I see the ANC in Parliament is suggesting that the NPA Act might have to be looked at to “clarify” the relationship between the executive (specifically the Minister of Justice) and the NPA, given the fact that the SCA differed from Judge Nicholson about the exact nature of this relationship (and Frene Ginwala’s quasi-judicial report again gave an entirely different – not surprisingly far more executive minded – interpretation of this relationship).
The argument is that there seems to be two “seemingly conflicting” provisions in section 179 of the Constitution. One says that national legislation must ensure the NPA exercises its functions “without fear, favour or prejudice”. The other provision says that the justice minister must exercise “final responsibility” over the NPA.
However, if one reads s 179 together with section 33 of the NPA Act, and if one reads these two provisions in the light of the Constitutional Court Certification judgment, which said section 179 guaranteed the independence of the NPA, there is really no conflict – unless one is Frene Ginwala and one needs to protect the Dear Leader. As the SCA has now confirmed, Nicholson and Ginwala both had it wrong.
The SCA judgment did what many of us have advocated, namely it reconciled the so called “conflict” between the two constitutional provisions in line with the approach in Namibia, saying “although the minister may not instruct the NPA to prosecute or to decline to prosecute or to terminate a prosecution, the minister is entitled to be kept informed”. Thus the appeal court seemed to limit “final responsibility” to information giving (when so requested by the Minister).
Given our system of precedent, the SCA interpretation is now authoritative, which means as a matter of law Ginwala’s report got it spectacularly wrong. We all know why this bright woman gave such a bizarre interpretation of the Constitution and the law – she had a political master to please and was clearly NOT independent and impartial when she drafted her report.
The SCA judgment therefore has some serious consequences for the President and for the National Assembly, who must decide whether to endorse the President’s recommendation to fire Vusi Pikoli. This is because in the light of the SCA judgment, the reasons given by President Kgalema Motlanthe for firing the head of the NPA is now confirmed to have been legally untenable. And as the courts and not the President or his legal advisors are tasked by the Constitution to interpret that text, Motlanthe does not have a leg to stand on.
Ginwala said the provision affording the justice minister “final responsibility” over the NPA meant more than “purely information passing” as it must be read in the light of the co-operative government provisions of cvhapter 3 of the Constitution. There should be “discussions” between the minister and prosecutions chief, and the minister could “bring to the consideration of the (national director of public prosecutions) such matters as government may find to be relevant in respect of such cases.”
She also suggested that the NPA head had a duty to take into account the claims made by the Minister or the President regarding “national security” before he made decisions to arrest or prosecute anyone – regardless of whether any solid proof had been provided by the President about how the so called national security would be affected. So according to Ginwala, Pikoli had a duty to obey the President when he claimed national security was at stake in the arrest of Jackie Selebi and he therefore had a duty NOT to arrest Selebi until the President said it was ok to do so.
This kind of logic followed by Ginwala and Motlanthe is an utter abomination and – if followed – would lead to a complete destruction of the independence of the NPA. I will give an example to show why.
Imagine the NPA head decided to arrest a friend and political ally of the President for murder. In order to protect his friend the President now tells the NPA boss not to arrest his friend because if he did, it would affect “national security”. He provides no proof of this, but instead tells the head of the NPA that if he arrested the President’s friend, the President would become so cross that he would have to surf the Internet again.
“You know what happened the last time I did that,” he would say, “I discovered HIV maybe does not cause Aids and 300 000 people died as a result and I became the laughingstock of the world, so you better stop this nonsense right now or our national security will be severely compromised!”
This interpretation is not compatible with a constitutional guarantee of prosecutorial independence as confirmed by the Constitutional Court and by the SCA. The Ginwala interpretation – on which Motlanthe relied to get rid of the man who wants to continue the prosecution of Jacob Zuma - is therefore a legal nonsense. This has now been confirmed by the SCA, so Ginwala really has egg all over her face while the President, well, he must be looking like an overcooked omlette.
