Hugh Glenister is lodging yet another court application to try and have the legislation abolishing the Scorpions overturned. After reading the papers submitted to the Court I am rather skeptical that this new application will be successful. Glenister’s main argument is that the legislation was passed because the Scorpions “has been too effective when it comes to investigating various high-profile members of the ANC”. He contends that the decision was taken “in order to protect various ANC members from current and future investigations by the DSO [Scorpions]“.
If he could show this to be true, so the argument goes, the decision would be in conflict with the Rule of Law which requires that legislation has to be “rationally connected to a legitimate governmental purpose” and could be declared invalid by a court of law. This is because a decision solely aimed at protecting ANC members from investigation and prosecution would not qualify as a “legitimate governmental purpose”.
This is a good constitutional argument but the problem is that it would be almost impossible to show that there was no legitimate governmental purpose for abolishing the Scorpions. The legal test is not whether the decision was wise. Even a catastrophically stupid decision will be constitutionally valid unless it could be shown that the only reason it was made was for an ulterior purpose.
The government has provided several legitimate – if rather unconvincing reasons – for the abolition of the Scorpions and a court will not be able to second guess these reasons in the absence of “smoking gun” evidence showing that the only reasons for this decision was to protect Mr Zuma or other criminals within the ANC. The separation of powers requires a court to be circumspect when considering declaring legislation invalid on the basis that it was in contravention of the Rule of Law.
After all, judges are not democratically elected while members of Parliament are. It is therefore not for a court to correct the mistakes made by the legislature. It is for the electorate to correct the mistakes by throwing out the incumbent government who made the disastrously stupid decisions which will make us all suffer more from corruption.
A more promising line of argument presented in the papers is that some of the members of Parliament who passed the legislation should not have taken part in the decision because they had been investigated – and in some cases prosecuted – by the Scorpions for their role in the Travelgate scandal. This, so Glenister argues, constitutes a conflict of interest.
It is clear that it would have been wise for those MP’s with a conflict of interest to have recused themselves from the proceedings. The decision would have had more legitimacy if they had done so and it was clearly tainted by the presence of some of these people in Parliament. But it is not clear whether the Constitution requires those MPs who had a conflict of interest to recuse themselves. One could argue that MPs passing legislation cannot be equated with state officials taking an administrative decision. They are exercising a legislative function and in terms of our system of party discipline follow the dictates of the party leadership.
I for one would be surprised if a judge agree that on this basis alone legislation that would otherwise have been passed validly became invalid. Once again, the separation of powers question would be uppermost in the mind of a judge confronted with this question.
What Glenister’s papers do highlight is the complex and problematic nature of the relationship between the government of the day and the ruling party. Our Constitution is silent on what exactly this relationship should be. The new ANC seems to have a rather troubling view of this relationship as it seems to feel that the government is accountable to the NEC and not to Parliament. The papers note that in January last year Mr Matthews Phosa stated that:
- “The president of the country takes guidelines, mandates and instructions from the ANC …There is only one centre of power and that is the highest decision-making structure of the ANC”.
- “The NEC, including the President of the ANC, in effect becomes the representative of the majority of voters between elections. Its task therefore is to instruct the executive and legislative organ of government on issues of policy.”
- “The President and his or her Cabinet accounts to the NEC of the ANC, as any other structure of Government does”
This view of the party seems deeply problematic for our constitutional democracy as it seems to want to bypass the constitutional institutions such as Parliament when it comes to the accountability of the executive. But it must be conceded that this is a complex question as our electoral system and our system of party discipline clearly require some interaction between the leadership of the majority party and the government.
A balance need to be struck. President Mbeki seemed to have gone too far to the one side and if Mr Phosa has his way the ANC will now go too far to the other side. The NEC of the ANC has a duty to set policy but must then allow the executive to implement that policy as best it can. The ANC NEC must also allow Parliament to do its oversight job over the executive and must not usurp the powers of the democratically elected members of Parliament. After all, the NEC was elected by 4000 people while the members of Parliament were elected by 17 million people, so for the NEC to want to micro manage the executive would be profoundly undemocratic.
