I took part in a debate with Paul Ngobeni this morning on SAFM about whether Judge President John Hlophe should be appointed to the Constitutional Court. My dear friend Paul said in his opening remarks that I had written on this Blog that I “hate” Hlophe. I was rather taken aback by this as I have never written on this Blog (or anywhere else, for that matter) that I hate anyone. Ngobeni was, in fact, telling a scurrilous lie. What I actually said was EXACTLY the opposite, and I quote:
Really, it deeply angers me that those who are charged by the Constitution to uphold the Constitution and the law could steep so low. They should be ashamed of themselves. This does not make me a person who hates the Judge President (or his lawyers). It does make me a person who is very, very angry with the Judge President. It makes me a person who is beginning to wonder whether the Judge President has the requisite moral compass required to continue serving as a judge in our beautiful democracy – regardless any finding of the JSC in the CC case against him.
Mr Ngobeni has shown a propsensity to distort both facts and the law to suit his purpose and this morning was no exception. If I was Hlophe I would feel ashamed to be associated with such blatant dishonesty. As Judge Hlophe himself has been caught telling lies, I suppose it is par for the course though.
If you love a person, you need not say that to them you can show by your actions, the same applies if you hate a person, so Prof. I with due respect agree with Mr Ngobeni that you dislike Hlophe to say the least.But may be Ngobeni was literally wrong to say you said that you hate him on this blog but contextually right to say you hate the Honourable Judge President, we were not born yesterday!
Prof it seems that it doesn’t matter in wich way you intend to express yourself, there is absolutely no way how certain members of our society will interpret it. There is absolutely no bona fides in this world only the Paul and John maybe, but no Pierre. It’s like I said in my comments yesterday too, no argument has to be built if you could just make any acusation no matter how trivial or unfounded or anything, when the critic or victim or whoever says anything against these untouchables, just dismiss the argument.
I may well be wasting my time by writing this. I do so chiefly because I am begining to believe that robust constitutional democracies can be built only through a fair measure of patience and optimism.
Here is my point: Mdu, I agree with you that the Professor has never said that he hates Hlophe. But I can only disagree with your view that the Professor’s conduct has denoted his hatred for Hlophe. And I found my disagreement on two grounds.
First, the Professor has only ever offered carefully reasoned criticisms of Hlophe. Only recently (June 18 2009 at 4: 23pm) the Professor advanced that where a judge accepts an undisclosed substantial payment from an entity just before granting that entity permission to pursue a claim against a fellow judge, it is quite understandable that the doing thereof would undermine public trust in the judiciary. Such logical reasoning tends to run counter to the view that the Professor’s actions suggest hatred for Hlophe.
Secondly, and with respect, you merely say that the Professor’s actions indicate his hatred. You do not offer any of us the chance to investigate your evidentiary basis. Now do you really expect anyone to accept your contention purely because you made it? I do not expect you do (or at least I hope not). In a nutshell, you have not even tried to make out a case.
With all respect Mdu, I do not know you personally. And I have no notion as to what your life might have been like. If it has been difficult for you in certain respects that go to topics which have been discussed on this blog, then I sympathise. But please, in future try a little less misguided anger and a little more reason.
Leigh, fair enough that I do not offer support for my opinion but let me tell you, like Ngobeni, I read this blog and res loquitur vis a vis Prof’s passionate dislike of Hlophe and you’re right just yesterday he was still puzzled by our support of Hlophe and implied that this was race-based and I concurred with his honesty.
I did not hear the debate but assume that it was intended to be conducted in accordance with the normal standards that one associates with debate ie the issue, whatever it may have been. An infantile assertion that one of the parties to the debate “hates” displays a paucity of reasoning and quite probably of intellect. So take the “hatred” of Hlophe remark from whence it comes.
Wow!!
Perhaps one should grow a backbone and just say what everyone is thinkning: Hlope is unfit to be a Consitutional Judge.
In fact he is unfit to a judge.
So, Mr Ngobeni follows your blog!!! What pseudo name do you think he uses? I think he is Ozone or…. maybe Dumisane!?
Any other guesses?
Just two quick points. The first of those points, addressed to Mdu, runs as follows: I appreciate your concession to the effect that your allegation was at least largely groundless. For what it is worth, I think you showed promising measures of both courage and humility in doing so. Regrettably though, I do not truly see the relevance of your further points posted on June 19 2009 at 12: 21pm.
The second of my points is addressed to Niel. It strikes me that the central issue thus far has been whether the Professor has ever, by either words or conduct, demonstrated hatred for Hlophe. If I am right about that, then at least Mdu’s submissions, unsubstantiated as they are, cleave to that core issue as regards the Professor’s alleged hatred. You, it seems, did not even determine the issue before brashly accusing Mdu of failing to adhere thereto. And to make matters worse, you level some distressingly scurrilous remarks at Mdu also. Mabe, and with all respect, you would do well to ask yourself what such behaviour says about you. Again, a little less misguided anger and a little more reason.
Apologies Niel, it seems your comments were directed at Ngobeni.
One first needs to define “hatred” as distinct from “dislike”. It seems to me that in certain instances people may be conflating the two. To dislike something is not the same as to hate. Of course, we are talking about two points on a progressive scale and while it is easy enough to identify the polar ends of the scale, it is almost impossible to define when dislike becomes hatred. So, I expect that possibly one man’s dislike is another man’s hatred. Assuming that Pierre indeed dislikes Hlope perhaps it can be said that on the subjective individual progressive scale of some he in fact hates Hlope. However, even that is not the whole picture. It would seem that possibly Pierre does not dislike the judge (assuming that dislike is in question at all) but rather his conduct and to dislike (or hate) a man and to dislike (or hate) a man’s conduct is by no means one and the same thing. Quite the contrary. By way of example, most of us have or have experienced within our own lives people to whom we are very close and may even love very much but who have committed acts which we dislike intensely or may even hate. While we may angry about the conduct we do not of neccessity wish the individual any harm. At a broader level, conduct of people is regularly censured by society Iincluding our legal system) without necessarily calling the individual himself into question.
CD that’s highly philosophical but to the point!
CD, I’m with you!