That is why President Kgalema Motlanthe’s recommendation to fire Pikoli – based on this bizarre and legally untenable interpretation by Ginwala - is probably illegal and why an endorsement of this recommendation by the National Assembly is on very shaky legal ground.
As the SCA has now implicitly confirmed, section 33 makes clear that to enable the Minister to exercise his or her final responsibility over the NPA, the Minister may request information from the head of the NPA and this information can then be used to ensure that the Minister exercises final responsibility over the NPA by keeping him or her informed and allowing him or her to report on the work of the NPA without interfering with is constitutionally guaranteed independence of said NPA.
Sadly the ANC members of Parliament are probably not going to follow the law and the Constitution on this one. They are probably rather going to obey the legally untenable recommendation of the President. Hopefully Pikoli and his lawyers will then challenge this in court, where the law and not the whims of a party hack like Ginwala will hopefully be followed.
Then Pikoli can get his job back and the “political solution” for Jacob Zuma’s very serious legal troubles will disappear. At which point Gwede Mantashe will probably call the judges counter revolutionaries again and Julius Malema will string a paragraph or two together, blaming “dark forces”, a “conspiracy”, the CIA, and Father Christmas for this terrible persecution of Mr. Umshini wam, and warming that the Youth League will not rest before every last judge in South Africa is sent to an ANC Youth League piss up.
At which point all sane people in South Africa will die laughing.
UPDATE: A few hours after writing this, I read on New24 that – yes! – my friend Julius said the following:
Malema warned that “dark forces” were at work against Zuma and implied that the five judges of the SCA had been influenced in their judgment in favour of the NPA. “Judges can be spoken to by any other person, knowing the tendency of these ones who are against us. They [the 'dark forces'] travel at night. They’ve got the potential to do anything… Courts must be above political games. They must not interfere.”
He added, however, that the ANCYL had “confidence in the courts but it doesn’t mean you can’t criticise”. Asked who the “dark forces” behind the so-called political conspiracy against Zuma were, Malema replied: “They have left the ANC. Those are the forces who are working on us. Those that have left this organisation.
“They were doing it from within. They failed. Then they left. They’re doing it form outside now because they think they can mobilise our people against this glorious movement and they are working with the imperialists, the former colonisers, to try and destabilise this country. It’s an agenda to destabilise liberation movements in Africa.”
Sadly no mention of Father Christmas……. And the Youth League piss up was also not mentioned. Ag, I just thought I had become all seeing and all knowing and for a moment I felt like Thabo Mbeki must feel every day. . . .
Being out of the country is doing wonders for your sarcasm/irony count! This is wonderfully biting! I like it!! (and wish it all were not so sadly likely to come to pass).
lol love it, great post,
They were “imperialist agents”, said Malema.
Yes Malema all our judges are imperialist agents damn it!!! we doomed!!! bloody Americans and British
Prof – I laaik it! … Last first. So, following Julius’ logic, the so-called ‘third force’ (‘dark forces’) that the Harms Commission denied the existence of was all the time those ‘disgruntled’ ANC members who have now left the organization (to form COPE?). Hoo, haa, haa, haa!
Your prophesy about the way (the ANC) Parliament would handle the thorny Pikoli issue will also in all probability come true – seeing that the Chair of the Committee that has to investigate te issue and report to Parliament, himself has a criminal record for corruption (for which he was only fined with a meagre R3,000!) beause he tried to bribe the arresting officer not to arrest and charge him in connection with the unlawful possession of a stolen car (which, of course, he did not know was stolen)! Hoo boy!
This is the year of the courts. The exposition that Kgalema is wrong to recommend the axing of Adv Pikoli is probabilities churned out by forces wishing for the incarceration of Zuma.
The do not reconcile with the possibility of a Zuma presidency. This is more likely than not and bizarre analyses is abound.
The issue of national security should not be caricatured as is by Prof. It is a matter which must be given a serious thought.
