Why did Minister Jeff Radebe fail to address what appears to be one of the most egregious acts of dishonesty on the part of Adv Menzi Simelane? In his half-hearted defense of Adv Simelani, Radebe failed to explain why Simelane did not produce a letter, written by then President Thabo Mbeki to the then Minister of Justice regarding the Jackie Selebi case – even after being lawfully requested to do so.
On 22 October 2007 Vusi Pikoli’s lawyers wrote a letter to Adv Menzi Simelani, then Director General in the Department of Justice. The letter stated, inter alia:
May we please have copies of all communications and other documents relating the investigation and prosecution of Mr Selebi which you or your Department may have sent to or received from the president or anyone in the Presidency at any time since 15 September….
This request seems pretty clear. Any half-way honest person would have understood what it meant. It must be conceded that a careless or overworked person might not have provided all the documents as requested because of an oversight or negligence.
A dishonest person, on the other hand, would have deliberately chosen not to provide all the documents as requested or would have followed instructions from his boss to be dishonest and to lie. Unless something far more sinister is at work here, Adv Simelane’s failure to produce this letter – a failure curiously not addressed by Radebe at all – suggests that he is a man who will deliberately try to mislead legal opponents by hiding information lawfully requested by them in order to protect the President.
During cross examination Simelane first conceded that the letter allegedly written by thenPresident Mbeki falls squarely within the ambit of documents requested. Yet Simelane wrote back after the request mentioned above was received and stated as follows:
We are not in posession of any documents relating to the investigation of the National Commissioner of Police, save for reports prepared by your client [Pikoli].
When first asked by Trengove why the letter was not produced Simelane said:
Well, I wasn’t informed about the letter, I became aware of the letter much later.
But later Simelane conceded that he was aware of the letter, which means his first statement was not truthful. Although he had not read it, Simelane claimed, he knew the President had sent a letter to the Minister. It was this very letter which led to the writing of another letter by Simelane which was later signed by the Minister (ordering Pikoli to stop the arrest of Selebi). Yet he did not provide Pikoli’s lawyers with the letter as requested. Worse, he stated that there was no such documents in their possession.
When confronted about this, Simelane again changed his story and said that he did not think the letter by the President, requesting more information on the Selebi matter, related in any way to the investigation against Mr Selebi. This is unfortunately not a line of argument that could reasonably be pursued without losing every shred of credibility one might have had as a witness.
Trengove then pounces:
Trengove: You said: we have no such documents in our possession. And I want to know who decided to tell that lie. You or the Minister?
Later Simelane contradicts himself yet again and tells another wopper when he says:
No, we didn’t, we didn’t deny that the letter was there.
This is of course not correct. Simelane had written to Pikoli’s lawyers denying that there were any documents relating to the Selebi investigation in the posession of the Department. Yet the President’s letter – which he admitted he was aware of – dealt directly with the Selebi investigation. With Adv Trengove we should ask: Did Simelane decided to lie of his own accord or was he instructed to lie by the Minister, the President or any legal advisor of the President?
What makes this so curious is that the letter allegedly written by then President Mbeki to the Minister of Justice one day before the Minister of Justice signed a letter drafted by Simelane instructing Pikoli not to proceed with the arrest of Selebi does not contain the smoking gun evidence Pikoli had hoped for. The content of the Ministers letter, which contained the unlawful instruction to Pikoli not to proceed with the arrest of Selebi, seems to go much further than the request contained in Mbeki’s letter, which merely asked for more information on the Selebi case (information, we now know, which the President had already been given by Pikoli).
A conspiracy theory is doing the rounds that Simelane had not produced the letter because it contained an illegal instruction from then President Mbeki to have the arrest of Selebi stopped. According to this theory, another letter was conjured up after the fact when it became clear that it would have had to be produced to the Ginwala inquiry.