In any event, I will be surprised if this new application has any success. The Scorpions is no more and the voters did not see that this will affect the way in which the state delivers services to them, so they did not punish the ANC for this very dumb decision. If opposition parties had done a better job of linking the demise of the Scorpions to the rise of corruption and the deterioration of service delivery, maybe the ANC would have been punished more at the polls.
But this did not happen and perhaps it is not for a court to “correct” the mistakes of the electorate as this will not be in the interest of democracy.
“President Mbeki seemed to have gone too far to the one side and…”
What is that supposed to mean? You know sometimes you write like a horse with blinkers on. Please explain your statement.
“interest of democracy”
shouldnt be in the interest of democracy should be in the interest of safety and security.
but this i find interesting:
“contention that scrapping the unit violated a United Nations convention on fighting corruption, that South Africa was signatory to.”
well here is the convention
http://www.unodc.org/unodc/en/corruption/index.html
International law being violated
resolution 55/61 of the UN
Article 36 of the UN Convention Against Corruption provides:
Hugh Glenister also needs to link up that the disbanding of the DSO also violates South Africa’s international treaty obligations.
Thats why people who argue the independence of the NPA and the DSO and that the DSO belongs to the NPA only need to look at the UN resolutions and international law.
The Bills that came into place for the DSO disbanding them is illegal
http://grubstreet.co.za/2009/04/30/what-justice-seagroatt-said/
Prof – Chris Mcdaniel has a point. One wonders whether a court would be able to argue that the disbanding of the Scorpions and replacement thereof by a new SAPS Unit against organized crime would enable South Africa to properly honour its obligations under art 36 of the Convention. Here one has to take the whole Selebi saga into account – how independent can a SAPS Unit be in investigating its national head? Also the Zuma saga – how independent can a SAPS unit be in investigating the national head of state? Ss 34, 39 of the Constitution might just swing the scales in favour of Glenister.
Prof,
I know this is not under discussion but out of curiosity, what does the constitution say about polygamy and the first lady? Could there be a constitutional crisis if Zuma’s wives challenge one another for the honour?
Prof. you see as long as you don’t understand that we, the majority, were happy with the long overdue demolition of the counter-revolutionary scorpions, you will forever be in the dark! We thanked the ANC for doing this by voting for it and especially for its presidentila candidates in droves. You see some of us normally wouldn’t vote because we knewq that the ANC would anyway win but for the likes of you and cope people we were phoning each other on election day to brave the cold to punish cope and the media who undermined our leader and the majority of Black voters and we did it!
Tony – What about a “First Wives Club”?
thanks MDU
“We thanked the ANC”
you have just admitted to political interference. so it was the ANC that got rid of the scorpians…..mmmm oh what was that about the NPA act?
typical
Mdu – “You see some of us normally wouldn’t vote because we knewq that the ANC would anyway win but for the likes of you and cope people we were phoning each other on election day to brave the cold to punish cope and the media who undermined our leader and the majority of Black voters and we did it!”
Weell, approx 2,2M more voters voted in 2009 than in 2004, and of those, the ANC barely got 770K, with the rest, 1,23M of the extra votes went to the opposition, mostly DA and COPE. (Thus, the ANC only won 37.5% of the extra vote that went out to brave the cold on your network of phone calls!) The total percentage of registered voters that went out to brave the cold, was a mere 77% of the 23M registered voters (worse than in 1994 and 1999), of which the ANC got 65,89% (approx 12M votes). Had 90% of registered voters voted instead of 77%, and the above patern of extra votes counted this time around prevailed, the ANC would’ve gotten 980K of the extra votes above 77%, which would’ve brought its total winning percentage down to approx 62%; and, if 100% voted (which is of course totally improbable because the last time such a poll happened was with Hitler’s Anschluss), the ANC’s majority would have dwindled to under 60%. Actually, when the correct formulas are applied, I think the ANC would’ve gotten much closer to a mere 55% of the total vote had the voter turnout been 100%, because among those that stayed away were some (I’d say the majority) who wouldn’t vote for the ANC because of its failure to deliver during the past 15 years and because of the fact that JZ was chosen party leader at Polokwane. Just do the math to see whether the ANC (and JZ) could afford to continue to fail to deliver as it had during the past 15 years until 2014.