It is sad that Prof attacks the bona fides of Ginwala simply because he does not agree with her disposition on matters addressed in her report. Scholars of law cannot always share identical thoughts. diversity is not tantamount to dishonesty or favours to masters.
I agree Ishmael in toto, and want to add that Pikoli may go to all the Courts he wants but he wont get his job back especially once Kgalema or Msholozi appoints a new NDPP, if you are conversant with labour law, that is!
Anonymouse well lol are we realy surprised just about everyone in the ANC has a criminal record
Lets just get this into focus Monareng’s nomination to co-chair the committee the guy has a criminal record.
Now im lost what are one of the rules to be an MP to have a criminal record or not to have a criminal record now I understand that parliment introduced the Criminal Procedure Amendment Bill, which expunge the criminal records of those convicted of petty crimes.
So does Monarengs still have a criminal record? and what does the Parliment ACT have to say about this?
“Thus the appeal court seemed to limit “final responsibility” to information giving (when so requested by the Minister).”
The word responsibility is much stronger than the above quote seems to assert. How can someone be held responsible (exercise responsibility) for decisions he/she could not influence?
“exercise responsibility” does not equal “access to information”. You would have to really stretch semantics (contextual interpretation) to come to that conclusion, purely based on the language.
I have not even touched on what the word final does here: it strengthens the feeling of “the buck stops here”, and that word makes it even more difficult to reconcile it with mere “access to information”.
You can say that the NPA act is clear as to the NPA’s independence, but that does not mean the “final responsibility” part is also clear and not in need of being rephrased. (“need” being from a language point of view)
The problem lies in whether a review will lean towards an independent NPA or towards a powerful minister.
Ishmael Malale // Jan 16, 2009 at 8:37 am
“It is sad that Prof attacks the bona fides of Ginwala simply because he does not agree with her disposition on matters addressed in her report”.
I agree with Ishmael on this point. I really cannot understand Prof’s hypocricy. Nicholson J got it wrong because he is judge and judges sometimes do get it wrong (a proposition I fully agree with) but Ginwala got it wrong becuase she was trying to protect Mbeki. How does that work?
I’m sure if the bloggers who see racism in everthing were around, they’d say it’s because Nicholson J is white and therefore he makes mistakes and other people (black) they don’t make mistakes, they are mala fide. Thank goodness I’m not one of these bloggers but I really would love to get an explanation from Prof
:)
Mzo // Jan 16, 2009 at 10:16 am
It called liberal racism. Helen Suzman wrote the handbook that guides Pierre de Vos.
Chris Mcdaniels:
You can’t be serious. Your suggestion that almost all in the ANC are criminals is very sad inconclusive generalisation that attracts inattention to your reflections. You also depict you narrow understanding of the role of a chairperson in deliberations.
The chairperson is merely a facilitator of a robust discourse which will ensure between the committee members and adducers of evidence. It is the collective force of the committee which will prevail. Not a single individual.
You are the sort of character who will naturally say Harms is not a good Judge because he was in Broederbond!
Perhaps I must learn to agree with you as ideas are not disembodied entities of the brain but expression of the individual’s social and historical existence.
Malema has not asserted anything outrageous to warrant the cacaphonous condemnation. He clearly stated that we respect the courts but entitled to criticise where necessary.
Even some judges may want to suck up to politicians for career pathing. These are human being susceptible to any falllibility !. It is a minefield to venture to fathom your last question.
“It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it.”
— Aristotle (Aristotle’s Metaphysics)
Khosi, are you an expert on the topic of racism now or is it because you’re black?
Ishmael Malale // Jan 16, 2009 at 11:23 am
“Malema has not asserted anything outrageous to warrant the cacaphonous condemnation”
How about his comments regarding dark forces that moves in the night (what does that even mean) ? How about the mention that these dark forces got to not the majority, but all five of the judges to influence their vote (SCA-Zuma case)? Please Ishmael, to analyse Malemaniac’s utterances to gain some sort of credibility for the ANCYL is not worth your effort.