I am not sure I buy this. Surely Mbeki and his advisers would not have deliberately concocted fake evidence to escape responsibility for their unlawful actions? A more plausible explanation is that Simelane decided to lie about the existence of the letter because it showed that the suspension of Pikoli was directly related to the pending arrest of Selebi. At the time, President Mbeki had denied that the suspension of Pikoli had anything to do with the impending arrest of Selebi and this letter provided proof that Mbeki’s claim could not be sustained.
To protect the person who had appointed him, Simelane then misled Pikoli and the Inquiry by not producing the letter written by the President – despite being requested to do so and despite having a legal duty to do so.
Minister Radebe failed to explain why this action by Simelane does not warrant disciplinary action against Simelane. This is because there is no plausible explanation for this failure to produce evidence which Simelane had a legal duty to hand over.
This sorry tale provides more proof that Simelane is a man who is so loyal to his political bosses that he would try to hide the existence of evidence that would make his boss look bad. No wonder he was purportedly appointed by President Jacob Zuma as National Director of Public Prosecutions. With such a guy heading the NPA, President Zuma clearly has nothing to worry about on the legal front – even if the decision to drop charges against him is declared invalid.
It is merely cadre deployment. As the ANC becomes increasingly corrupt it will become increasingly inefficient at the task of governing the country. Radebe’s conduct therefore speaks for itself.
Where can I hide myself?
Sine, you wont need to hide. The NPA will be so down the tubes that they wont come looking or you.
Integrity is one of the key requirements for the position of the NDPP. Any person appointed to this position must be free from instances where he had lied especially under oath or due legal process.
Prof here has provided information which he has presented as facts as opposed to opinions where Simelane has lied during a due legal process and during the Ginwala Commission.
Since Prof claims the information he provided to be facts, such information then requires to be debunked if Simelane is to remain a man of integrity; thus maintaining the legality of his appointment.
Although minister Jeff Radebe may raise a number of arguments in defence of the appointment of Simelane, he has to do something to properly clear Simelane’s name because what Prof claims to be facts did not arise out of a frivolous social interaction (e.g. facebook or FJZ) but during a due legal process.
What I am saying is that the minister still has a lot to do in order to get to the bottom of the truth, in order to allay fears of a non independent prosecuting authority. The minister should therefore heed this article by Prof.
But if these allegations were nonexistent, Simelane would have been a good choice- no doubt about that.
Simelane already showing his true colours, finish and klaar? http://www.news24.com/Content/SouthAfrica/News/1059/3deb8ca3a37042a5b254a8e5db400ab9/02-12-2009-01-54/NPA_to_meet_Selebi_prosecutors
Sine says:
December 2, 2009 at 10:11 am
Where can I hide myself?
——————————————————
Mr Simelane, I presume?
King Zwakala says:
December 2, 2009 at 11:08 am
“What I am saying is that the minister still has a lot to do in order to get to the bottom of the truth, in order to allay fears of a non independent prosecuting authority.”
Eish King.
Do you really think that the Minister gives a hoot?
I think not!
@ Pierre,
Some somewhere suggested that David Unterhalter advised Min Radebe on this matter.
Any idea if there is merit to that bit of gossip?
Maggs
I suspect that even Hugh Glenister might think of asking for a refund for his court fight for the saving of the Scorpions.
With hind sight he might be thinking , what a wasted effort with an organization that was rotten to the core.
Gwebecimele says:
December 2, 2009 at 14:22 pm
Glenister : “I gotta save the scorpions, the sting is in the tail”
Radebe : “I gotta save Simelane, the sting is in the tale”.
N.B. This is entire fictional – any reference to real people is imagined!
LOL Maggs
I used to post under Sne but now after the merger I post under Sine
In Xhosa we used to say; ‘Vuleka mhlaba ndingene.’ This basically is used in instances which are embarrassing but which are committed by someone else. Freely translated, it means ‘open up soil so I may enter.’ One such instance would be when a friend of yours or someone you know is speaking in a rude manner to an elderly person in your presence or swearing in that elder’s presence.