Whatever – you have apparently not even bothered to consider the legal arguments presented above, and you are still Jabulani-ing because of the ANC’s win. Have you even tried to read article 36 of the Anti-Corruption Convention (which is binding on the RSA, whatever party governs) referred to above and its implications in the Scorpions saga?
Anonymouse // Apr 30, 2009 at 2:30 pm
“Just do the math to see whether the ANC (and JZ) could afford to continue to fail to deliver as it had during the past 15 years until 2014.”
i think you are right. This election was the last free pass for the ANC. They better start delivering and I think they know that all too well.
Mouse, all this arithmethicking means nothing to me, you,Tutu, sne et al bitter people should graceously accept democratic results, alas I forgot you couldn’t even accept the Polokwane outcome even though you’re not ANC members or suppoerters!
Mdu – “Gloat, gloat, gloat …” Do the math, mon!? And, what about your legal arguments on the issue at hand? Or is the ANC busy revolutionizing international law as well?
Mouse, as to legal arguments I am ad idem with the Prof, hence the silence!
Mdu – Prof has not yet responded to the art 36 argument raised by Chris. Your early take on that?
Mdu // Apr 30, 2009 at 2:59 pm
‘…bitter people should graceously accept democratic results…’
WTF are you talking about? No one is disputing that the ANC won the elections. In fact I’m thrilled to see that the ANC lost the western cape and the two thirds majority. I accept this with a smile on my face. Maybe if you were more objective about the elections you would stop gloating about your poor performance at the poll’s and apply your mind to how you and your party are going to rectify this performance.
What you need to accept is that, now that the elections are over, the infighting in the ANC will now step up a gear to satisfy all the SACP’s, COSATO’s, NUMSA’s, ANCYL, ANCWL etc etc etc to whom empty electionering promises has been made. Secondly you’ll have to face up to the fact that your blind support to JZ and the current ANC is based on nothing more than historical association. When a new leader of the ANC emerge, you and the current ANC electorate will gladly relegate JZ to the now counter revolutionary group of Mbeki, Tutu, etc.
As I have pointed out before, the last time Zuma was in these USA, Obama – who was still campagning at the time – and the White house staff (Bush and Rice) did not want to take pictures with Zuma because of his corruption tainted image.
This time the USA sent a message congratulating the people of South Africa for the way they conducted themselves in the elections. Zuma’s name was not mentioned – I assume it is because the cloud of corruption still lingers on.
Obama won’t be among the dignitaries at Zuma’s inauguration. We know why.
So, go ahead zuma loyalists and deceive yourself that Zuma is innocent. Some people see him for who he is – a man who used State institutions to avoid his day in court. In other words, they still rightly see him as corrupt, because he is.
What a pity, he should have let the courts clear him.
Anonymouse // Apr 30, 2009 at 3:20 pm
This is how I would argue my case on the DSO
1) It is required by international law and the UN resolution that AN ANTI-CORRUPTION AGENCY is formed who is independent = DSO
2) South Africa has acceded to a number of international treaty obligations that require it to ensure that its anti-corruption capacity is institutionally independent of potential sources of interference.
3) South Africa has signed and ratified both of the most significant international treaties intended to combat corruption, viz. the United Nations Convention Against Corruption (2003) and the African Union Convention on Preventing and Combating Corruption (2003), as well as the United Nations Convention Against Transnational Organised Crime (2003).
4) All these treaties enjoy a high level of international support and commitment and, hence, credibility. All three require the establishment of specialised anti-corruption agencies that must be characterised by real independence.