In addition, I have to agree with Chris that it is astounding the number of suspected and convicted criminals that make out the ANC. Really it is incredible
O, and Ishmael Malale and khosi, next time racism forms part of your argument you surrender credibility related to that topic.
MILI :
The dark forces refers to political adversaries. not judges. Let us not distort the remarks of comrade Julius Malema.
His remarks are fair in political terms. All the parties wish the ANC could just disappear from the political terrain. wishful but unrealisable thinking.
Your stance that we are criminals is totally unfair and cannot sustain any good discourse.
I respectfully suggest you point out whay you mean by ANC. or you refer to Antineptual contract ?
The ANC will exist for great many years. I do predict that in its history it may even become a fierce opposition party is our maturing democracy. some years down the line!
Racism debate. I am not a racist. I have expressed my clear views on the SCA judgment with which I concur on almost all the points except interpretation of 179.
But I cannot forget where Harms comes from! I hope, truly, that he does not advance the Broederbond philosophy!
On matters of law the judgment generally seems impeccable.
If you think I am racist you may call me such. I have no qualms ! I am a patient debator at times.
@Mili, Friend
It is a point of view that I hold. I did not solicit for anyone to like it. Obviously my construct of what a racist is, maybe different from your construct.
I also understand that many (white) people may feel hurt being labeled as racist, cause racist behavior is not always deliberate. Many time these white people, think they mean well. Many times its, not so innocent, nuances that many in this country, were brought up, being indoctrinated. Sadly liberal racist do not think that their racism hurts, cause they do not see it as racism.
And my belief is that Pierre de Vos is one of the liberal racists that we have in this country.
And now the M&G have an article where a plea by JZ will expose all the ‘Arms Deal’ beneficiaries including Mbeki and Lekota!
So where to now?
Ishmael Malale
You tell me cos every single candidate the ANC puts forward seems to have a criminal record as of late, so i mean come on whats going on?
“The chairperson is merely a facilitator of a robust discourse which will ensure between the committee members and adducers of evidence. It is the collective force of the committee which will prevail. Not a single individual. ”
Yes and it takes one rotten apple to effect credibility. Honestly could the ANC not find a person with out a criminal record to chair this? why him? come on man this is not game.
“Malema has not asserted anything outrageous to warrant the cacaphonous condemnation. He clearly stated that we respect the courts but entitled to criticise where necessary. ”
I know your part of the Youth League and standing up for your wannabe leader but going on about conspirecy theories and dark forces and yoda so on and that our judges are now imperialist agents come one man im sure he is smoking abit of the wacky backy hey? ja man
but i guess stupidity breads stupidity
@khosi
“It is a point of view that I hold. I did not solicit for anyone to like it”
lol so in other words your a racist or you need to grow up??
which one is it? get a live man
@khosi
“It is a point of view that I hold. I did not solicit for anyone to like it”
lol so in other words your a racist or you need to grow up??
which one is it? get a life man
Unfortunately the National Assembly is nothing more than a rubber stamp for the Executive. Thanks to proportional representation mixed with Westminster parliament.
Pikoli will get fired. Parliament has no balls.
Ishmael Malale // Jan 16, 2009 at 12:07 pm
OK let’s leave the Malema debacle. You may think of him as great, a revolutionary, maybe even a prophet. To me he is a wind bag.
Secondly, your interpretation of my comment is very poor and inciting.
And yes, the ANC will exist for many years to come. I agree. I just wish that the next batch of leaders will be credible. I might even vote for them again.
khosi // Jan 16, 2009 at 12:31 pm
You’re fired!! Your racist utterances reek with racial insecurity.
Chris:
please start debating and stop whining!
Ishmael
“The dark forces refers to political adversaries. not judges. Let us not distort the remarks of comrade Julius Malema.”