That is the feeling I got after reading the post by Prof. I wanted to hide myself from the embarrassment.
Sine says:
December 2, 2009 at 14:36 pm
I’ll stick with Sne.
While I don’t share the feeling that I hope the Earth opens up and swallows me alive, I do get a rather disquieting sense that something sinister is about to break.
On another note, has anyone come out in unconditional support of the appointment of Simelane?
@ Maggs
So far there is no sane being who has. The only sane one who has is Minister Radebe. All others qualified their support.
@ Sne – I heard (or misheard) on eNews something to the effect that when asked about the choice of Simelane, the Minister deferred that to the Presidency.
I got the impression that he was saying that it was the President’s choice, not his.
@ Maggs
If Pres Zuma is indeed serious about his collective leadership, the matter was indeed discussed with other powers that be and anyone of those should be in a position to defend such a decision.
Yep – that would have been the appropriate response. But is wasn’t.
I wonder why no one, not even the ANC’s Pronouncer-in-Chief aka Julius, has not come out in unconditional support this time.
I am a UCT science graduate and was proud to be alumni until Pierre de Vos ineptitude and idiocy.
Pierre de Vos is a disgrace not only to UCT and his family, but to the students he lectured and every UCT alumni. I do not understand why should he retort to offending a head of state when he fails to argue both quantitatively and qualitative. His students are not proud for his blatant slur and therefore the retraction of thereafter.
I have listen to a number of his debates and arguments during JZ trials and the elections. I think his running out of brain cells. If only there was a thing like brain transplant, he was going to be rescued from the progressing indginity, degradation and loss of persona he is causing not only to himself but his acquiantance and associates.
I have decided to withdraw my connection with UCT from my business profiles and interviews. This is because i do not want to be linked harebrained and screwy academics like Pierre de Vos.
I agree, De Vos had gone “below the standards of decency and intelligent debate”. Your apology does not mean anything, “You are what you are”. An african woman who raised is dissspointed after teaching you Ubuntu, values etc. for more than 17 years.
You are a disgrace to the standard of “professorship” and higher education.
@ Mikhail,
You recently communicated some especially nasty insults to me. And in addition thereto, you also accused me of misguided partisanship to the DA in general and Helen in particular.
I would like you to note that even though your jibes wound me still, I have considered earnestly your accusation of partisanship. While the DA is, in my view, not above sharp reproach, I suppose I am somewhat sensitive to the DA. And I suppose also that I have very few gripes with Helen. But I will say this: perhaps the usual chorus of ANC-bashers should spare a thought for the average cadre. There are, I think, two reasons for this the first of which is that as far as I am aware, the average cadre generally does not earn enough money to live in great comfort. And it is precisely this commercial reality which makes the second of my reasons all the more convincing.
The second reason is that even though some of the more seasoned scoundrels might acquire a measure of comfort with unscrupulous behaviour over the years, it cannot be pleasant going to work in the knowledge that your lord will probably call on you truncate, distort or generally abuse the truth. And if one is not bathing in riches, the crookedness may be hard to bear.
Underscoring the names involved in the erosion of the rule of law and the efficacy of our core constitutional institutions is, in my view, a worthy endeavour – even if the only purpose served thereby is that history may remember them in unflattering terms. But considering the plight of the humble cadre is, at the very least I think, a useful weapon against self-righteousness.
@Moralo Lerumo,
I agree with you 110 percent. For the longest time, many of us have been questioning what this professor teaches to our young ones. And what is worse, we pay his salary. This is the very ‘law professor’ ‘constitutional expert’ who defended the theft of a minister’s medical records.
@ Khosi and Moralo, you both prefer to play the man and leave out arguing on merits. You seem to come from the ANCYL school so for you to not base your argument on merits is nothing new nor unexpected.
