Menzi Simelani, the alleged Advocate which President Jacob Zuma has purported to appoint as National Director of Public Prosecutions (NDPP) seems to have contempt for the Constitution, the Constitutional Court and the law in general. He believes that the National Prosecuting Authority (NPA) is not independent and should take instructions from the Minister and the President on how to deal with politically sensitive cases. He holds the view that the NPA’s independence is not guaranteed by the Constitution, a view contradicted by the Constitution as interpreted by the Constitutional Court.
The following exchange between Wim Trengove and Simelane reveals much about how Simelane sees the role of the NPA and his lack of respect for judgements of the Constitutional Court:
TRENGOVE: I see. The NDPP also enjoys Constitutional independence in the exercise of his powers and the performance of his functions, correct?
SIMELANE: It’s been argued so, yes.
TRENGOVE: I beg your pardon.
SIMELANE: It’s been argued so, yes he does.
TRENGOVE: It’s been argued so?
SIMELANE: Yes.
TRENGOVE: No, it’s not being argued, the Constitution says so, correct?
SIMELANE: It says what?
TRENGOVE: It says that the – are you not acquainted with the Constitutional entrenchment of the independence of the NPA?
SIMELANE: I have heard arguments to that effect.
In other words, Simelane is saying here that ONE possible view (”I have heard arguments to that effect”!) is that the NPA is independent, but that he clearly does not share that view. His view was demonstrated by his drafting of a letter – later signed by the Minister of Justice – which illegally purported to order Vusi Pikoli not to proceed with the arrest of Jackie Selebi. Mr Simelane thus believes the NDPP must take orders from the Minister of Justice – even if this constitutes a criminal offence – and that the NPA does not enjoy any independence from the executive.
This belief is of course not only spectacularly wrong. It is also highly dangerous. A NDPP who holds such views is a NDPP who one fears may illegally take instructions from the Minister or the President to prosecute or not prosecute individuals (like the President himself!) depending on whether such a prosecution would be politically or personally advantageous for the President or not. If charges against President Zuma are reinstated, the President will merely have to issue an illegal order to him to drop the charges and Mr Simelane may very well obey that illegal order – unless he has changed his mind about the independence of the NPA since his humiliation before the Ginwala Inquiry.
Later on in the exchange between Trengove and Simelane, Simelane reveals his utter contempt for the Constitutional Court.
TRENGOVE: The question is do you not understand that section to be a Constitutional guarantee of independence?
SIMELANE: No I don’t read it that way.
TRENGOVE: I see. And if Mr Pikoli suggests that it is, do you say that he is wrong?
SIMELANE: I would argue with him about it’s meaning, if that’s what he said.
TRENGOVE: I see. So your fundamental difference with him is that he contends that the Constitution guarantees the independence of the NPA while you dispute it, correct?
SIMELANE: I dispute that the Constitution says so.
TRENGOVE: I see. Can I tell you what the Constitutional Court says about it Mr Simelane and I am reading from the certification judgment where the Constitutional Court certified the Constitution, in paragraph 146 in which they referred to this provision of the Constitution Section 179(4). The Constitutional Court says the following:
”Section 179(4) provides that the national legislation must ensure that the Prosecuting Authority exercises its functions without fear, favour or prejudice.”
And then please listen to the next sentence:
”There is accordingly a Constitutional guarantee of independence and any legislation or executive action inconsistent therewith would be subject to Constitutional control by the courts.”
So the Constitutional Court agrees with Mr Pikoli, Mr Simelane, correct?
SIMELANE: To it?
TRENGOVE: The Constitutional Court agreed with Mr Pikoli.
SIMELANE: Yes the Constitutional Court yes.
TRENGOVE: And it contradicts you, correct.
SIMELANE: Yes I would say it does in that respect yes.
TRENGOVE: Yes indeed. How dare you – (pause)
SIMELANE: I beg your pardon?
TRENGOVE: How dare you take on Mr Pikoli to the point of accusing him of impropriety and contending that he is (not) fit for office when in fact you haven’t read what the Constitutional Court has said about this section?
So our President has purported to appoint a NDPP who is either scandalously ignorant about the meaning of the Constitution as interpreted by the Constitutional Court (hardly likely as he had requested an opinion of Senior Counsel which must surely have included reference to the Constitutional Court case) or he is contemptuous of the Constitutional Court and believes that his own interpretation of the Constitution trumps that of the Constitutional Court (rather more likely, given that we know Mr Simelane purported to order Pikoli to stop the arrest of Selebi despite having read opinion of senior counsel that the NPA is independent).