Ishmeal we cant dostort anything Malema is saying even if you gave us a map to begine with cos in all honesty we dont understand what the hell he is talking about. Dark forces lol yes and sky walker and glue in the dark condoms all makes sense now he just wants to get laid
He is indeed going.
Let him go to court. We lawyers are in the mood for fermenting jurisprudence!
GO! Pikoli GO!
Khosi, so you are an expert of the topic, I will rather spend my time and energies into constructive topics that could solve some problems such as inventing new ideas to overcome identified problems. The future vs the past. Think white and get serious.
The article in the M&G “ANC’s plan to save Zuma” must be a hot one, I havn’t seen so many responses to other articles in the M&G in a long time.
Unfortunately I fear that PdeV’s prediction of how the ANC cadres and Cde’s on the Ad Hoc committee will behave will come to pass in terms. Parlaiment has been failing dismally in its oversight functions due to the list system among other things, for years and this matter is so politically charged to imagine for a second that Monareng and his cronies will do anything but lick JZ, oops, Kgalema’s boots is akin to believeing pigs can fly.
Its already clear the ANC’s on the committee want a quick process so that they can get back to electioneering. At least Butane K seemed to say so by all accounts… I hope Vusi P takes them all the way and the CC do parliaments job for them. Sets up another nice conflict between the courts and the ANC/Government..
slumdweller
thanks for that article dont know how true it all is but thats politics for you. If that is the case just goes to show how rotten to the core the ANC has become.
however i dont agree that “The general feeling [in the ANC] is that, if the case continues, it will be devastating to the country,” said an NEC source. give me a brake it will be devastating to the ANC not the country.
RE: the M&G article:
So now Zuma’s defense isn’t that he is innocent, but rather that everyone else did it, and they did more of it than me.
If that isn’t an admission of guilt, then I do not know what is. And it is an admission of guilt not just by Zuma, but by the entire ANC. We all did it, even those over in COPE. And you can’t prosecute us because we will take down the entire country (well, at least all of the ANC, current and former) with us if we go.
Looks like the Arms deal truth is finally coming out. If the ANC and Zuma go thru with their proposed submissions to the NPA, is there any chance that they will be able to keep all of this covered up, or will it all eventually leak out to the press?
Mzo and Khosi, ag no man, here we go again with the racism canard. There is a very obvious and clear difference between Nicholson (and all the other judges black and white who had found in favour of JZ only to be overturned on appeal) on the one hand and Ginwala on the other. They are judges and as such are not beholden to anyone or any party. Their independence is guaranteed by the Constitution and they get a salary for life. Unlike Frene Ginwala, they are not disciplined members of the political party whose then leader asked them to investigate whether the then leader of that party acted stupidly or correctly. The Ginwala investigation was therefore never going to have the kind of credibility of a judgement – even a judgment by Nicholson – because it was conducted by someone who has sworn to always act in the best interst of a particular political party and not someone who have sworn to uphold the constitution and act in the best interest of the country. If you read her report it is obvious that it has a very strong pro-executive bent. If I have time I can go and unearth many quotes to prove this but exhibit number one is her weird and unconvincing attempt to link the NPA to the requirements of chapter 3 of the Constitution. This flies completely in the face of the Constitutional Court assurance that the NPA’s independence is guaranteed by the Constitution. So she ignored the constitution and its authoritative interpretation by the highest court of the land and miraculously this helped to exonorate the very same person who appointed her and who used to be the leader of the party she has promised to serve obediently. Sorry for pointing this out. No, actually I am not sorry. Sometimes pointing out the blidningly obvious to pshyciophants are rather important – even in their frustration and because of their inability to counteract your facts and arguments they call you names. When Khosi hoists the racism flag I know I have scored a bulls eye. It works every time.