5) Article 36 of the UN Convention Against Corruption provides:
‘Each State Party shall, in accordance with the fundamental principles of its legal system, ensure the existence of a body or bodies or persons specialized in combating corruption through law enforcement. Such body or bodies or persons shall be granted the necessary independence, in accordance with the fundamental principles of the legal system of the State Party, to be able to carry out their functions effectively and without any undue influence. Such persons or staff of such body or bodies should have the appropriate training and resources to carry out their tasks.’ (Emphasis added)
6) Article 5(3) of the AU Convention provides that states parties undertake to: ‘Establish, maintain and strengthen independent national anti-corruption authorities or agencies.’
7) Article 9(2) of the UN Convention Against Transnational Organised Crime, similarly, requires that:
‘Each state party shall take measures to ensure effective action by its authorities in the prevention, detection and punishment of the corruption of public officials, including providing such authorities with adequate independence to deter the exertion of inappropriate influence on their actions’.
In terms of these conventions, the Republic of South Africa, as a signatory thereto, has undertaken inter alia to -
develop and implement, or maintain, effective anti-corruption policies that reflect the principles of the rule of law, proper management of public affairs and public property, integrity, transparency and accountability; and endeavour to establish and promote effective practices aimed at corruption; and
endeavour, in accordance with fundamental principles of domestic law, to adopt, maintain and strengthen systems that promote transparency and prevent conflicts of interest; and
develop and implement or maintain independent units to combat corruption.”
In terms of section 231 of the Constitution, it is provided, inter alia, that international agreements are binding on the Republic. All three of the treaties mentioned fall into this category.
I defy anyone to counter argue this!!!!
At the end of the day, I doubt Mr Glennister’s application will be successful. It is however very important, because it shows the ruling party that there are citizens and organisations in SA who will not allow the government (which the ANC NEC seems to believe is itself) to simply ride roughshod over 50 millions South Africans to serve the narrow interests of a couple of hundred. This for me is the important issue at hand, because this, coupled with the fact that the ANC has started to realise they better pull serious finger if they want to retain power (because lets be honest, the higher ups aren’t interested in serving the citizens as much as themselves). And even if they pull finger to help themselves, it will still help some ordinary people.
So to me this is why challenges like this are important – even a loss is still a victory to an extent, because it sends an important message.
PvD
“The government has provided several legitimate – if rather unconvincing reasons – for the abolition of the Scorpions and a court will not be able to second guess these reasons in the absence of “smoking gun” evidence showing that the only reasons for this decision was to protect Mr Zuma or other criminals within the ANC.”
Are you implying that President JZ is a criminal?
Tony,
Is your saint Obama clean? Tony Rezko?
jj,
Yes, JZ is a criminal. He took bribes from Shaik, and did favours for him. Accepting bribes is a criminal offence.
I don’t know why some of you even bother to reply to the irrelevant drivel Mdu writes.
Prof, suppose a whistle-blower sufaced in the Glenister application. Some ex-Scorpion, some ‘deep-throat’ who is prepared to testify, in court, that the decison came from the NEC, or some heavyweight high up? Would that make a difference to the application and give it legal ‘credence’ ? Your thoughts please?
Shakira
“i think you are right. This election was the last free pass for the ANC. They better start delivering and I think they know that all too well.”
The minorities have been speculating about the decline of the ANC for the past decade. They do not understand the essence of ANC. uKhongolose wabantu is not a political party, it is the parliarment of the African majority. As JZ said, the ANC will rule until Jesus comes back.
Tony
“Yes, JZ is a criminal. He took bribes from Shaik, and did favours for him. Accepting bribes is a criminal offence.”
Well that’s new info to me. Do you have proof? When did Shaik bribe JZ & what favours did the President elect do for Shaik?
“The Scorpions is no more and the voters did not see that this will affect the way in which the state delivers services to them, so they did not punish the ANC for this very dumb decision.”