JC does not hate sinners, but he hates the sin.
PdV does not hate JP but he hates JP’s ‘unethical actions’.
Malema does not hate Zille but he hates her…errr..face? (that’s taking it a bit far…)
Leigh–
But even if Pierre does hate Hlophe, so what? Such a charge is intended to undermine his criticisms of Hlophe, to suggest a motive (hatred) to indicate why Pierre would make false or incorrect charges against Hlophe.
But are Pierre’s charges false or incorrect? Pierre certainly asserts that his charges are factual, and this would stand (and disqualify Hlophe) regardless of his motivations.
And I did not listen to the discussion/broadcast either, but if that charge of Ngobeni’s (that Pierre’s points are invalid simply because Pierre is improperly motivated –due to hatred– which leads Pierre to make irrational and untrue charges) is all he had to defend Hlpohe, then Ngobemi was using an ad hominem argument–attacking the messenger, not the message.
And ad hominem arguments are always a sign of weakness. This is what you do when you cannot defend on the facts–you try to discredit the witness.
So, Pierre, it sounds as if you were fairly effective.
Apology accepted Leigh.
Cheers Niel, decent of you. Mental note, never read in a hurry (lol).
PM, nice to make your acquaintance.
I think you are quite right on all fronts. First, it seems quite clear, as you make out, that the question of whether the Professor hates Hlophe (even though an unsustainable position) is irrelevant to the question of whether the criticisms which the Professor levels against Hlophe are factually tenable.
Secondly, and although I too missed the debate, having read what Ngobeni has written in the past I am inclined to believe that he would launch baseless accusations against the Professor with a view to drawing attention away from the ethical question marks hovering over Hlophe’s head.
And thirdly, ducking the argument is indicative of a weak position.
This is the only defence JH relies on he’s been riding this wave since he started making racist remarks towards the bench to provide him with a veil to hide what he has been keeping himself busy with. Now the race card has almost been exhausted, but surely his lawyers could strech it to hatred, same thing just focussing on Hlope, cos surely Prof de Vos couldn’t qualify for a dismissal under the former.
When JH was initially in trouble he made such a huge noise that the JSC just stepped aside and when they neglected to deal with it, JH became stronger and stronger his fabrication obtaining strenth as it gets indoctrined into the sculls of his supporters and now he is virtually untouchable. They say give a guy enough rope to hang himself, but here in SA today it created a monster.
CD, seeking to ascertain a definition of a term that goes to the core of a discussion is a very lawyerly approach. Wish I had adopted it.
But very nice work all the same.
Leigh, I am of the opinion that CD’s approach is very philosophical as opposed to lawyerly because lawyers by their very nature wont seek the core objective definition but a partisan one which seeks to further their course, hence they will always argue.
Dislike for a person’s actions does not equate to hate necessarily. I may dislike something my best friend does, and inform him so, it does not mean I hate him.
Rational, logical and well-informed arguments which target a particular individual, based on his actions and statements, as opposed to personal characteristics, cannot ever be said to be hateful. Unless of course you’re trying to swing the tide of sentiment and move peoples’ focus away from the issues at hand. Which is why the race card is so often played so flippantly in SA.
the law of evidence provides for the type of evidence that is permissable in a court, like previous statements for example is inadmissable, because the product of a recent fabrication could obtain fictive strength by repeating it over and over (the liar whn believes himself) there are exeptions to this rule when an attorney argues his client’s statement was in dispute for example. Now I don’t know what kind of evidence the race card is, but it was submitted in JH’s cases twice. What is it hearsay evidence? Is it facts? Who admitted it the court? I know I didn’t
Pierre, I maybe speaking under correction cos I missed the debate but have learnt that only You, PdV ,non-Hlophe fan and Ngobeni, Hlophe fan, were making the panel. This tells me the producers of the show are aware of your ‘hate/dislike’ of Hlophe JP themselves. The same way it is common knowledge that Paul Ngobeni ‘loves/likes’ Hlophe JP. This is called balancing the debate in the media. So Prof, dont be a cry baby cos You Yourself, as SAFM Producers; Paul Ngobeni; Mdu and Myself, know that you just hate the man.
Spuy as others have pointed out above, your reasoning is ad hominem. Because I happen to believe – based on FACTS – that Hlophe is unfit for office, does not mean I hate the Judge President. The fact that some who support Hlophe despite his lies and unethical behaviour cannot dispute the facts means the only way to answer my contentions is to impugn my motive for pointing out the facts. Why not deal with the facts presented? Why not dispute the assertion that he is a liar or that he acted unethically? Then we have a logical argument on our hands. Now we just have school yard invective that emanates from those who have no answer to my factual assertions. Example: Say X, the son of a well connected politician, steals my car and the police refuses to investigate. Say X drives around town with my car and I take pictures of him behind the wheel of my car. I have never met X but I point out to everyone that X is a thief, showing the picture of him driving my car. You are saying I am only saying X is a thief because I hate him and that X could therefore not be guilty. But I have never met X and have no such hatred. I just know he is a thief BASED ON FACTS. This is what is happening with the Judge President. Sadly people like you do not seem to be able to admit to this because – I suspect – you feel if you admit that X is a thief you will feel that you yourself is somehow implicated because you support the governing party. This is understandable but not logical or right. Maybe it is time to get over this notion that Hlophe somehow represents a whole class of people. Hlophe is a man, and individual. he did some really stupid and unethical things. It says nothing about the stupidity or ethical standards of anyone else. The fact that some cannot admit this suggests that they ahve not freed their minds of the internatised prejudice and racism. This is sad. It is also dangerous.
We can all go on and on about this, but one thing is certain. Hlophe, like, Shake Rattle and Roll, will survive. He is a Zuma man and The Big Man will look after his friends.
This website maybe of relevance to this discussion. See http://www.bailcobailbonds.com/fugitives/14:
Paul Ngobeni
Do not try to apprehend this individual. If you come across this person contact BailCo toll-free in the United States at 1-800-422-4526 or internationally at 1-860-533-7142. All information provided to BailCo will remain confidential.
Description
Height: 5 ft. 8 in.