At long last the “poppe gaan nou begin dans”. http://www.news24.com/News24/South_Africa/News/0,,2-7-1442_2454363,00.html
Pierre De Vos // Jan 16, 2009 at 3:49 pm
On the independence of the NPA, the SCA found in line with Ginwala and completely ridiculed Nicholson:-
“[34] The Act requires members of the prosecuting authority to serve ‘impartially’ and exercise, carry out or perform their powers, duties and functions ‘in good faith and without fear, favour or prejudice’ and subject only to the Constitution and the law (s 32(1)(a)).29 It further provides that no one may interfere ‘improperly’ with the NPA in the performance of its duties and functions (s 32(1)(b)). (‘Improperly’ may be tautologous because interference usually implies some or other impropriety.) It reaffirms that the Minister must exercise final responsibility over the NPA …….”
“…..The latter provision states that, in exercising the review power to
prosecute or not to prosecute, the NDPP may advise the Minister ‘on all matters relating to the administration of justice’, which is hardly compatible with the notion that there may be no relationship between them. ”
Are you saying the SCA’s interpretation was incorrect as well?
Anonymouse // Jan 16, 2009 at 4:30 pm
Is JZ admitting guilt?
Prof,
All I was saying is that I can sometimes understand why the likes if Lindelani would label you a racist. Personally, I hate labelling people as such even if their actions suggest that such labelling might not be that misplaced.
On your reasoning, I can quote the same number of instances where Nicholson J clearly gives an impression that he was, like JZ, on Shabir Shaik’s payroll. How else do you explain his criticism of Thabo Mbeki’s decision to run in Polokwane. To me it smacks of someone who was trying so hard to implicate someone, just like (you argue) that Gninwala was trying so hard to exornerate TM.
Bottom line, they both erred. Badly. I therefore fail to understand why Nicholson J’s error would supposedly be excusable simply on the basis of the oath he took when he became a judge.
My argument Prof is limited to the case at hand, it has nothing to do with judgments given in other cases. Unlike you, I judge the credibility of Ginwala or Nicholson’s finding not on who is the author thereof but on the reasoning given in each case. You clearly judge them on the basis of the oath taken by each when taking office.
Khosi I am saying the SCA interpretation was spot on. There can be a relationship between the Minister and the NDPP – contra Nicholson. This relationship must ensure (a) that the NPA is INDEPENDENT but that (b) the Minister can exercise final responsibility over the NPA. This oversight is achieved by (c) placing a legal duty on the NDPP to provide the Minister with any information he or she wants or needs and (d) requiring the Minister to approve a prosecution policy which the NDPP MUST adhere to but (e) prohibiting the Minister or the President from telling the NDPP what to do in any individual case. The final responsibility is exercised through the prosecution policy and the provision of information and if the NDPP fails to comply with the policy or fails to provide information when requested, the MInister may interact with him. In Pikoli’s case there was no evidence and no finding that Pikoli had not complied with prosecution policies or had failed to provide info. This is why the firing of Pikoli constitutes an interference with his independence as it oversteps the bounds set by the Constitution and the NPA Act. Finish and klaar, as Mbekis good friend said about his relationship with a crook.
Pierre De Vos // Jan 16, 2009 at 5:04 pm
But Ginwala found Pikoli fit to hold office. And Monthlatle decision had nothing to do with Ginwala conclusion/ recommendation.
What was wrong about what Ginwala said that Nicholson got right?
Pierre, I’m intrigued: would a “pshyciophant” be the result of a union between a sycophant and a psychopath?
Khosi, firstly you called Helen Suzman a liberal racist. Have you lost your mind man?! I think even your own party, including your dear leader, would take issue with that. And, as a matter of interest, flippantly calling people racists desensitizes people to real racism, and tends to invoke more of the same. It’s not healthy or fair to simply label people racists because you disagree with their point of view. In fact, I recall an administration who did that…oh yes, it was called Apartheid!
Anyway, to the issue at hand, the NPA can be independent and still report to the minister. The bottom line is that NOBODY may instruct the NDPP who he may or may not prosecute. The minister may request information, which will allow them to exercise oversight – to see that the NPA is not breaching it’s duties, and is exercising it’s rights under the law. It may not tell it who it should investigate and who it shouldn’t. If the NPA, for example, starts stampeding into suspects’ houses without warrants, this would be where the minister steps in. If the NPA wishes to prosecute somebody, the minister has no say under the law. It’s not that hard to understand.