@ Prof, the leadership of the ANC may have changed but the culture will remain rooted in the organisation. The culture of the ANC is to put the interests of the party ahead of those of South Africans. It is only fair for Zuma to continue the legacy of ANC of putting comrades 1st and the country. Those of us who never believed in a changed Zuma nor a cultural shift in the ANC look on with shame that so many South African’s pinned their hopes on this man because of his ability to persuade them into the land of the promised yet act in a manner that is contrary to what he was preaching.
But then again, the more things change the more they remain the same.
How amazing that a person would disassociate himself with an institution of higher learning on the basis of the use of one word: “gangster” while continuing to align himself with an organisation that is consistently revealed to be corrupt, self-serving and filled with thieves, liars and criminals.
It beggars belief that ANC supporters are up in arms about the Prof’s little statement on his personal blog when there is clear evidence of tampering with core institutions, the appointment of liars into positions of power and unqualified support of actions that will have a detrimental effect on the fabric of our legal community.
For most people, morality is not a moveable concept. There is right and there is wrong. Apparently, in the ANC, morality can be moulded to suit one’s purpose.
After reading the posts by Moralo Lerumo and khosi, all I can say is: “Vuleka mhlaba ndingene!”
@Moralo Lerumo
I think the people at UCT are happy that you withdrew your connections to the institution from your business profiles and interviews because, for a graduate, your writing skills leave a lot to be desired.
While I think that critiism that tends to insult is not necessarily out of order or unhelpful, it does seem that on the present facts, Darcy’s point holds true: while the Professor makes cogent points about Simelane’s cadre tendencies and Zuma’s selfishness, the use of the word, gangster has given many an ANC loyalist something to shout about.
Regrettably (although entirely predictably), the typical ANC loyalist response has been to focus exclusively on the Professor’s accurate although moderately ill-advised phraseology.
And a few words about the UCT graduate who had a few choice remarks for the Professor: it could be you who does the disservice to that fine institution. Not only do you demonstrate that you have not considered objectively any of the Professor’s submissions about Zuma over the years, but you here fail miserably to consider the accuracy of the Professor’s description of the President. My question is, are we bloggers, along with the UCT science faculty, jusified in expecting better? I think so. But apparently you do not see the sense in this.
Some time in May this year Minister of Higher Education Blade Nzimande said he was worried if an opposition politician was “still together upstairs”.
It seems that is a contagious condition spreading rapidly among those blindly opposed to the ANC.
Some time ago I came across a snippet (may well be a fable) about US soldiers who were lost in the jungles of Vietnam and continued the war long afterward because they were unaware that it ended.
It seems to me that we still have some soldiering on with the “Stop Zuma” campaign even though it ought to have ended more than seven months ago!
@ Maggs,
You appear to be more obsessed with the “Stop Zuma” campaign than the opposition!! You use the phrase incessantly.
The opposition’s stance is more accurately, “Stop Corruption by the ANC”, but you fail to give credence to the fact that the opposition are as focused on all unlawful and corrupt activities by the ANC and merely focus on those that are aimed at Zuma.
Are you guys suggesting that as of today we need another Pixely Seme? Pixely Seme once wrote a scathing letter, defending a student, to the university authorities of a particular university who had covertly enmeshed themselves into political affairs of the country at the time. Please do not tell me guys that the same thing is happening today. I do not want to believe you and I do not believe you all.
@Moralo Lerumo
I was just a bit curious, when I read your comments referring to Prof. de Vos and UCT. At first I thought it was in error, but you continued to refer to UCT just like a person who do not actually know what you are talking about, maybe I’m the one mistaken, but the last time I checked Prof. de Vos is at UWC and he studied in Stellenbosch and UWC. prof. you can correct me if i’m wrong.
When you started refering to the strength of his argument in ‘qualitative and quantitative’ terms, I started doubting if you really understand these concepts and if you are really a science graduate from UCT nogal.