Weight: 200
DOB: September 01, 1960
Sex: Male
Race: Black
Hair color: Black
Eye color: Brown
Marks/scars: Unknown
Tattoos: Unknown
Aliases:
Case
Police Dept: State’s Attorney – Windham
Court: GA 11 Danielson, CT
Information
Charges:
Forgery, Larceny, FTA 1ST Degree
Last seen: Cape Town, South Africa
Misc info:
Currently the deputy registrar (legal services and secretariat) at the University of Cape Town South Africa. Mr. Ngobeni has been disbarred in CT, MA, NY, and from the Federal Court System. He refuses to take care of his legal obligations in the United States.
Pierre,
Ngobeni has made a point of the fact the JSC plays an “after consultation” role in the appointment of the CJ.
Does it mean that the CJ can be parachuted into the CJ position or does he or she have to be a con court judge first?
Montana, the Preisdent can appoint any qualified person as CJ after consulting the JSC and opposition leaders, so yes someone can be “parachuted in” – even Ramatlodi or Muswana…. But it will not happen.
I believe there is actually a strong distinction between dislike and hate. Could I perhaps suggest that hatred can be recognized when it is personified as evil.
As for you Prof, knowing as I do that you love the law and do regularly express being disgusted with unethical behaviors and actions, that you abhor the man for his ongoing damage and real danger to the rule of law and the future of South Africa. That is not hate. You are not alone. Keep up the ‘good fight’.
http://www.citizen.co.za/index /article.aspx?pDesc=51762,1,22
Judge’s backer faces jail
PAUL KIRK
KWAZULU-NATAL – Paul Ngobeni, University of Cape Town deputy registrar of legal services, faces 12 years in a US jail for fraud, larceny and practising law illegally.
According to records made public by the Connecticut Division of Criminal Justice, Ngobeni faces three counts of larceny, one of forgery and one of illegal practice.
Ngobeni has pleaded not guilty to all counts and his last hearing was on July 27. His appointment at UCT was announced on August 27.
Mark Dupuis, spokesman for Connecticut’s Criminal Justice Division, would only say: “We do not comment on pending cases, nor on whether we will extradite.”
Though qualified to practise law in the US – but not South Africa – Ngobeni has been banned from doing so.
Mark Dubois, chief disciplinary counsel with the State of Connecticut Judicial Branch, said: “Mr Ngobeni has been suspended for 13 years as of a court order entered last week. He has filed a motion to reopen. He is also being prosecuted in criminal court for charges related to taking money from a client and not doing the work, and doing legal work while under suspension.”
Dubois added: “We understand he is also suspended from practice in Massachusetts and the federal forum.”
Patricia King, assistant disciplinary counsel with the Connecticut Judicial Department, said: “I will vigorously oppose this application.”
King said of the forgery charge: “It is alleged he took a cheque made out to the courts and fraudulently altered it so that he could deposit the cash into his own account.
“He also promised clients he would represent them – but instead took their cash and ran.”
In court papers appealing against his suspension, Ngobeni claims, among other things, that witnesses were bribed and in one case promised a new computer if they gave evidence against him in court.
UCT, Ngobeni deny guilt
KWAZULU-NATAL – University of Cape Town deputy registrar Paul Ngobeni had elicited judicial comment on the charges against him that led him to believe they were likely to be dismissed, UCT spokesman Gerda Kruger said yesterday.
“Mr Ngobeni denies wrongdoing, and says he confidently expects to be exonerated. He is innocent until proven guilty.”
UCT’s Dineo Noganta added: “The reference to Mr Ngobeni as Dr appeared in the university’s internal newsletter in error. His qualification, Doctor of Jurisprudence, was incorrectly interpreted as being a doctorate; hence the reference.”
Ngobeni yesterday confirmed he had not told UCT about his trial as all charges against him would be dropped. He admitted he’d no qualification recognised by SA courts, adding he enrolled for an LLB through Unisa but stopped studying “once I felt I had a thorough knowledge of South African law”.
Come now Pierre stop posturing.You don’t like the guy.Thats why you were called in to represent the constituency that doesn’t like him.What you should however start getting used to is the sound of Chief Justice Hlophe.Its politics baby.Power that you wish you have that you don’t.Zuma obviously doesn’t like Moseneke and thats a fact and he has a constitutional prerogative to appoint whomsoever he likes.You see white so-called liberals have really made John Hlophe than destroyed him through their vindictiveness.
The prof doesn’t hate Hlope. He dislikes Holope. I also dislike Hlope, as I dislike all who are dishonest. Hlope is dishonest
Sue him for defamation, Pierre. It doesn’t matter what inferences one can draw from your postings on Hlophe, whether Spuy and 99% of your readers believe you hate the man, Ngobeni lied outright about what you wrote. And he did so in a very public forum.
Sue the man. It’ll only be one more court case for him to handle. And in this case he can hardly claim your witnesses were all bribed!
It strikes me that most people on our planet ─ not even mentioning our country ─ struggle to distinguish between factual CRITICISM and personal ATTACKS.
Quite often the one (criticism) leads to a response from the other (personal attacks), especially when objectivity plays in a smal dark room where no one can acually find it!
Point: I seldom contribute, but I do follow and PdV has to the most part (probably “always”, but I might have missed something) SUPPORTED his CRITICISM with FACTS. Thus, his CONCERNS are BACKED by an ARGUMENT.
It should be no surprise that Ngobeni and Hlope have both “appeared” in discussions on this blog, due to their flirtation with CONSTITUTIONAL issues.
Yet, when a Constitutional Expert seems to have anything to say (criticism build on facts) about any of the issues that follow them, they resort to DEFAMATION.
Not meant to throw a curve-ball PdV, but by calling you a racist and a liar, isn’t Ngobeni opening himself for defamation? You are after all not a politician
Sure, I understand that it’s probably not worth trying to give credibility to someone with Ngobeni’s record…
Lastly, is it so difficult for people to understand that as a Constitutional Expert you have a VESTED interest in UPHOLDING our Constitution?