The irresistible inference must therefore be drawn that Simelane was appointed as NDPP because he has shown himself to be contemptuous of the Constitution and the Constitutional Court and willing to lie and deceive to please his political masters. What will he do (within or outside the bounds of the law) to prevent our President from ever standing trial? Obviously our President thinks he will do almost anything (legal and illegal) to protect our President from prosecution.
No wonder the President purported to appoint him as NDPP.
‘Follow the money’, or in this case, the patronage…
Gird your loins for the strident cries of “Racist!”, “Counter-revolutionary!”, and more.
Dear Pierre de Vos
When are you ever going to commend Mbeki for appointing a NDPP that is “competent, somebody with integrity, and dutiful” and , as you say, “indeed a fit and proper person”
Clearly Pikoli was no ‘yes man’, but still the president who surrounded himself with ‘yes men’ appointed him as NDPP. And at what point do you make sense of that.
Prof de Vos, your “irresistible inference” implies then that appointment of CJ Ngcobo is tokenism by the president as the Adv Simelane has more powers then him. This by itself, tells me you think Pres Zuma is naive. Correct me if I’m wrong.
Pres Zuma has said it many a times that judicial indepence is guaranteed. Therefore, insunuations that he’s playing an underhand are incorrect. I think if he wanted someone to protect him, he would have kept Adv Mpshe. He had already done that and would have had to defend his decesion. I still maintain Adv Simelane is fit for the job. Rather people should be questioning him directly about his views on the NDPP independence.
Khosi, i’m one of those who don’t faulter Pres Mbeki for appointing Adv Pikoli. He has an impeccable record. Politics as always spoilt issues.
Musa,
There is one small flaw in your logic, and I feel that this is key to understanding the whole political climate in SA.
You said, “Pres Zuma has said it many a times that judicial indepence is guaranteed. Therefore, insunuations that he’s playing an underhand are incorrect”.
You are making a logical statement here. “If A is true, then B must be false”. You are saying that the truth of A guarantees the falsehood of B, that there is no other possibility. That is, you are saying that the fact that the President SAYS something automatically means that something else is false (or true). To spell it out, what Mr Zuma SAYS can be relied upon to the extent that logical certitude follows.
Now, either you mean that any person making such a statement would be trusted, or that Mr Jacob Gedliyakhisa Zuma speaking is automatically trustworthy, or “the President” is automatically trustworthy.
Now it looks suspiciously to me like you are ascribing something akin to the divine right of kings, or the purported infallibility of the Pope, or some inherent “divinity” to Mr Zuma. I know that I am pushing this point just a little but can you logically defend the assertion that if Mr Zuma says it, then it is true?
I see that the DA is considering acting on this: see http://politicsweb.co.za/politicsweb/view/politicsweb/en/page71654?oid=152684&sn=Detail
The schism between ANC and ‘Others’ is growing at such an accelerating rate. How on earth can this schism ever be diminished and healed when the embraced conflict is about integrity, ethics and law, laced with entirely divergent views and values. I shudder to think if a win/win situation doesn’t evolve out of this horrid mess we’re in.
If the Constitution and her knights and ladies fail, as it appears we are, so far, it, the Constitution is proverbially not worth the paper it is written on. Going, going, gone… in the blink of an eye.
kHOSI says Pikoli is “competent, somebody with integrity, and dutiful” and , as you say, “indeed a fit and proper person.
Are you not being generous with your pronouncements on Pikoli? A lot happened under his guard at NPA and slowly we are discovering how this institution was used to further various political interests. He might not be directly involved but there is enough evidence that he looked the other way.
Lastly a yes man is not always required to say yes. We all know of the BIG NO on Selebi but I suspect there might be a lot yes’s out there.
Anyone(including Trust & spouse) who has accepted gifts from Kebble, Agliotti, Fidentia, Rautenbach etc must be taken with a pinch of salt.
Mike, i appreciate the response. My reasoning was following that of Prof by making assumptions. I had to make a hyphosis based on the statement of the president. Prof assumes that the President will instruct Adv Simelane to protect himself. In that same vain I had to disagree with him using the statement from the president.
I agree, that the President is a politician. And so does the Prof has a political view that he’s entitled too democratically.