This was before you mentioned your withdrawal of business connection with UCT from your business profiles and interviews, then I was convinced that you are probably:
(a) an uninformed supporter of the President of SA
(b) a fat cat bully who thinks threats are a solution to suppressing free speech in this country
(c) an imbecillic(sic) moron hellbent on tarnishing the name of a good SA University, who does not even know which direction UCT is facing for that matter
Maggs is right.
Samantha, what you fail to grasp is that the “Stop Zuma” slogan was actually a racist code. What they mean when they say “Stop Zuma” is in fact “Stop black[s].”
This is so despite fact that one does not observe the same convenient rhyme as one did with Leon’s “Fight Back” campaign. (We all know that the subliminal message was “Fight Black.”)
One must be forever vigilant for the hidden racist meaning behind almost every pronouncement of the white opposition.
Hope this helps you, Samantha.
Khosi, it strikes me that your criticism of the Professor is very unfair. You question what the Professor teaches South African youngsters – by which it is clear you mean students.
However, in query the Professor’s ability on this score, you succeed only in demostrating the very same extreme bias as Moralo.
The Professor regularly pens topical pieces that often produce admirably clear and succint statements of legal positions in ways that are relevant to current affairs and engaging. His frequent success in this regard indicates that he has thoroughly digested many excellent writing habits. This alone shows that he has much of value to teach youngsters.
Just two more quick points: first, your agreement, Khosi, with Moralo’s general wrong-headedness is beneath you. You and I agree infrequently. But you have impressed me, and presumably many others, as being a natural debater. Thus I would urge you to distance yourself from cheaper opinions.
Secondly, the Professor certainly invites disagreement – and he has the good grace to disagree with people who often agree with him if he thinks they are wrong. But fair criticism, as you will know, involves proper acknowledgment of arguable points made by others. And the reason as to why I would urge you to distance yourself from much of what our formerly proud UCT science graduate has produced is that this UCT alumnus seems to offer a blanket rejection of everything the Professor says. But fatally (and given that he is a graduate, somewhat embarrassingly), he shows that he has not fairly investigated the content of the Professor’s submissions.
Maggs, Samantha makes a good deal of sense here: you have misconstrued (or at least misstated) the nature of the dissatisfaction with Zuma and the ANC. It is corruption, the erosion of our core institutions, generally brazen complacency and poor service delivery that inspires anger towards the ANC is some, and despair in others.
@ Leigh
I do not doubt your good intentions. You are obviously an earnest and attentive person, who is capable of writing fluidly — and at great LENGTH.
But the campaign against Cde Simelane and with respect to supposed “corruption” must be seen in CONTEXT and against the BACKGROUND of our sad history. If you can understand that, you will know that the “concerns” raised by the white opposition are in fact PRETEXTS for a set of ingrained RACIST assumptions about blacks in general and black government in particular.
Samantha says:
December 3, 2009 at 7:51 am
You appear to be more obsessed with the “Stop Zuma” campaign than the opposition!! You use the phrase incessantly.
The opposition’s stance is more accurately, “Stop Corruption by the ANC”, but you fail to give credence to the fact that the opposition are as focused on all unlawful and corrupt activities by the ANC and merely focus on those that are aimed at Zuma.
—————————————————————————————————–
I like relying on that phrase, it’s like the flip side of “mshini wam”!
Maybe you missed that the ANC’s Polokwane resolutions and its election manifesto deals extensively with anti corruption measures.
Maybe you missed our President’s initiatives towards ending corruption – admittedly the pace at which serious action is taken leaves a lot to be desired.
You say “(i)t beggars belief that ANC supporters are up in arms about the Prof’s little statement”.
I have made it clear that I am an ANC supporter and I am not up in arms as you say; I thought that Pierre was wrong, said so, accepted that his apology was sensible and it ended there – so you’re wildly exaggerating.
Who else that has commented in a way that you think is inappropriate, is an ANC supporter?