This interest is evidently more than purely academic & professional, but also personal: you are passionate about maintaining the integrity of our Constitution and our Young Democracy…
…as you underderstand the DANGERS that continual attacks on an excellent Constitution hold. True, our Judiciary has some major problems (finally some of them are coming out, but thanks to people that CARE), but at least we have one of the most progressive constitutions in the world. Something we do NOT want to lose.
Paul Ngobeni, is a pussy
Like Dirk Prinsloo
According to the article posted by Norman, Ngobeni enrolled at Unisa to study law, “but stopped studying “once I felt I had a thorough knowledge of South African law”.
Obviously his own “brilliance” supercedes the requirements of a University as to what constitutes “knowledge” – and thorough knowledge at that.
He also did not tell his current employers about his pending court case as he knew that “all charges against him would be dropped”. He is obviously, not only brilliant, but psychic too.
How does UCT continue to justify the employment of this man?
Oh, and the fact that he did not disclose his pending court case to his current employer only serves to further prove that Mr Ngobeni is a liar.
PM // Jun 19, 2009 at 2:48 pm
I agree that it doesn’t matter at all if Pierre hates Ngobeni, but if he says he doesn’t, then I’ll believe him because he is an honest person.
But equally it is disingenuous to suggest that Ngobeni “lied” when he said that Pierre hated the JP because Ngobeni’s interpretation of Pierre’s writing is his own subjective opinion – an opinion shared by others here.
I also think Ngobeni is probably just letting off steam and so Pierre should just let this one go. It can’t be nice having the world know you’ve been told that if you resign one of your legal wrangles will go away. Cut the guy some slack.
The issue is not who hates whom. The Hlophe matter is a disaster because Hlophe is a man of highly compromised character who’s been using delaying tactics at least since nearly screwing up the pharmaceutical industry in 2004.
Let’s put it this way: suggest that Judge Harms calls one of his colleagues ‘a piece of black shit who is not fit to walk in the corridors of the High Court’. Would Harms still have his job?
Suggest further that Judge Harms takes a position on a payroll of Mkhulu Amanzi Inc (hypothetical company, by the way). Would Harms still have his job?
But wait, there’s more! Suggest that Judge Harms gives permission to Mkhulu Amanzi Inc to sue a fellow judge under very dubious circumstances. Would Harms still have his job? Or is this acceptable if this fellow judge is just another ‘piece of black shit who is not fit to walk in the corridors of the High Court’?
So by the gods of the pagan vastlands, how is it that Hlophe still has his job? Is the bench racist after all, but maybe not in the way that Hlophe claims? And how can a person like Ngobeni, who is supposedly an erudite scholar in legal matters, recommend Hlophe for the position of Chief Justice? Does he rely on SparkNotes for his legal expertise? Did his law degree fall off the back of a truck? Was he the No Child Left Behind?
Regarding debate: someone of Ngobeni’s legal er, expertise should surely know better than to try ad hominem attacks and questioning motives? It appears to me that he’s grasping at straws because he knows he is on Shaiky ground
The real issue is whether what the prof and Ngobeni said was true. Ngobeni is a boldfaced liar and a fraudster. Whether I love him with all my heart and secretly have homoerotic fantasies of the man or not does not change that fact that he’s a fugitive defeating the ends of justice of another country.
Personally, I hate prof de Vos because he’s a limpwristed moffie and his left-leaning politics sickens me to no end.
However, I keep reading his blog because when he’s not evangelising his misguided Robin Hood philanthropy and actually discusses the Constitution it is rather informative to someone like me who has no training in law.
It does not make the prof more wrong or more right when I hate him. It does not make me more wrong or more right either. Me hating him is immaterial and seeing beyond this hatred is what being objective is about.
Similarly, if the prof hated Hlophe, it would not automatically make the prof’s claims regarding Hlophe wrong. That’s like looking at an ostrich and saying the poor thing can’t fly and then a bystander says: “Aw, you’re just saying that ostriches can’t fly because you hate them!”.
The fact remains that our sentiments do not matter in debate. We don’t have to get along to give our arguments weight. This is because everyone is entitled to their own opinions, but everyone is not entitled to their own facts. Whether you love or hate ostriches, the bloody things can’t fly and no amount of ostrich hugging is going to change that.
Bongs:
That’s not Zille’s face, so your metaphor still holds.
Samantha // Jun 22, 2009 at 9:39 am
There is no obligation on the part of a prospective employee to make a full disclosure to a potential employer. There is such a thing a privacy still in play here. What the prospective employee must not do is lie or evade a question. Therefore unless you have proof that UCT asked him if he had ever been struck off, or was he facing criminal charges, he did not lie.
That was an extremely unfair statement. I think it is important on a legal site discussing Constitutional issues that we respect people’s dignity and only criticise them when they act out with the law or acceptable practice and not in this somewhat tabloid manner of analysis.
I see that you, Pierre, are now at UCT. Please accept my congratulations. I also see from today’s Times that Ngobeni and UCT have ‘parted ways’.
I won’t say which of those two things will cause the average intelligence at UCT to rise the most!
And Hlophe JP is a CJ in waiting.
@ Mpho,
While there may be no “duty” on an employee to disclose such facts, the point is that he lied by omission. He was employed as Registrar of a Legal Faculty. Surely, the fact that he has been disbarred, is involved in a court case regarding larceny etc. and is on a “WANTED” site is not inconsequential to his position and should be disclosed.
This may very well be a legal site where we discuss legal issues, but do legal ethics not also enter into it? At the end of the day, Ngobeni has launched ad hominem attacks on a number of people in the media, and while I do not endorse the whole “eye for an eye” idea, why should he be immune from that which he readily dishes out?
Of course Paul Ngobeni is always welcome in the Zuma team.
People with questionable morals and characters, stick together…
Garg no! Why? Why? No! It was a good argument.
Only reason why I said stuff like I did, is because I found a common element in most JH & ANC supporters in general and supporters for Toni in the specific and that element is emotion.
He is innocent until proven guilty.
All who is against our special chosen leaders are racist.
The bench is filled with white racist.
ect. ect. ect. emotion emotion emotion.
That’s why I try and provoke and stirr it so as to confirm these suspicions, because by confirming it, it’s out the way, what do you do with it now? what can you do with the information that you obtained in this way? Nothing. But you must check the examples you use, there’s a very thin line when you work this strategy OK? And you stepped over this line, you owe the Prof an appology man, gees Garg I was really shocked.