I thought Ginwala’s report was phenomenally crafty. On one hand, she managed to play in to public opinion by saying that firing him was a bit of a mistake, having been done in the manner it was. BUT on the other hand she did exactly what her party wanted – she gave them a reason to fire him anyway, by slipping in that little sentence about him not understanding National Security fully (which we are still unenlightened about as to what it actually entails). Talk about having your cake and eating it if you’re the ANC.
I always had huge respect for Ginwala before that report came out, but after that I was saddened to realise that she is first and foremost an ANC member, and that is her first port of call when fulfilling her duties. My last hope is Trevor Manuel, although he is also implicated in the Arms Deal, so maybe I’ll have no more heroes to admire in parliment soon.
As for Malema, eish, I’ve been waiting for him to pop up again. Dark forces that move in the night? I actually started laughing out loud at my desk when I read that – I had to make sure I hadn’t opened the first page of a new spy novel!
@Ismael – you say you cannot forget where Harms comes from. Perhaps he has changed? I recall the ANC bombed a few non-strategic targets in apartheid which killed innocent people…would I be justified in saying that I do not trust black people because I cannot forget that? Of course not…let us move on into the 21st century, until Harms or wheover gives reason for suspicion!
Final point – @Chris McDaniels, while our points of view are often similar, you do nobody any favours by spewing forth sarcastic reactions to other contributors. Focus on the debating the issues at hand rather than trying to sarcastically mock people for their opinions, even when they get completely blind and ridiculous as they may (oh I miss Lindelani!). You’ll find that it establishes your credibility much more effectively, and your words will carry more weight than they do now.
@Clara…I’m thinking of our Sports Minister, inter alia
@The Big Sleeper
Helen Suzman is on record saying that natives should be freed from apartheid but not allowed to decide their own future. That is a crude example of liberal racism
Do you have a date for me?
If the M&G reports are true, then the ANC is effectively saying, “the prima-facie case against Zuma is unwinnable in court”.
I somehow think somebody was roasted for saying that.
I agree with most in this post but I think Pierre, like Harms, is being unfair to Nicholson when he says:
“As the SCA has now confirmed, Nicholson and Ginwala both had it wrong.”
As bongs pointed out from the Nicholson judgment:
“There should be no relationship with the Minister of Justice – certainly insofar as his decisions to prosecute or not to prosecute anybody from the Commissioner of Police downwards.”
I think Harms deliberately misinterpreted what Nicholson said. Harms proceeds to nitpick that misinterpretation in his ostentatious and deliberate attempt to knock to stuffing out of Nicholson and his judgment.
I’ve been wondering for some time about a question of constitutional law.
It seems very likely that a new tame NDPP will decide to drop charges against JZ, simply because nothing else is likely work. But could this decision be challenged in the courts by some party outside of the NPA such as the DA? Do we have some kind of constitutional protection to prevent the NPA from becoming a tool of the governing party or do we simply have to rely on the integrity of the NDPP?
What I want to know is this: If Zuma admits to being guilty can he still become president?
Yes he will.
even behind bars.
If i can engage in the genocide of a nation and do so beyond reproach, in violation of international law while my corruption trial is still pending,
What on earth do u think Zuma can do?
Dangerous words that Mr Olmert!
In the late 80`s as a 1st yr law student i traveled with my mentor , now Judge Waglay to the chambers of the late Mr Dulla Omar on some matter. During their discussions Mr Omar turned to me and asked me to define the concepts of Law and Justice? i was rather nervous and gave him an elaborate legal definition of Law and a dictionary definition of justice, after a long pause he looked at me and poignantly pointed out to me his definition
” my dear , there is no justice in law and no law in justice”