Sirjay. I believe in the constitition. We have the CC to pass final judgement when constitutional law is breached. Forces from either side will attempt to change the constitution. These attempts are not merely the preserve of the ANC but, also opposition. Search on the same website the comment by Premier Zille suggesting that she wants the constitution to be changed so that she can be able to provide housing. We’ll never know each sides noble intention unless it passes the test in our highest court.
khosi says:
November 27, 2009 at 10:16 am
Khosi – You forgetting that it was the same Thabo Mbeki that appointed Pikoli, who suspended him because he did not want to let go off Selebi (ooh, I know, that Internal Security nonsense made him do it!).
@Gwebecimele,
Those are superlatives that have been used by Pierre and the government to describe Pikoli. Hence I put quotation marks on them.
@Musa,
When it came to government officials, I do not remember any one of Mbeki’s appointments being criticized, yet people will have us believe that they were all his ‘yes men/women’. There were some rumbling on the cabinet but that was largely by people who wished for fresh faces in his cabinet.
@Anonymouse,
That is not being contested because according to the Ginwala commission, Pikoli could have been more sensitive when the president asked for two weeks instead of one. But that is besides the point, lest we digress.
I am saying that Mbeki appointed Pikoli, who was clearly not his ‘yes man’ and was according to Pierre an “competent, somebody with integrity, and dutiful” and “indeed a fit and proper person”. And my point is that those superlatives can hardly describe a ‘yes man’ and hence to argue for them would be to argue that Mbeki DID NOT surround himself with ‘yes man and women’
That is all I am saying.
So now the stage has been set – our President and those well connected can do no wrong.
Until the 2019 that is!
Eish.
Musa, with all respect, I do not think you have considered the Professor’s submissions earnestly. I think that the Professor has, in very much the main, made very good sense.
I think that on the Professor’s logic, the following is quite clear: we do not need to ask Simelane for his opinion on the NDPP’s independence because the transcript of the exchange between Simelane and Trengove patently reflects that opinion. And that opinion is clearly at odds with the Constitutional Court’s unambiguous jurisprudence.
It seems to me, though, that some of us do make one assumption here: we assume that Zuma knew about Simelane’s wrong-headed views and disreputable character before purporting to appoint him.
If Zuma knew about Simelane’s views and character before he purported to appoint him, then I would completely agree with the Professor. That is, Zuma would have (a) knowingly appointed an NDPP who holds views about the NPA that are, on the Constitutional Court’s jurisprudence, clearly constitutionally untenable (b), who demonstrated that he was willing to try to encroach upon the NPA’s constitutionally guaranteed independence and (c), who lied under cross. Thus given Zuma’s history with the NPA and the possibility that the prima facie crap decision taken by Mpshe could be set aside, if Zuma knew his man before purporting to appoint him, then it is exceedingly reasonable to infer, as the Professor makes out, that Zuma sought not an independent NDPP but a minion.
But if we are to be expected to believe that Zuma did not know about Simelane’s history before purporting to appoint him (as outrageously improbable as that is), then people would, in my view, be justified in expecting something along the following lines: Zuma or Jeff should make a public address. Whichever of the two did so would have to demonstrate a sound appreciation of the Constitutional Court’s holding on the present score. Zuma should appoint someone that meets all of the applicable criteria. And finally, whichever of the two gave the address should demononstrate a sound grasp of why Simelane is so spectacularly unsuited to the position of NDPP.
But I have to say that trying to get good law out of the Zuma camp is an exceedingly tall order. Given his association with the JSC majority in the Hlophe matter, it seems one might well be justified in asking whether the minister knows the difference between good law and bad comedy.
Not one blogger here has dealt with the Trengrove/Simelane exchange. I will, if I may. The first thing I notice about this exchange is that it appears Simelane is not prepared. And the lack of preparation could have come about because he thought he could ‘wing it’. If I had to cross swords with Trengrove, I would spend many hours preparing, to come across as a worthy opponent, someone to be respected. There are other items I could bring up, but I will stick to one only. Lack of preparation is a flaw. It shows a bad negotiator in progress and can be embarrassing. What then makes a good negotiator? I will list the attributes, as far as I know, and in order of importance: 1, Unimpeachable integrity 2, humility 3, A view of the big picture 4, Meticulous attention to detail 5, a decent dose of people-sense. Now ask yourself? Does Simelane have any of these attributes? And when I consider these attributes with being the head of the NPA, Simelane has his work cut out for him, and not only that, he will have to deal with perception that people have of him, right or wrong. Poor fellow.