Morning everyone. I hope all of you have enjoyed pleasant, restful weekends.
Here’s what may be a novel proposition: does Paul Ngobeni deserve at least a tiny measure of sympathy?
I like to think that he just might given my view that proper regard for human dignity can embrace consideration of suffering.
Clearly, Ngobeni is something of a tortured soul, full of anger. One need only conduct a cursory inspection of some of his views and it will emerge as markedly clear that he is ever-keen to let loose a venomous tirade.
Now I do not for one moment think Ngobeni is stupid. Afterall, he holds a J.D. from one of the leading law schools in the US. So I don’t think he truly struggles to distinguish between fact and fiction (at least I hope not). Rather, I think he fails to differentiate between helpful and harmful.
His crude, verbose and unjustifiable attacks on the judciary help nothing. But they harm interests beyond those of fair-minded South Africans (my people). He unintentionally does himself harm also and it is my guess that the consequences of his self-inflicted harm may surprise him.
So Ngobeni, with all respect, I would urge you to try to be kinder to yourself. And mabe through so doing you could find it in yourself to be kinder to everyone else.
Samantha // Jun 22, 2009 at 10:07 am
“the point is that he lied by omission”
No he didn’t. I tried to explain to you why not but you clearly are unwilling to learn the true legal position.
Garg, don’t mean to gang up on you but I have to agree with Friend. You made a very good point but you were out of order.
Mpho, it’s not just the Justice & constitutional development department that requires a potential empoyee to confirm that there are no current matters pending or prior convictions, it’s every where even if you want to register a learning contract with the law society, even if you want to become a police officer. If there is a person on this planet even those who is not in the legal field who claims he neglected to disclose information pertaining to his criminal status because of something that he thought, man you do the math it’s frustrating to try and give. Alright, all I’m saying is if you answered a question in your application negative that you know should be positive then you lied, that’s basically what you’ve got to comprehend at this point. Go ahead think about it, ye you got it request, answer negative, knowledge it’s positive, you’re lying, you’re a lair you shouldn’t work for the department of justice or for a second hand car dealership.
The crux of the matter is twofold here now, Ngobeni’s bona fides and credibility, and the bigger picture of Vos’ argument. On the latter, Vos, and it does not matter whether he is a moffie or not dumkopf Garg (june22, 9h04; you are so basic!), is merely expressing a personal view just as Ngobeni was on the Hlophe matter. In the grand scheme of things, like all of us here, our opinions will not affect nor change events around the Hlophe matter. The full course of legal inquiry, with its fair dose of political machinations, will play itself out. By the way, it is common practice that poilitical influence/meddling/intervention comes to the fore in matters of such judicial importance. Even the US judiciary in the recent past has seen its fair share of poitical reallignment strategies, especially after 9/11.
On the former, well the poor sod has undoublty did his moral argument no good. Folks, we either listen to the content of what the man is saying (facts) and ignore his questionable bona fides, or look at the messenger also. Does what he is saying have merit, or is it pure myopic endorsement of a flawed candidate from a questionable character? Where does this then leave ALL of us; who among us can then claim to hold upper moral ground on this topic and on what basis? On this specific topic, my view is that Vos gave a opinion which Ngobeni interpreted in a particular way. Neither is definitively right nor wrong, just like all of us here who give opinions. I just wish we could learn to have structured and disciplined discussions without resorting to malicious personal attacks which blunt constructive debates even on open blogs/forums like these. Ngobeni has since resigned from UCT, it would be interesting to hear from HIM why he suddenly quit. Has he lost the stomach for a fight or has the fight been taken out of him?
Friend // Jun 22, 2009 at 11:10 am
It has been well publicised that UCT did not carry out the requisite background checks and Ngobeni has stated repeatedly that he was not asked any questions that required him to divulge any of his Stateside legal woes. That was never disputed by UCT. The prospective employee has no duty of full disclosure, but they must not actively mislead. That is the law. Call the CCMA if you don’t believe me. 0861 16 16 16
Ergo Ngobeni cannot be called a liar in relation to his application for employment at UCT as there is no evidence he was ever asked about any such aspects of his background to which he falsely replied, and he is not guilty of any act of omission as none exists in South African law.
That is why UCT were powerless to act when the news broke that he was facing charges.
Mpho and Samantha
I think you are right, Mpho. The onus is on the employer. In this case it would have been very easy for UCT to check Ngobeni’s bona fides and one would have expected them to do that. If they had, there is no way they would have employed him.
Likewise, the ID had a candidate on their lists who is a murderer. The guy has tried to reinvent himself so you can hardly expect him to say ‘Oh, by the way, I murdered someone twenty years ago.’ On the other hand you don’t expect an employer to ask a prospective employee ‘Have you ever murdered anyone?’! So, again, I think it is up to the employer to do a thorough background check and in their interview to assess character carefully.
I agree with you, Samantha, ethically. But clearly neither Ngobeni nor the murderer are going to volunteer information that would scupper their bid for a job – otherwise why apply?
Very well, but you know that this will raise other questions, like why did he not have to fill out and lodge a standard application like me and you? And some other questions, and by the way an act, in SA law any crime or delict could be done by means of a positive act or commision or by negleglecting to act where there is a legal obligation on one to do so or an ommision.
Sarah, on the application form, like the state’s Z83 standard application for employment form or the standard application for registering a learning contract with the law society, so should any employer, who does not wish to employ criminals have a request to disclose any prior convvictions or pending matters and if this question is answwered positive then an explanation of the sirrounding circumstances that were present at the time of the offence.
Leigh and Friend:
That’s exactly the point I was trying to make. Expressing my sentiments regarding the prof – whether they are favourable or not – are out of order. They have no bearing on the topics of discussion. They don’t make my arguments less valid or more truthful.
I do not wish to call the prof names as I’m sure there are quite a few of my mating habits the prof would frown upon – and dare I say hate – too. Being objective means we as adults can see past our differences and discuss the topic at hand.