I’m honestly crying crocodile tears of despondency to see the Scorpion go. How Pierre could dish up such a heart-breaking obituary without mentioning the names of Ngucka and McCarthy once is a truly awe inspiring exercise in denial and hypocrisy that we have by now come to expect form this bog. Thank god the good common folks of South Africa who have voted for Zuma and have effectively killed of fthat poisonous insect don’t have Internet access to read such one-eyed propagandistic trash.
JJ @ 9:21pm…
… the Shaik judgement was posted on the web on 09/06/2005. That’s a long while ago… here is the link below. Please read it! After you’ve read it…some back tell us what you think?
http://www.news24.com/News24/South_Africa/Shaik_trial/0,,2-7-1708_1718857,00.html
jj prophesised:
“the ANC will rule until Jesus comes back.”
And AFTER Jesus comes back? Who will rule then, for God’s sake? Hey?
Andre
I have read the Shaik judgement. As you correctly state, it is the Shaik judgement not a Zuma judgement.
Michael: Jesus will then rule, duh! I m deeply hurt by Tony in Virginia s utterences about Obama, Bush not wanting to take photo with President Zuma. In as much as I believe Tony is making out his own snobish perceptions to be facts about President Zuma s visit to USA last year, I must respond anyway. 1. Tony – You are a NOBODY, hence cant have access to deplomatic access to deplomatic communications. You will only rely on media. 2.You are a NOBODY Tony, as a result you relied on false media reports peddled by the very enemies of the revolution which were defeated both by the Polokwane outcome and recently Apr 22. 3. Say you snobish perceptions were true for argument sake, We wouldnt care either way, we dont need Obama, Bush, C. Rice and CERTAINLY NOT unpatriotic snobs like Tony “in Virginia” (azif fact dat u r in Virginia is of importance to anybody or adds any value to the debate!!!)
Tony: Accept my sincere apology for attacking you not your views. In as much as I completely find it disgusting that you belittled our country s election outcome to some high school project which needs the Headmaster (Mighty Obama) stamp of approval, I had no right to attack you as a person.
Michael:
JZ IS Jesus.
Sheesh, you’d think you’d know this stuff by now…..
jj // Apr 30, 2009 at 10:06 pm
You wrote:
I have read the Shaik judgement. As you correctly state, it is the Shaik judgement not a Zuma judgement
JJ,
You must be the ONLY person on God’s green earth that has offered no opinion here, a legal blog to boot, after having read the judgement in regard to the fact that Zuma’s name is quote many, many times, and not in a complimentary manner I might add. And since you are silent on this matter I take it you agree with every word, nothwithstanding the fact that it is a Shaik judgement and not a Zuma one. Henceforth, I will remind you at each occasion you contradict your silence to re-read the Shaik judgement. So, when Prof writes of the Shaik matter again and refrences Zuma, which he will I’m sure, please keep quiet.
Apology accepted, Spuy.
Modisana! Thusang tlheng, sechaba sa rona se a fels ka ntlha ya batho ba ba tswafang go nagana. First of all, i’m not a scholar of the law. I’m a political studies scholar in the same campus with the prof. Just discovered this blog. Here is what I want to know. Why do people try to make this issue so “black and white”. There’s plenty of room for greys. The constitution says something to the effect that the government is accountable to parliament. The fact is, and the reality is, the ANC makes up most of parliament. My logic says that government is accountable to the ANC. The ANC wanted the scorpions gone…my logic says, the majority of parliament wanted the scorpions gone. Is that not democracy in action? I’m no fan of the ANC but the truth is that everybody said they wanted a democracy and when they get it, they complain. The electorate put their faith in this party to lead them. The minority which seems to be rather vocal is displeased, BUT, this is democracy right? So, tough luck to the rest of us.
It looks like the ANC NEC will be ruling this country from Luthuli House. We will see if it works. If it works well, it will be good for our country but if it doesn’t, the 2014 ballot will judge. This is democracy at its best (or worst?).