[...] SIMELANE: I have heard arguments to that effect. via constitutionallyspeaking.co.za [...]
I hope that you won’t mind another quote from that Bible that I consider to be relevant to the issue (bearing in mind how Adv Simelane’s political masters have praised him):
“Woe to those who call evil good and good evil,
who put darkness for light and light for darkness,
who put bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter.” Is 5:20
In fact, if I may be indulged, perhaps a few more verses might be appropriate in South Africa. Now I am not trying to get at any individual, or point fingers at a personal level (it is not my place to judge people, but I believe that the Bible encourages us to judge truth), but I am saying that i think that this applies collectively to those who tolerate or encourage what is happening.
“Woe to those who are wise in their own eyes
and clever in their own sight.
Woe to those who are heroes at drinking wine
and champions at mixing drinks,
who acquit the guilty for a bribe,
but deny justice to the innocent.
Therefore, as tongues of fire lick up straw
and as dry grass sinks down in the flames,
so their roots will decay
and their flowers blow away like dust;
for they have rejected the law of the LORD Almighty
and spurned the word of the Holy One of Israel” (verses 21 to 25)
@ Mike Atkins
“(it is not my place to judge people, but I believe that the Bible encourages us to judge truth)”
Of course you are judging Mr Simelane. The distinction between judging individuals and judging truth is specious; once you say that what a speaker asserts is not the “truth,” we all understand that is an adverse judgment upon that speaker.
Jesus is said to have said “judge not, that ye be not judged. ” But the Bible is full of people judging people.
Mike, thank you for sharing the passages from the Bible. I am not religious and thus the passages that you provided are unfamiliar to me. And even though I have no plans to become religious, I will say that one of the central messages reflected in the passages seems quite appropriate given this country’s present plight – that central message, as I read it, being that those people who delude themselves and others inasmuch as they colour vices as virtues and present wrongs as rights will face the consequences thereof.
As a matter of not religion but rather common sense, I think it is largely a counterproductive exercise to devote very much attention to determining the faults of others insofar as such activities can easily deprive the judge of opportunities to address her own shortcomings. But be that as it may, and as immature and misguided a sentiment as this may be: it is strangely comforting that the Jeff Radebe’s, Jacob Zuma’s and Paul Ngobeni’s of this world may just end up causing their own downfalls in one way or another.
Paul, for instance, fully endorses Zuma’s decision to appoint Simelane and claims that Zuma has shown leadership in so doing. He says also that Zuma has demonstated that he will not countenance opposition parties dictating to the ANC.
One inquiry which many a South African could be justified in making is: which is dirtier? A dinosaur’s cave, or Paul’s conscience? I think many might say that latter. It is arguable that Paul has labelled an exceedingly self-serving decision as praiseworthy and taking into account that many may feel he has made a habit of this sought of thing, it could be advanced that he fits the bill reflected in passages which you provided: he casts wrongs as rights.
On a note which is somewhat more ominous than the last in that it bodes ill for the broader South African community, it seems that South African society also fits the decidely unflattering description set out in the passages that you quote: Zuma is still supported and as far as many are concerned, Jeff still has his good name. Thus is appears that the wider community in this country wraps villains in virtue.
I think we should keep the bible out of this matter. Soon one will call another an unbeliever, and the root spelling of that word will ring in my head, and that will not be good for us. Please stop. Keep to what Trengrove and Menzi said, and Prof’s interpretation thereof. Thanks.
Pierre, I find it difficult to believe that you are genuinely surprised by the appointment of Mr Simelene. You know better than almost anyone of the machinations that led to President Zuma’s ascendancy. I wonder: does your purported disappointment arise from your conviction that we have a duty to remain positive about the future of this country — which led you, perhaps naively, to expect better of the new leadership?
Andre, you say that the bible ought to be kept out of this discussion. I am not sure that your opinion passes muster. The reason as to why I am, as things stand, fairly disinclined from crediting your view is quite straightforward: some people may well be interested in the broader implications of the exchange between Simelane and Trengove. Moreover, some people may believe, be they wrong or right in holding such beliefs, that the bible, or indeed other texts, may have something instructive to say about some of the broader implications of the exchange.