The prof could rightly point out that I am mistaken with regards to my interpretations of the Constitution. The correct reply for me would be to ask why and thank the prof for correcting me, or to respectfully disagree if I can base my position on reason. The irrational reply would be: “Yes, but you’re a poephol pilot and I hate you so your legal opinion is bunk.” The latter is precisely what Ngobeni did on the radio debate, except he claimed that the prof hated Hlophe so his opinions regarding Hlophe are automatically null and void.
The only thing that would jeopardise the prof’s statements would be if they were spurious claims, which they are not. The only thing that would jeopordise Ngobeni’s claims would be if they were spurious, which they are. Pointing this out to Ngobeni does not make you racist, even if you were a racist homophobic hermaphrodite with a reading disability.
Likewise, to disagree with the prof does not automatically make one homophobic, even if you were homophobic.
It appears to the layman that Judge Hlophe and Ngobeni play the race card as a get out of jail free card to attempt political solutions to their legal problems. This does not make the layman racist, but it does render professionals who are able minded with impeccable character sitting ducks for any racist layman. Imagine for example how easy it becomes to look at Judge Harms and say: “What a racist judge!” when all he did was deliver a judgement of the supreme court that didn’t go the way Zuma had planned, even though the judgement was pristine.
If my statements above were interpreted as me hurling colourful epithets at the prof, I apologise unreservedly. My intention is merely trying to illustrate how being a douche does not invalidate the valid things I say or make the invalid things I say more valid. This is to emphasise that, even if the prof did hate Hlophe and made statements that could be interpreted as such, it would not change the fact that Hlophe allegedly made racist remarks about his colleagues (and thus revealed exactly how much he respects the bench), serves on the payroll for a company in a position that may compromise his abilities to act free from favour and did grant permission to this company to sue a fellow judge (which again indicates how much Judge Hlophe respects his practice).
Again, I apologise unreservedly if my statements are interpreted as ad hominem attacks and I congratulate the prof with his new job!
Mpho // Jun 22, 2009 at 11:19 am
That is why UCT were powerless to act when the news broke that he was facing charges.
thats miss information the UCT was conducting a internal disciplinary hearing.
But with that all said its water of a ducks back as Paul Ngobeni is leaving the UCT and the disciplinary chargers dropped.
The sad thing is Pauls claim to fame is his notion there is a racist “group of gangsters” in the UCT law faculty
and the gangs of New York are also out to get him.
what a sad puppy.
on a side note the USA is thro to the semi finals thumped egypt 3 -0 ha ha bafana your next
I was trying to say those personal attacs could serve a purpose where it goes to root out any emotion to a matter by sort of saying so what, but then you have to see to it that the attack is against the party who placed a irrelevant point into dispute. Example if O3 says no, this is a bunch of racist whites ganging up against an innocent, perfect JH then I would first subtly: “say so what” to the racist remarks by means of an almost confirmation and perhaps a little fuel for the fires of insecurity (you know if the proverbial shoe fits, wear it) Then you’ve dismissed his arguments and you could fight in an area where you know the moves, because you’ve been brought up in an environment where people provokes your weaknesses and when it can no longer be depressed, it comes out and they can exploit it untill the victim cries, beautifull when you see the tears.
But I get your point as well, Garg it does not belong in a legal field where people refer to each other as my learned colleague ect. It belongs on the playground were people are more vulnerable to this kind emotional turmoil, because it would be even sadder when your subject doesn’t cry.
@pierre
please do me a favor and sue this guy.
He is calling you out in public a racist
“This guy will be joining a group of gangsters who make (John) Hlophe their do-or-die issue. Whites want to entrench themselves in the last unelected branch of government – the judiciary,” said Ngobeni.
Im afriad he is a fugitive from the US so maybe teach him a thing about south african law??
just a thought. I would if i was you
I’m with Chris, Prof
Chris Mcdaniel // Jun 22, 2009 at 12:15 pm
What were the charges in the disciplinary enquiry? Please publish them. Nowhere has it been suggested he was being disciplined for not disclosing the US stuff.
Mpho // Jun 22, 2009 at 12:58 pm
Im afriad I cant tell you maybe Pierre could give some insight but im afriad what ever the disciplinary chargers are, well are internal. It could very well be the US stuff or Paul being a tad to racist. Im afriad media, myself or you will never know. like I said is between the UCT and Paul behind closed doors. But UCT has publicly stated that Paul was under disciplinary chargers well until last night. Hense why Paul is leaving they came to an agreement about something.
In Hugh Corder’s piece on the M%G site (http://www.mg.co.za/article/2009-06-21-a-lowering-of-the-bar ), he makes an interesting observation about Judge Hlophe and “racism” report.
This is that the report was given directly to the Minister of Justice (and not passed through judicial channels).
However, Judge Hlophe saw fit to call a whole lot of people “racist” without offering them any prior opportjunity to respond. This does rather undermine his point about the CC judges going public with informaton about their complaint to the JSC…
Chris Mcdaniel // Jun 22, 2009 at 1:58 pm
Thank you for being honest that you do not know. I understood the charges to relate to something he was credited as stating in the media whilst ostensibly trading under the UCT logo, but which was not approved or agreed to by his employer. Thereafter, he has never spoken publicly in relation to Zuma or the JP and been credited as representing UCT.
Therefore, there is still no evidence that Ngobeni lied in his application to UCT.
Mpho // Jun 22, 2009 at 2:42 pm
Mpho the fact is you dont know either? How could you anyway all the evidence is with UCT. It is confidential matter it may very well be about him lying on his CV, hlophe, zuma or the US stuff. You cant disprove or prove any of this you dont have the evidence in your hands and nor do we.
The fact is there was a disciplinary that took place now and the UCT is trying to fix an error that it made. However it must of been a serious nature as it has forced Ngobeni to resign.
The fact is this poor excuse for a lawyer who is a fugitive from my country has been asked to leave the UCT. Im happy…. I just wish they would extradite him back to the states.
That would be a rather strange scenario to imagine a South African black man, who is almost untouchable in his country, in a an American jail with the brothers, but I don’t think it would be like a sitcom though, it would be more like a drama.
I agree with Mpho.