Andre,
The Squires judgement was rubbish. Judge Squires made an inference about Zuma’s state of mind when he had not appeared in court either as a witness or as an accused. Essentially JZ was tried in abstantia. You & Prof claim to be protecting the constitution. Is it constitutional to be tried in abstentia? What you deem to be evidence, are merely allegations. Zuma is not guilty of anything. If Ngcuka had taken Zuma to court, the truth would have come out.
Spuy: There is not one shred of evidence that Jesus ever existed. Which is just as well, because Jesus was made out to be a communist. Believe me, you won’t want to live in a communist country. For one thing, there won’t be any trade unions, but the government will assign a job to you whether you like it or not, and you will be paid peanuts and will never own anything in your life. And blogs like this one will definitely be banned.
JJ
Obviously you read one thing and understand another.
Jacob Zuma, feeling vindicated after the Mpshe decision, told us that all the money he received from Shaik was a loan.
If you read the Judge Squires judgement objectively you would understand why and how Judge Squire reached the decision that those amounts of money were not loans. This is irrespective of who was on trial; the fact of the matter is that the court of law found that those amounts of money were NOT loans.
Sometimes we have to be objective regardless of where our loyalties lie. Facts are facts.
klip in die bos …. wat is die waarborg dat jz wel deur die parlement gekies gaan word as prez … after all hy moet verkies word deur die parlement … nie die gesiglose massas nie.
Andre,
Judge Squires found that Nkobi was in no financial position to loan Zuma money. Did Zuma know this? Was he Shaik’s accountant? Is it possible that Shaik could have misrepresented his financial position to Zuma? Judge Squires does not indicate anywhere in his judgement that Zuma agreed to be bribed by Shaik. There was no evidence place in front of him to this effect.
Dumisani,
My understanding of the law is different from yours. I believe we are all entitled to dispute evidence presented by the state against us. Read the Squires judgement carefully. Some of it is good & some of it is rubbish, particularly on count 3. The learned Judge found that Nkobi was not in a financial position to lend money to Zuma & that Shaik could not have been making these loans for altruistic purposes. He wanted to benefit from Zuma’s political office. Squires does not state that Zuma agreed to use his political office for the benefit of Shaik and/or his business.
JJ
There was no need for Squires to find that Zuma agreed to use his political office for the benefit of Shaik and/or his business because as you have previously stated, Zuma was not on trial.
Zuma, could argue that he was unaware that those were bribes.
What is difficult to fathom is why the Zuma legal team did not opt to go to court to defend Zuma knowing very well that it would be difficult for the State to prove its case; as the onus of proof rested with the State and not with Zuma.
Wouldn’t that have been an easier route than getting Mpshe to drop the charges based on unsubstantiated and/or illegally obtained tape evidence using a plagiarized yet untenable judgement nogal?
Wouldn’t that be an easier option than to go to the Concourt to get the Nicholson judgement reinstated – which judgement if reinstated would only serve to drag the prosecution process further?
Wouldn’t that have been an easier option than to contemplate an amendment to the constitution to prevent a sitting president from being dragged to the courts?
I’m sure Zuma’s lawyers know that the option of giving Zuma his day in court would have been easier; but of course they also know at least the following three things
• The existence of the encrypted fax acknowledging the R500k per annum bribe.
• The Mauritius diary.
• That the above two are a smoking gun.
jj // May 1, 2009 at 6:00 pm
JJ,
Please keep quite, will you!
Kind regards,
The constitution, The SCA, the CC , and others.
Bye…
Prof? Write about Zuma again will you? Pick a topic, any one, there are so many. Go mad!
Kind regards,,
JJ, the constitution, the SCA, the CC and others.
(Teach them, no imbibe please. That seems to be the only way).
JJ, how much reliance do you normally place upon the right-wing loony press that pushes the Obama/Rezko story?