It seems to me that we can identify at least two such implications: one, given some of Simelane’s views that Trengove elicited during the course of the exchange, we could quite safely conclude that the exchange suggests threats to the NPA’s constitutionally guaranteed independence. Simelane clearly cleaves to both (a) some disquieting views about the NPA and (b), an alarming opinion about the nature, authority and relevance of Constitutional Court rulings. And such misconception poses a substantial threat when it is embraced by public officials. Two, the distinct possibility that the greater portion of the South African electorate is prepared to countenance the pre-eminent party’s willingness to smugly take decisions which are probably unlawful says a lot about both the electorate in question and, more broadly, human nature.
It is as regards this second implication that some people may find passages in the bible – or other texts – to be instructive and, in a sense, quite relevant.
So at the core of it, my basic point is this: if you are going to suggest to people that the discussions into which they wish to enter and which they may consider relevant are counterproductive, consider not only your personal sensibilities but also possible reasons as to why other people may consider those discussions relevant – especially where those people attempt to link the subject matter that they seek to introduce to the more obviously relevant topics.
Andre: I’m not a christian but the Bible does have its wisdom, foolish to not take advantage of it for advancement. Doesn’t mean you swallow the whole hog.
Must we not in this instance replace the name Zuma with Radebe?
Leigh, I’m in complete agreement with you, as (ANother Leigh) I would perceive the ANC mindset to have elevated cause/race/party/culture.. (etc) above more ultimate values such as truth, real respect and love for all of humanity, honesty, integrity and such.
This is why many who now seek power are quite happy with such inner attitudes as ‘I’ve got my mind made up, don’t confuse me with facts!’ or ‘the end does justify the means’ or ‘two wrongs, may not make it right(eous) but it will make me/us feel a whole lot better’
The tragedy of africa is that all the wrongs done to it by centuries of western arrogance and colonial domination have blinded it to seeing and learning from the wests mistakes! The west has had to learn hard and bitter lessons about itself along the way, lessons about the abuse of power, the need to see humanity as preciouse in itself etc etc. In rejecting anything from the west and defending (sometimes the indefensable) from africa, in labeling certain values as ‘eurocentric’ (as opposed to ‘afrocentric’) and then dismissing them as ‘irrelevant’ simply prolongs and flattens the learning curve. This does not mean that africa does not have much to teach the west, the west is still arrogant and the Bushes (and bankers) of the (capatalistic) world have truly demonstrated how thin the veneer of this value based ‘civilization’ is, nevertheless we reject the learning at our peril
I hope many would agree with me that religion (and let us remember that the religions ‘of the book’ – Islam, Jewish and Christian) have been largely responsable for the shaping and underpining of these ‘values’, however much europe is now largely ’secular’ in its beliefs.
Surely in our own drive to escape from the perceived, and at times and places, real misuse of religion (history is full of examples – all linked to the use of religion for the abuse of power), and the arrogance of some religious ‘rightwing’ causes – we should be careful of throwing away a valuble resource of many millenia for the teaching of humanity and the core values that can truly ‘heal and transform’
Sorry if this sounds like a sermon, especially on a blog about ‘law’ but perhapse prof, we need to look at what undergirds it?
In a comment posted at the end of an article in the Sunday Times website, someone has the following to sat about Adv Simelane’s track record:
“(1) under his control the Dept of Justice for three years in a row received a qualified audit report. In other words the books of the Dept are in a mess.
(2) Simelane lied to the Ginwala Commission.
(3) When Simelane was head of the Competition Commission, he was successfully sued by senior ex-employees of the Competition Commission in the CCMA.
(4) Simelane was successfully sued in the High Court by J De Lange, a high ranking ex Justice Dept official who was unlawfully suspended by him.
(5) Simelane also unlawfully employed a highly paid foreigner as manager at the Competition Commission without a work permit for which the Commission was made to pay a hefty fine at taxpayer’s expense.
(6) Also while at the Competition Commission Simelane unlawfully involved the Commission in raids on PPC cement again at great costs to the taxpayer when the Commission lost the matter.
(7) While at Justice, he caused much unhappiness amongst prosecutors and advocates for refusing to sign off the OSD salary dispensation relating to the NPA. ”
I wonder whether Adv Simelane ever appeared in court as an Advocate, and whether this would be required as part of the experience required to make somone a “fit and proper” person to be the NDPP.
Does anyone know what Adv Pikoli’s CV is, and what his qualifications were, in terms of experience (apart from being DG of Justice)?
I must admit that when Pikoli was appointed as the NDPP, I thought cynically that it was a “political” appointment. Guess I was wrong. or maybe Mr Mbeki thought so as well.