Reason being Ngobeni started at UCT on 27 August 2007, while his judgement was only delivered on 27 July 2007 according to The Citizen. This means that Ngobeni would’ve had to apply for his post at UCT before he had technically been a criminal, as applications at bureaucracies usually take much longer than a month to process. Even if UCT did enquire, he would not have been lying had he replied in the negative.
That being said, according to the same source, Ngobeni is ineligible to practice South African law in the first place. If this is true, he should never have been considered by UCT.
Garg, as regards your post at June 22 9:44am, no harm no foul mate. And thank you for clarifying both your motive and purpose.
Somehow Ngobene has clinched the Hlope case for us. Birds of a feather fall together. But someone has been slipping up at UCT. According to international surveys, UCT has been the top university in Africa for some time. Dr Mamphela Ramphele used her excellent credentials to steer UCT through the morass of “transformation” without sacrificing academic or ethical standards. How did this fellow slink his way into UCT? Was his melanin scrutinised more carefully than his credentials? No doubt he gave the Judge President as a reference. Perhaps even the President himself. If so, it should have been enough to alert University officials to the risk they were taking.
mpho you have it wrong. Ngobeni said that I had written on my Blog that I hate Hlophe. He did not express his opinion but rather stated as fact that I had written so,ething I have not: What I wrote was just because I criticise Hlophe does not mean I hate him – thus exactly the opposite of whart he said.
Leigh strangely I agree. When I met Ngobeni he seemed rather tortured to me. Not unlike Hlophe a clever man so stuffed up by our apartheid history has basically destroyed himself. This is not something to celebrate but to mourn.
I suspect that there was a deal between UCT and Paul Ngobeni. UCT would publically “wash feet” and retract charges, in exchange for which he would leave.
Professor, you have consistently submitted that apartheid has left psychological wounds. And I agree.
Both Ngobeni and Hlophe strike me as being somewhat bitter. What both fail to realise is that the ways in which they conduct themselves is counter-productive. And decidedly so. That the real problem is with the indivdual sometimes, and not with the circumstance (be that circumstance real or imagined.)
Take Hlophe. His ambition is at best misguided. In some material respects, Hlophe’s problem is really just Hlophe. He is kidding himself if he thinks Chief Jusitice will ever be good enough. It could be Lord Hlophe or even king John. No honorific will satisfy him unless he makes some basic, personal changes.
Thank you Mdu for pointing out the obvious to the Prof and his goons. His selective interpretation of various sections of the Constitution shows that he is very biased, racists, and very part and parcel of the liberals. For instance whatever happened to Hlope JP’s rights to be presumed innocent until the JSC and Parliament finds otherwise? i know this applies mostly to criminal matters but Hlope JP has Constitutional rights not to be sentenced or found to have committed gross misconduct in th court of racists and liberals driven and powered by the media and people like Prof. I ask again, why dont you write anything about the DA and the FF-plus? its always about the ANC and our African people as if there is nothing to write about the DA , FF-Plus and other so-called white people. I almost feel sorry for the students you taught Constitutional Law, because you fed them nonsense, i should know i because i work with them daily. Until such time that you give independent opinion on Constitutional matters and other matters, i will always view your opinion on anything with the contempt and disgust it deserves. Prof Habib seems to be a cut above the rest including you, he is renders independent opinion on every matter. Where were you during the apartheid days? did you write similar stuff on the National Party as well? If yes where is the proof? I would like to read it for myself.!!!
Skhokho Radebe:
Some of us weren’t even born during the Apartheid days. Just saying..
Actually i was born then Garg. I see you chose to run away from the pointed questions i raised in my comment so is the Prof. The question was not about when i was born? To add to my comment, why doen’t the prof write anything of the white Judges who helped promote apartheid? eg Harms DP, Lewis JA, etc. There are a lot of ethical questions between them that the issues raised against Hlope JP pale in significance.
@ Skhokho Radebe,
In this wonderful constitutional democracy of ours, we are entitled to have freedom of speech, freedom of expression and we are also entitled to make our own choices about the things we read, watch, feel.
Given the fact that this site is so obviously abhorrent to you on every level, perhaps you should exercise that freedom and choose to avoid this site. This site belongs to the Prof – not you or any other contributor. Accordingly, he is perfectly entitled to write whatever he wishes to write here and certainly does not need to prove ANYTHING to the likes of you or anyone else who visits. On this site, you are in his house, perhaps you should act more like a guest and less like the owner.
Samantha are you for real? you are such a clown. Its freedom of expression when i ask pointed questions as well. Gees! where did you study law? guess its one of those bush universities where you passed because you are white not based on your intellect!
Having read through all this, I have to ask – is Garg really the Prof stirring things up?
Gavin
Have you checked Garg’s blog? I suppose he or she might be the prof but there is some really weird stuff there – and really interesting too. Has the prof got enough time to do his job, travel everywhere, keep this blog going, make all his media appearances AND be Garg?
Sarah–
care to fill us in on the real reason for your resignation?
@ Skhokho Radebe
My reference to your earlier post had nothing to do with your right of expression, merely your lack of manners. I apologise for not having made my point more lucid.
To clarify: You verbally abuse the Professor and his “goons” on this site. You prescribe the topics he should address. You denounce the posts, information and opinions on this blog site and you further demand proof of “other” writings!!
Quite obviously, I am the clown here.
PM
Well, things aren’t as exciting as I hoped when I was going to be the Vice President. Plus I invited Lindelani over to be my aide and he didn’t come, so I’ve decided to come find him in South Africa. I hear your country is a swell place to live. I need a little sunshine to work on my tan.
Ngobani’s consistency tested by the attached:
–snip–
Hlophe’s flip-flopping backer
NIC DAWES | JOHANNESBURG, SOUTH AFRICA – Jul 03 2009
“Judge Hlophe has engaged in unconstitutional acts which provide adequate grounds for his removal from the Bench for ‘gross misconduct’ as defined under South Africa’s Constitution.”