Mikhail Dworkin Fassbinder says:
December 3, 2009 at 8:03 am
Hey Dworky, you silly racist.
How are you?
@ Tony in Virginia
Hey there you must acknowledge the source of your quotation.
Let us call it protection of Community/Indigenous Intellectual Property Rights. I may not have coined the relevant phrase but I need to acknowledged for bringing it into this blog… 
Leigh says:
December 3, 2009 at 8:10 am
The ANC and it’s supporters are peed of with corruption.
Of course there’s crooks in the ANC – I said previously that crooks are not going to invade the Soccer party or the Green Party, they will work themselves towards the centre of power.
There are also people in power that will (and some have) allowed greed to over come them – that is unacceptable and it has to be dealt with.
Corruption has to be vigourously fought, it does not matter where it originates.
Now show me, if you will, a political party with any semblance of power that is entirely free of corruption or the corrupt!
Mikhail, thank you for your response. And you need not worry about lengthier pieces. Longer works often trouble younger debaters. But a little seasoning will see such things rendered less daunting.
You make some sense inasmuch as given our history, it is possible that some whites harbour some troubling assumptions about black people. But if you could set your enthusiasim for black progress aside for a time and fully employ your keen intellect, I am sure you will agree that the view that all whites subscribe to the abovementioned troubling view is itself an assumption which has been dispelled often enough.
@ Leigh at December 3, 2009 at 8:04 am
Talking about emotional blackmail… Or is it academic blackmail?
@ Mikhail,
Thank you. I obviously missed the subliminal messages and took the “Stop Zuma” phrase literally.
You are so right. Everything said by the opposition, and whites in general, is really nothing more than ill-concealed, albeit subliminal, racism, colonialism, imperialism, counter-revolutionary and Afro-pessimistic. How silly of me to overlook this.
Mikhail Dworkin Fassbinder says:
December 3, 2009 at 8:03 am
Hey Dworky (aka the silly racist).
I think you’re also exaggerating when you say “(o)ne must be forever vigilant for the hidden racist meaning behind almost every pronouncement of the white opposition” and “(i)f you can understand that, you will know that the “concerns” raised by the white opposition are in fact PRETEXTS for a set of ingrained RACIST assumptions about blacks in general and black government in particular.”
It’s hardly what was intended by Nic Borain when he wrote “(t)he fundamental nature of Menzi Simelane , down in his bones and in his genetic code” – I think he meant that Simelane is not strong enough to take on the powers that be if necessary. And if that is what he meant then I agree.
http://nicborain.wordpress.com/2009/12/03/do-you-remember-the-broederbond/
@ Maggs,
The old saying, “talk is cheap, money buys the whiskey” springs to mind. Zuma and the ANC can provide as many sound-bytes regarding their stance on corruption as they wish to, but until something tangible is seen to be done in this regard, Johnny Black will continue to experience high sales!!
Some examples might underscore my point:
Mayor Capa in the Eastern Cape – no criminal action, merely redeployment to another position for which she will continue to get paid.
Sundays River municipal manager – suspended for mismanagement of funds and then reinstated at the behest of the ANC Regional Council
I am still waiting for ONE Travelgate MP to actually be publicly admonished by the ANC, despite those that have been found guilty of fraud and who continue to serve in Parliament.
Until we see the ANC government taking real action against corruption (specifically against high ranking officials and not just the lower-paid minions who are the fall-guys), I will continue to believe that the ANC is corrupt.
As to your second question, the only other one on this post is Khosi.
@ Maggs
Fine, thanks. New container of prophylactics arrives on Monday from Taiwan. Really looking forward!
In the meantime, I wanted to tell you how much I admire the following argument, which have so deftly deployed against the “Stop Zuma” ranters on this blog:
“Now show me, if you will, a political party with any semblance of power that is entirely free of corruption or the corrupt!”
What can I say? Brilliant!