Mike Atkins – I agree, it is dubious whether Simelane has ever appeared in court as a prosecutor or a lawyer conducting a case. I’m willing to wager a year’s salary that he would make a hash of things had he to appear and present the case for the NPA in a high-ranking case.
Check this at :
http://www.silobreaker.com/FlashNetwork.aspx?DrillDownItems=11_213630
http://www.sundayindependent.co.za/?fSectionId=3536&fArticleId=vn20091129100802436C373943
Mike Atkins says:
November 29, 2009 at 7:54 am
I hope the Prof takes a look at the latest posts. Yours, Mike, says it all, and I think your listing is the foundation for a fine argument, for Simelane’s disbarring, which we, the people of SA need dearly. Because I recognize and am deeply anxious; this appointment is a disaster for the people of South Africa, for all our many people. Regardless of racism attacks and spin, those who care for a united non racist and modern SA, we must act. How much hindsight do we require?
We absolutely must have successes with Lady Justice, we must!!! Otherwise it’s not simply a battle that’s lost, its much more as in dominoes. Justice must prevail. She must, failure is not an option, or this magnificent country with so much potential… is history.
And I think we must tithe and put our money where efficient opposition is proving itself, our one hope possibly, that we be supportive and insistent on the law. I don’t see the law prevailing at this time. How many (outside Prof’s loyal posters) realize how serious this is?
My apologies, not meaning to lecture.
And thanks Prof: keep up the Good Fight.
sirjay jonson says:
November 29, 2009 at 13:09 pm
I am not a member of the DA (and have never voted DA). There are also a couple of profound reasons why I would not vote for them. However, I admire the fact that they are willing to take on the issues like the Mpshe decision, and would really like to contribute towards a collective effort to see these issues through.
I feel that it is sad that there has not been more support for these (legal) battles of principle, from other parties and from civil society (and churches). The point is that this is not about this party or that party. Yes, the ANC will take stick, but that is because they are in the hot seat of government.
There should be a broad coalition here. Of course, anyone else who takes part will be branded by the ANC as DA lackeys, or DA mouthpieces (as Prof has). As though being in the DA was the ultimate evil (how warped and twisted have we vecome that this sort of untruth flourishes)?.
I said at the time of the Mpshe decision that Mr Zuma’s presidency was fatally compromised because of what has been done in his name. Having “tasted blood”, his followers/henchmen would have no barrier to further violations of the rule of law. And so we have it.
Is anyone interested in a broader “campaign” of protest? Websites could be start, but there would be a need for some form of extrnal symbol of protest, and a clear target for the protest, so that it was not the ANC or Mr Zuma per se (or black people) but rather excesses and abuses of power that were in focus.
An Leigh, nice to make your acquaintance and thank you for your response.
You make out that the ANC elevates certain values such as cause, party and race above others such as honesty, respect and general concern for humanity. I very much agree with you. Actually, I think the ANC has repeatedly demonstrated that it is disinterested in the well-being of the community.
I do not think that your post reads like a sermon and I would add that the fact that you were concerned about that (a) suggests humility which (b) bolsters the view that your post is no dodgy sermon but a sincere and well-considered contribution.
On this blog we have often discussed transformation and on one occasion, the Professor advanced three possible conceptions of transformation which I think serves as a useful contribution to what certainly appears to be a fairly contentious topic in our society. What I truly like about your post can be articulated thus: given that we live in a constitutional democracy, it seems fair to say that any tenable definition of transformation must be consistent with the constitution and must promote its objects. But I also think that we ought to remember that the constitution, however authoritative it undoubtedly is, is not the only source of values. Thus I think that in determining the best conception of transformation, we should draw on the totality of human experience – and I appreciate that your views seem to be consistent with that position.
Mike Atkins says:
November 29, 2009 at 14:48 pm
“there would be a need for some form of extrnal symbol of protest, and a clear target for the protest, so that it was not the ANC or Mr Zuma per se (or black people) but rather excesses and abuses of power that were in focus”.
Indeed.
If such protests can achieve results that is, otherwise it will only serve as some or other noise making campaign.
Someone commented to me that of President Zuma’s recent appointments only the the Reserve Bank Governor has not been criticised so it’s pretty hard to conclude “that it was not the ANC or Mr Zuma per se (or black people) but rather excesses and abuses of power that were in focus”.
Maggs Naidu says:
November 30, 2009 at 8:52 am
Fair cop. But while it is true that the Reserve Bank Governor’s post IS crucial in the economic/ideological wars beinjg waged, that position is not directly relevant in relation to holding the reins of power.