Or is it your point that the Sunday Times, Weekender, M&G, Sunday Independent, Cape Times, Star, etc., all embroiled in the anti-Zuma conpiracy, ARE our very own right-wing loony press …
.Dumisani,
Zuma was very happy to go to court in 2005 but the NPA would not proceed. As the infamous tapes have proved, Zuma was being charged when it best suited his poltical opponents. They waited for 2yrs, after judge Msimag threw the case out, before recharging Zuma. Why? Was it because it suited Mbeki for Zuma not to be charged before Polokwane? Zuma and his lawyers knew this strategy & they devised measures to counter it.The NPA has had their evidence for 9 yrs, what stopped them from bringing it before a judge? Could it be because they knew they had no case?
Michael,
I don’t think Obama is guilty of anything. They were trying to pin him on guilty by association. Same nonsene with JZ here & unfortunately in SA, the media & judges, who should have kown better, went along with it.
Dumisani
• “The existence of the encrypted fax acknowledging the R500k per annum bribe.
• The Mauritius diary.
• That the above two are a smoking gun.”
What does the encrypted fax say? What does it prove? Does it prove that JZ agreed to a bribe?
Futhermore, what info is in that “Mauritius diary”? Does it conclusively prove JZ’s guilt?
JJ:
Your Obama/Resko = Shaik/Zuma analogue is interesting.
In both cases, many of those who hate the politicians unshakeably believe that a corrupt relationship existed — quite irrespective of the evidence.
But what about the rest of us, who carry no brief either for Obama or Zuma? What position do you recommend we take, while you partisans fight it out?
One attitude that is foreclosed to us is the standard line that I think I heard you advancing: that Zuma be should be deemed “innocent until proven guilty.” That conflates the legal standard for criminal liability with the common sense judgments we use in our everyday moral and political evaluations.
Many of us believe strongly that Magnus Malan and Wouter Basson committed crimes, despite the fact they were never found guilty in court of law. Why should people not think similarly of Zuma –and that his vigorous attempts to avoid going to trial makes his guilt seem, if anything, more likely
Will the international law argument work for Glenister? Well, section 231(2) of the Constitution states that “An international agreement binds the Republic only after it has been approved by resolution in both the National Assembly and the National Council of Provinces…” So, one will have to determine whether this was done. If it was done, the question is whether the courts can declare invalid legislation which is in contravention of our international agreements. The Azapo case suggests (but does not make a conclusive finding) that the CC is a bit reluctant to go that rout. It is probably the best argument Glenister has though.
lol wow talk about a conversation that has gone in all directions.
JJ, spuy, ozoneblue and Motlotlegi
about the scorpians love em or hate em but south africa has signed a contract with the UN on 3 peace treaties including the AU about corruption.
These are the treaties go look them up.
1)United Nations Convention Against Corruption (2003)
2)African Union Convention on Preventing and Combating Corruption (2003)
3)United Nations Convention Against Transnational Organised Crime (2003).
what does this have to do with anything? well this is international law and as a member of the UN which has veto rights south africa carries a great responsibility.
We all know that SAPS is corrupt, this is africa..i dont think you will find any police force through out africa who isnt corrupt.
The SAPS is corrupt, lets just be realistic here
The UN charter which south africa has an obligation to and is mandated to form an anti- corrupt unit which is the DSO. There is simply no ifs and buts whats so ever on this. case closed!
“The reasons for this common requirement include the susceptibility of law enforcement agencies worldwide to corruption and organised crime”.
Now you can not bring the DSO to fall under the SAPS,.
Firstly SAPS is corrupt
Secondly DSO is required to act independently.
The bills that the ANC or the Mbeki government brought in is B.S it is illegal.
why is it illegal?
A) If there is a disbanding on the DSO, it needs to be replaced with another effective system – which clearly has not be created to replace the DSO now has it?
B) Moving the DSO to the SAPS is illegal by international law which ive just pointed out.
The DSO problem is not just about south african law it is about international law and right now your government broke that law.
Pierre De Vos // May 4, 2009 at 9:50 am
“An international agreement binds the Republic only after it has been approved by resolution in both the National Assembly and the National Council of Provinces…”
Thats correct then they go back to the UN, sign and ratified documents.
The fact is south africa has entered into a contract with the UN and with many other countries.