relation to Major General Ntlemeza, which go directly to Major General Ntlemeza’s trustworthiness, his honesty and integrity, are definitive. Until such findings are appealed against successfully they shall remain as a lapidary against Lieutenant General Ntlemeza.

Mabuse J
Helen Suzman Foundation and Another v Minister of Police and Others
5 December 2006

Ronald Suresh Roberts, where are you now that we need you?

The Promotion of Access to Information Act was – as Ghandi said about Western civilization – “a good idea”. The problem is that for most of us mere mortals who do not have the time, money or the energy, it can seem impossible to get required information out of the government or big corporations.

As the SCA points out in the judgment in Claase v The Information Officer of South African Airways (handed down last week), there have been a slew of cases in which big corporations or the government have failed to swiftly deal with requests. Inevitably these cases ended up in court because the lawyers for the big boys threw up some technicality or another.

Mr Claase, a retired pilot, wrote no more than 10 emails to get the information he needed to sue SAA for not giving him the two business class seats he was entitled to as a retired pilot. That failed so he had to take the case al the way to Bloemfontein to get the court to force SAA to provide him with the information.

In his judgment justice Combrinck is quite scathing of the behaviour of SAA and its legal representatives. It makes for satisfying reading – especially if one has ever tried to book SAA voyager miles seats only to be sent from pillar to post.

But if Mr Claase was not an old employee of SAA who knew the ropes and if he was not retired and affluent, would he ever have gone to all the trouble to get the information he needed? If he lived in an informal settlement there was no hope in hell of him getting his information.

The lesson from this is that one should “go nuclear” in any request for access to information. Threaten with higher ups (“I know Jacob Zuma/Thabo Mbeki/Nelson Mandela”), insult and shout and bombard with so many emails and letters that they cannot ignore you.

Maybe once Ronald Suresh Roberts is done with the defamation trial, he could offer his services to poor people who need information out of a big corporation or the government. That way his “relentless” tenacity would be harnessed for a good cause and he will stay out of trouble.

SHARE:     
BACK TO TOP
2015 Constitutionally Speaking | website created by Idea in a Forest