Samantha says:
December 3, 2009 at 8:40 am
Ok – so you’re comments earlier must have been directed at Khosi.
It seems to me that you think that the ANC must be stopped and the way to do it is to equate the ANC with corruption.
I think corruption must be stopped.
If those examples that you posted are anything to go by, then the scale and extent of corruption is largely hidden from you.
I can understand why you would attack the travel gate crooks – I guess for those opposed to the ANC someone with misshapen teeth would not be good enough.
I nevertheless fail to understand how it is that the ANC which has at it’s disposal the most talented, skilled and able people in the country from which it can cherry pick its people, relies on those who are less than savoury to downright crooked.
Hey Dworky
Tuesday.
That was a long wait for freedom, ne?
It is really worrying to find proffessors/analysts et al unduly assuming roles of opposition parties ,judges etc.This proffessor is coming with unfounded conclusions in his statement.For example in paragraph 4 last line he says’Simelane will deliberately try to milead legal opponents by hiding information lawfully requested by them in order to protect the president.’This is made to be the main reason why Simelane is not a fit and proper person to head prosecution.This prediction/conclusion is not fully supported by the facts in this matter.
The proffessor/prophet in his statement comes to another absurd conclusion ,he says ’surely Mbeki and his advisors would not have deliberately concocted false evidence to escape responsibility for their unlawful actions.A more plausible explanation is that Simelane decided to lie about the existence of the letter because it showed that the suspension of Pikoli was directly related to the pending arrest of Selebi.’Is this what Ginwala found or is the prophet/proffessor giving his own judgement .Prophet/proffessor with all respect that you deserve ,this is nothing but crap.You are more of a politician than a constitutional law expert.You are gradully losing evenrespect for authority which brings you closer to being an anarchist.
ZAPATA says:
December 3, 2009 at 11:01 am
“This prediction/conclusion is not fully supported by the facts in this matter.”
So Zapata, do you say the “prediction/conclution is partially supported by the facts?
Zapata is right.
It is now clear that the Proffessor/Prophet has now entered the same orbit as Jeremy Cronin, Joe Slovo, and other white messiahs who strive to impose colonialist conceptions, and so called “standards.”
I demand that the oubreak of virulent SIMELANEPHOBIA be vanquished!
Prof you nail them nicely. If you need a body guard I’ll be the first to volunteer.
Mikhail Dworkin Fassbinder says:
December 3, 2009 at 13:09 pm
ah ha.
Re “the Proffessor/Prophet”.
Now we all know where “Almustafa, the chosen and the beloved, who was a dawn onto his own day” ended up.
Send message to Almitra!
Awfully sorry for the oversight Sine.
You have yourself all the acknowledgement in the world; and thanks for the appropriate phrase.
Sine says:
December 2, 2009 at 15:04 pm
@ Maggs
So far there is no sane being who has. The only sane one who has is Minister Radebe. All others qualified their support.
—————————————————————————————————–
Hey Sne – did you get this?
“The Black Lawyers Association’s Macbeth Ncongwane said Simelane had failed to bring transformation in the justice department and address racism during his tenure as the director-general.
“‘He [Simelane] had closed doors for the black lawyers. We could not trust him anymore. The guy is not visible enough, we were actually surprised when he was appointed.
“‘When he was the director-general nothing happened in terms of transformation and racism,’ said Ncongwane.”
http://www.timeslive.co.za/news/article209230.ece
@ Maggs
I am shell-shocked… The more info comes out about the man the more I want to hide myself.
Pleasure Tony in Virginia.
‘Virginia’. Wow sounds like a very nice place especially for a man like me. If you know what I mean. Are there condoms there? Just making sure…
Oh thank you bloggers for the laugh. Khosi, is Moralo Lerumo you or Paul Ngobeni in drag?