I know that this is spinning things a little, but the observed “Zulu Kingdom” among the security cluster does make one wonder whether there is a perceived need to have loyalists in charge of the focrces that can quell dissenting unrest.
Here is the list of good appointments that were done before Zuma and applauded.
1. Nosimo Balindlela
2. Smuts Ngonyama
3. Mlungisi Hlongwane
4. Ngconde Balfour
5. Minister Modise
6. Manto
7. Coleman Andrews
8. Ndaweni Mahlangu
9. Stella Sigcau……………and the list goes on.
The fact that most of them were not in the legal fraternity does not change the argument.
I guess we need to recall them to Public Service because they did a good job.
Rest in peace those have passed on.
Gwebecimele says:
November 30, 2009 at 9:39 am
You missed this one.
http://www.sowetan.co.za/News/Article.aspx?id=1093054
Mike Atkins says:
November 30, 2009 at 9:35 am
I know that this is spinning things a little, but the observed “Zulu Kingdom” among the security cluster does make one wonder whether there is a perceived need to have loyalists in charge of the focrces that can quell dissenting unrest.
———————————————————————————————————
There can be no serious issue with the President appointing people with whom he is comfortable.
I am nonetheless concerned about having a NDPP who does not see the independence of the NPA and who has not shown the strength of character to keep executive interference at bay.
I voted for and continue to support President Zuma – I do not want a King Zuma!
On IOL:
“Justice Minister Jeff Radebe on Monday criticised the Ginwala inquiry for its “attack” on new prosecuting head Menzi Simelane and the Public Service Commission (PSC) for failing to allow Simelane to state his case.
Briefing the media, Radebe said the PSC report on Simelane’s conduct before the Ginwala inquiry did not provide Simelane with an opportunity to explain or respond to the allegations against him.
The attack by the Ginwala inquiry on Simelane’s credibility was also without foundation, Radebe said. – Sapa”
Perhaps the Prof could invite Adv Simelane to “state hsi case”. Chocolates all round if he accepts the invitation…
Maybe the Minister would care to explain to us what Adv Simelane’s explanation was that motivated him to disregard the recommendation to institute disciplinary action. Remember that disciplinary action (like a trial) is not a guilty finding, it is an appropriate forum, when there is a prima facie case to answer, for the truth otherwise of allegations to be tested.
Is it possible that we could have a Minister of Justice who does not know what a recommendation to institute disciplinary action is?
Chris says:
November 30, 2009 at 13:35 pm
Or is it does not CARE … ?
Let’s face it, there is now a sequence of actions and outcomes that were clearly pre-determined to favour those now in power, regardles of the democratic or legal processes to be followed.
How far are we from appointing Mr Mugabe as our next Chief Electoral Officer?
the interaction between this site and the politicsweb,that one knows are controlled and used by a certain political party,is interesting
The question is not only who the NDPP may not prosecute or postpone to prosecute, but who he may be influenced to prosecute even where there is insufficient evidence for a successful prosecution, especially when such a prosecution would serve external political motives (e.g. prosecuting political opponents out- and inside the ANC). The Zuma saga would certainly have taught them lessons about what to do & not to do.
I dont so much worry about Zuma as about his advisors. Persons like Mo Shaik, Radebe & Co. will not hesitate to use whatever means possible to advance their interests and/or negatively affect that of any potential political opponents. Especially means they can get legally away with. Unfortunately, Zuma has shown to be easily influenced by others (he agrees just as much as with Afrikaners as with Azapo even though their arguments are diametrically opposites). But it is his close advisors that will have the greatest/lasting influence on what he may decide.
Personally, I would like the persons involved in the drafting of the Constitution to start speaking up in favour of the Constitution, especially those within the ANC (e.g. Cyril Ramaphosa & co.). They should decry the double meaning the current ANC is attaching to specific clauses such as Radebe & Simelane do. (These double meanings sounds similar to the Executive directives the Bush WH published that tried to legalise torture & Guantanamo Bay.)
@ Mike Atkins, Sirjay johnson & Maggs Naidu
“there would be a need for some form of external symbol of protest, and a clear target for the protest, so that it was not the ANC or Mr Zuma per se (or black people) but rather excesses and abuses of power that were in focus”.
I yearn for the formation of such a (civic?) formation / pressure group that cuts across cultural, party political party, racial and religious identity – a sort of latter day UDM?