This sounds like one of Judge John Hlophe’s regular critics — a liberal advocate perhaps or an angry legal commentator — but this attack on the Western Cape judge president was authored by his staunchest defender, Paul Ngobeni, who last week quit his job as deputy registrar of legal services at the University of Cape Town partly because his lobbying for Hlophe had aggravated a long battle with his boss, registrar Hugh Amoore, and members of the law faculty.
In a lengthy email sent to Amoore on November 1 last year Ngobeni tears into Hlophe’s 2007 decision to hold in contempt a lawyer who had arrived late in his court. The decision to detain advocate Motlatsi Pitlele under the watch of an orderly for three hours “like a naughty schoolboy” was “a despicable gross abuse of [Hlophe's] powers”, Ngobeni writes, adding that it “warrants public discipline”.
Citing a raft of precedent from the American courts where he worked as an attorney until he was disbarred, Ngobeni concludes: “My article calling for Judge Hlophe’s impeachment is almost complete and Judge Hlophe will be hearing from me very soon.”
There is a personal note too: “Furthermore, as a matter of common sense, let alone the professional implications, I find Judge Hlophe to be a complete jerk.”
The thrust of Ngobeni’s argument is that when he defended Hlophe in an October 2007 op-ed article that described attacks on the Cape judge president’s ethical record as a “lynching” by racist advocates and law professors, the flawed contempt ruling had not yet been made. He has now revised his opinion, the email suggests.
–snip–
For the record, the prof is definitely NOT Garg. Ye gods, I won’t touch humanities (or most of its students) with a blow torch. I’ve worked myself into the Boer-Swazi, so I’m not part of not-so-pro-letarait and I certainly won’t stick up for any of its members. However, I’m flattered that anyone would think that I know anything about the Constitution, much to the prof’s dismay.
Thanks to Sarah Palin and everyone else who took the time to read my blog. Here’s an expression, which explains why I won’t be replying to anything Skhokho Radebe has to say (I’m glad Skhokho would understand, courtesy of Bantu education):
“Meng jou met die semels, dan vreet die varke jou op”.
Well, I am one of Paul Ngobeni’s victims. I am now a U.S. resident who was born in South Africa. I am black so I am not writng this because of any racial reasons. I have a great job and I was not bribed or paid by anyone to write this. Paul, if you can read this: you owe me a lot of money. I nearly died from my accident and because of you I never was compensated. What about the rest of my cases. I am not the only victims. We trusted you as a fellow South African, but to you we were just fools . God will deal with you accordingly… by the way, I plan to visit University of Cape Town we will see how you will defend yourself because I have proof.
I just realised that Skhokho seems to think that Liberals are terrible people, that Prof Habib is independant – LOL – and that Lewis JA seems to have been working for apartheid (I wonder if she was covertly writing the AD judgements). I don’t like what she said but to claim she supported apartheid may be stretching the truth too far. And Prof writes anit-DA sentiments ALL the time. I really do think that people should follow before talking out the wrong exit hole.
PS. I’m a Black Liberal, and I don’t see why it should be an insult.
Nkululeko, perhaps you are not aware that liberals were responsible for apartheid (Afrikaaner nationalists were but their pawns.) Suzman etc. openly favoured capitalism. The liberation movements made clear they were committed to socialism, nationalising banks, mines etc. Thank God the ANC, by defeating the liberals, saved us from the scourge of Capitalism!
Michael, that’s a novel proposition, if ever I’ve heard one. You really should tell me how you make this equation. The apartheid govt was more of a socialist state than SA is today. they functioned on more or less the same lines as Nazi Germany (fascism and nazism). The fact that one aligns to capitalism is not being anti-democracy and pro-racial disrimination, see the USA. At her funeral the ANC top-brass were present, not showing that they detested her or her views.
See this: ” Her arch adversary, Prime Minister Vorster, once complained that she was the equivalent of 12 opposition MP’s. Furthermore, she used her position to intercede with ministers and civil servants in an attempt to improve the lives of many of Apartheid’s victims. She earned the title ‘our lady of the prisons’ for her tireless efforts to improve the conditions for prisoners like Nelson Mandela on Robben Island. ”
Furher: “Helen readily acknowledges that increased economic growth and foreign investment over the last few years coupled with the rising black middle class are significant positive achievements. Her academic background in economics provides her with an acute understanding of how this has created greater prosperity on a macro level in South Africa. But she is deeply concerned that the economic boom is not yet benefiting the poorest South Africans. ‘How much better off is the family living in a tin shack in Diepsloot (an informal settlement outside Sandton) more than 13 years after the end of Apartheid’, she asks and warns that the protests we have seen this winter over the lack of service delivery will grow bigger and more violent in the future if the ANC does not start to fulfil its 1994 election promise of ‘a better life for all’. ”
And see the Helen Suzman Foundation: http://www.hsf.org.za/about-helen-suzman
The definition of Liberalism as offered on wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberalism
And a definition offered by an online dictionary: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/liberal.
The ANC never defeated the liberals. The ANC did not in fact defeat the apartheid govt. The then govt and the ANC both realised they were in a stale mate and decided to negotiate (and for that we should all be thankful). This counrty has yet to truly defeat the ills bestowed upon it by apartheid and colonialism.
Communism is not as successful as you imagine it to be. The only notable communists in the world are Cuba (not effective) and the People’s Republic of China (which infuses communist politics and capitalist economics). The committment to socialism is not a very real one in SA, we don’t even have a socialist party… With regard to nationalisation, you need only look at our continent, Africa, to see that this has failed.
Kindly think before you write such utter nonsense.
Charges: Forgery, Larceny, FTA 1ST Degree
Last seen: Cape Town, South Africa
http://www.bailcobailbonds.com/fugitives/14
Paul Ngobeni struck off US Massachusets State of Attorney’s Roll :
http://constitutionallyspeaking.co.za/surprise-paul-ngobeni-is-a-liar/
http://www.politicsweb.co.za/politicsweb/view/politicsweb/en/page72308?oid=167809&sn=Marketingweb_detail
The point is the Professor as all of us has the right to an opinion as to whether Judge President John Hlophe should be appointed to the Constitutional Court. I feel he raised a strong opinion and made a good point… and the fact that Ngobeni didnt agree with the Professor and had no solid counter argument, made him take refuge to cheap mud slinging…