I had intended to complain that this article was rather too drawn out for the subject matter, but as always the comments took a wander into the unknown, and so now I can’t stop smiling.
http://www.news24.com/Content/SouthAfrica/Politics/1057/a8c8f658c04144808088428f12c90f4b/08-12-2009-02-32/Zuma_more_popular_than_ever
After all this noise, I wonder when was this survey done. Someone is missing the point and there is no prize for guessing who it is?
It is exceptionally difficult to be optimistic in this country. The basic reason boils down to two misconceptions which are very popular in this country. The first is that people just do not seem to understand the rule of law. But in the hope that this pivotally important concept can be rendered more accessible, I will say this: country A (a constitutional democracy) has a rule against selling cocaine. However, the popular leader of the country makes a habit of selling some every while or so. That leader’s popularity does not change the nature of his behaviour and thus does not relieve commentators of justification for reproaching him on various drug-related grounds.
The second misconception is that many of the more short-sighted South Africans just do not understand the nature of insidious harm. But in the hope that such harm is rendered a little clearer: a cancer is easier to deal with if it is tackled early on. The complete contempt that Zuma and his set show for the rule of law in this country is a cancer. And if we do not deal with this now, we could find ourselves in a disastrous predicament in time.
@GOGO
I am not English speaking person and will never be one.
For that matter, i can speak and write proper Setswana, Zulu and Xhosa. I do not laugh to people who can’t express themselves in english, because i understand it’s not their home languange.
My massage is loud and clear.
Quoted from The Star this morning, Simelane breaking the silence:
‘Responding to questions from The Star through NPA spokesman Mthunzi Mhaga, Simelane said yesterday he was undeterred by the criticism against him as he was “fully alive to the fact that any appointment by the government, and in this case the president, on high-profile positions is received negatively by armchair critics – especially those who are opposed to aggressive transformation in government institutions”.’
My question is now: What makes his appointment more transformative than, say, that of Vusi Pikoli, Mokotedi Mpshe or any other black (male) advocate (who definitely has more experience in national prosecuting matters), so that his appointment can be said to have been made with a view to “aggressive transformation”? Sounds like that whole “National Security” argument again – the last refuge for … (Khosi – I’m not saying it!)
Mouse, I shook my head at that one too. Isn’t he just repeating his former boss’s arguments? Oh but in that case, that would mean Simelane would need to be female! Can we demand some gender testing?
Mpho – LOL!!! Just goes to show how easily the word transformation is being thrown around
Mouse
Seems to me that you are making the mistake commonly made by most of us, equating transformation to RACIAL transformation.
Transformation in this case might just mean a new “transformed” way of doing things – like not being involved in intelligence gathering activities etc … or even taking orders from political masters…LOL
All of that iwll still amount to transformation in my view. Transformation does not have to be about black or white
Mzo – LOL!!! … And that kind of ‘transformation’ must be aggressively done to boot!? A new (’transformed’) way of prosecuting crooks? Might even work.
Indeed Mouse
It’s about time we get someone who does not forget who appointed him…LOL…if that’s not transformation, I don’t know what is!
This seems to be the most appropriate place to make this post as this was the last blog to deal with Simelane directly.
I was reading through the DA’s affidavit a little earlier. And the content of the affidavit brought up a question: could a court possibly find that Simelane is guilty of perjury (which is a criminal offence)?
I took a fairly brief look at the requisites of the offence a bit earlier and it seems as if the State could possibly make out such a case.
The immediate possible obstacle to a conviction on such a charge would be that one of the necessary allegations to show perjury is that the accused must have communicated a false statement under oath or affirmation during the course of a judicial proceeding. And the Ginwala inquiry was not a court of law. However, the matter of S v Carse 1967 (2) CPD at 663H-664A does not confine judicial proceedings to proceedings in courts of law. Thus if the Ginwala inquiry can fit the relatively broad definition of a judicial proceeding, then someone may wish to think seriously about pressing criminal charges against Simelane. And there is no rule to the effect that someone cannot at once be the subject of both civil and criminal litigation.