Come on, Sirjay, Miike, Maggs and Leigh (I am nominating you for spokesperson – your writing is a pleasure to read – so eloquent and articulate).- how about it?
I am ready to sign up!
There is also a need for taxpayers to take a more active role in how their tax money is spent (mis-spent?).
These high profile criminal cases involving ANC politicians and officials accused of wrongoing boggle the mind of ordinary taxpayers, who foot the bill for the prosecution team, and the defendant’s (normally very expensive) legal team.
If you or I were to appear in court, we would have to fund our own defence – my legal team would be a rather small team of 1 (two, actually, I suppose – an instructing attorney and an advocate).
@Peter L
Come on Peter, we all know that this “organisation” would be a front for counterrevolutionary forces allied with the DA.
The latter supports CAPITALISM. By contrast, the ANC. including Cmd Simelane, is dedicated to SOCIALISM!
I hope that distinction is clear to everyone.
@deblaar
If you have a point to make and facts to back up your opinions, please do so.
people on this site present reasoned arguments backed up by facts and legal opinions, that are debated in a civilised manner.
Innuendos and accusations with zero facts and evidence to back them up are the stock in trade of bloggers on sites like Timeslive – I think that your contribution would be more at home there.
Mikhail,
That’s just my point – I would not want this organisation to be a “front” for anyone.
In the economic discussion papers that I have read (source: ANCtoday website), the ANC espouses a “mixed” economy, not a pure socialist or pure capitalist system.
By the way, I am a keen supporter of a genuine mixed economy (not the selective crony capitalism that we have in SA) – my ancestry is Scandinavian, and countries like Denmark and Norway have achieved very high standards of living, high quality lof life, low Gini co-efficient, zero poverty, high transparency and the lowest levels of corruption in the world (a neccessary but not sufficient requirement for sustainable development).
To be honest, the distinction (capitalist versus socialist) is far from clear – for example, the USA, which you might classify as “capitalist” has just effectively nationalised large parts of its financial services and banking sector- just the sort of action that is being proposed in SA for some sectors of our economy (mining, banking) by those well known capitalists the ANCYL and YCL!
Peter L says:
December 1, 2009 at 7:59 am
“just the sort of action that is being proposed in SA for some sectors of our economy (mining, banking) by those well known capitalists the ANCYL and YCL!”
I strongly suspect that the nationalisation debate is being driven by some outside the ANCYL with commercial agendas.
It makes neither political nor economic sense in the way that it has been tabled.
I would speculate that it is an extremely attractive prospect for corporations that own mines with vastly diminished or diminishing mineral reserves.
“Beneficiation” has become a popular buzzword, without consideration in any meaningful way of the impact of the fundamentals to go with that, like education and training as well as the industrial policy.
Pierre, Have you seen this?
http://www.mg.co.za/article/2009-12-01-presidency-upset-after-zuma-called-a-gangster
Now they are after your blood.
What??? No comments about the Rogues Gallery Gwebecimele put up there? Too PC?
Off the top of my head, limiting myself to the worst offenders:
1) Alcoholic incompetent AIDS denialist thief
2) ‘We did not take up the struggle to remain poor’
3) ‘It is OK for politicians to lie to the public’
4) Coega magnate – overnight
Really, Gwebecimele, this is too easy!
[...] that inestimable constitutional law professor and blogger Pierre De Vos for details, transcripts and intemperate language and barbed apology There is no doubt – in my mind, at any rate [...]
@ Nic Borain.
In your blog “Are we becoming the worst we can be?” you had this to say :
“Under Thabo Mbeki and Nelson Mandela politics and leadership within the African National Congress and South Africa were exercised in a deliberately sober and cautious manner. Anti-populism and concerns to downplay any ‘cult of the personality’ were always high on the agenda.
“These were hidden virtues that only become apparent now, in the moment of crescendo of the new ANC’s campaign of evangelical political razzmatazz focussed on the rural poor. ”
In “Do you remember the Broederbond?” you say :
“The fundamental nature of Menzi Simelane , down in his bones and in his genetic code, is to do what he is told by the president and the party. As director general of Justice he attempted to instruct the prosecuting authority to desist from prosecuting Jackie Selebi, he lied for Mbeki,”
If I understand correctly Simelane was appointed by Mbeki as DG for Justice.
How is the appointment of a person with such a flawed “genetic code” then supportive of your view that politics and leadership was “exercised in a deliberately sober and cautious manner”?