Jackie Selebi sure knows how to grab the headlines. He was at it again yesterday making all kinds of earth-shattering allegations that, if they were to be true, would rock South Africa and would further discredit the National Prosecuting Authority and two of its erstwhile bosses.
We do not know yet whether former Police Commissioner, Jackie Selebi, is guilty of corruption and defeating the ends of justice as alleged by the State. The State alleges that Selebi made R1.2-million from corrupt relationships with druglord Glen Agliotti, slain mining magnate Brett Kebble and former Hyundai boss Billy Rautenbach. We also do not know whether the claims by Selebi that both Bulelani Ngcuka and Vusi Pikoli pursued the case against him because they themselves are corrupt is true. That is for a court to decide.
However, the claim by Selebi that he was being prosecuted after discovering that Pikoli and his predecessor, Bulelani Ngcuka, had improper business dealings with dodgy businessmen, does (at least at first glance) seem curious from a legal perspective. Selebi made these allegations not in an attempt to have the case against him thrown out. In the light of the SCA judgment in the Zuma case that a prosecution does not become unlawful “merely” because charges were brought for an ulterior purpose – as long as the State brought the charges in order to secure a criminal conviction – this is a wise move.
But why is Selebi making these claims as part of his defence? Is he making a legal argument or is he rather playing a political game in order to garner sympathy by attacking two men who are rather unpopular with the crowd currently in charge of the country? It is difficult to say.
In order to secure a conviction in the corruption case against Selebi, the State will have to convince the court beyond reasonable doubt that Selebi received the more than R1.2 million from the dodgy “businessmen”. It will then have to prove that Selebi did corrupt favours for these men and that there was a link between the payments and the favours, thus establishing Selebi’s intention to be part of the corruption.
In order to try and secure a conviction the state will call a very long list of witnesses. (See here and here.) The list does not include the name of Buleleni Ngcuka, but does include the name of Vusi Pikoli. One imagines that in order to stave off conviction Selebi will have to discredit a fair number of the witnesses that will come to testify about the R1.2 million allegedly received by Selebi and about the favours allegedly done by Selebi in return.
If the State has strong evidence – including documentary evidence – of the money allegedly received from the various criminals and underworld figures, then the case will probably turn on whether these payments could be linked to favours done by Selebi. The crux of such evidence may well have to be provided by witnesses who have concluded plea bargains with either Ngcuka or Pikoli.
I have no inside knowledge of the strategy employed by the defense, but from the available evidence it seems plausible that Selebi is attacking the credibility of Ngcuka and Pikoli not so much in an attempt merely to discredit them, but rather to try and undermine the credibility of the evidence provided by key witnesses who had concluded plea bargains with the state, including Glen Agliotti and Billy Rautenbach who will have first hand evidence of any favours done by Selebi – if indeed favours were done.
The Selebi defense is therefore perhaps more astute than it seems. If the plea bargains can be attacked and the credibility of the witnesses who entered into such plea bargains can be destroyed, then Selebi might have a much better chance of being acquitted.
(As an aside, I am rather disappointed by Selebi for employing Advocate Jaap Cilliers SC to defend him. This shows a shocking disregard for the need to transform the legal system. How can talented black lawyers gain the necessary experience required to be elevated to the bench if criminal defendents like Selebi fail to employ them and choose instead to make use of the services of pale males. Is Selebi perhaps a victim of internalised racism and does he perhaps wrongly assume that a senior white man would provide him with a better defense than any of the many talented but less experienced black counterparts? I am sure Advocates for Transformation and the Black Lawyers Association will shortly issue angry statements condemning Selebi for his racism. Besides, was Kemp J kemp to0 busy to take the case? Oops, for a moment there I forgot that President Jacob Zuma’s lawyer was also white.)
In any case, time will tell whether this strategy will work. Personally I am so confused by all the allegations and counter allegations in this case, that I have no clue which way it will go and whether either Selebi or the NPA will emerge vindicated or whether Selebi will manage to make his allegations stick.
On the one hand that great legal expert, Thabo Mbeki, claimed that he had not seen any credible evidence of any wrongdoing by Selebi and therefore could not suspend him – even after being fully briefed by Pikoli about the evidence against Selebi gathered by the State. On the other, a panel of eminent legal experts (admittedly perhaps not as well qualified as Mbeki in matters of criminality) who was asked to looked at the evidence by Mokotedhi Mpshe, concluded that there was a prima facie case against Selebi and that he should be prosecuted.
Move over 7de Laan and Generations. The Selebi show is coming to town.
A banclanced article Prof which tries to be fair with a lot of qualified statements instead generalisations, but still I think it’s Selebi prerogative to go for a white counsel especially given that a see of white faces still predominantly occupies the bench.
Pierre I think the strategy is more of a warning to others high up in government. I dont see any difference to his defence and that of zuma.
I have dirt and ill use it and its all a conspiracy, same thing here for selebi. However the only thing im bothered with is the so called “zuma tapes” which Selebi wants to use for his defence.
Jackie Selebi is tried by judge Joffe, a white judge, but I don’t think it can be said that white faces predominantly occupies the bench of the Johannesburg High Court. I had a quick look at today’s court roll, it looks as if only 13 out of the 30 judges who will be on the bench today are white.
Perhaps Selebi just remembered how Jaap Cilliers got Wouter Basson of the hook!
Speaking of the Selebi show, is there any attempt by the media to record / broadcast the proceedings. I would think that there is a compelling argument for this.
I am deeply appalled by the persistent reiteration of baseless myth that blacks are inexperienced. The is subtle racist stereotypes that always project false white intellectual sophistication and philosophical clarity which only pales into significance on their colour and length of time in the chambers. experience and long service are conflated into a single phenomenon.
Recently, I while female politician in the western cape was deeply concerned that only one white person was appointed in the recent CC appointments. Blacks are naturally intellectually inferior and inexperienced be cause of colour and historical aparheid neglect and subjugation of vast racist network in the legal fraternity.
This totally unwise inconclusive generalisations spur us to expedite the transformation of the especially the judiciary which remains a cultural enclave for untransformed personalities who have deep-seated resentment of our nascent constitutional jurisprudence.
The SCA is such an institution which must not escape our attention. It needs to reflect the demographic matrix of our noble motherland and fatherland. We will not be deterred by this truly unjustified comments of imagined racial supriority. Before the advent of democracy we only had a racist judiciary and blacks almost non-appointable.
For the indictment against Selebi see http://www.mg.co.za/uploads/2009/10/06/selebiindictment.pdf
For Selebi’s plea explanation see http://www.mg.co.za/uploads/2009/10/06/selebipleaexplanation.pdf
“Is he making a legal argument or is he rather playing a political game in order to garner sympathy by attacking two men who are rather unpopular with the crowd currently in charge of the country?”
I don’t get the sense that Pikoli is generally unliked – maybe by just a few well positioned people.
Anyway, nobody likes drug dealers, so political games may backfire.
It’s hardly likely that anyone in high office will want to play that game or even be associated with it even those who were rumoured to have been associated with drug dealing in their previous lives will rather shut up now than to reopen that can of worms.
Ishmael, you are undoubtedly right that claims that black people are less experienced – just because they are black – are wrong and hurtful. But look to the log in your own eye: claims that white people are racist (aka ‘untransformed’) – just because they are white – are also wrong and hurtful. Just as not all blacks are inexperienced, not all whites are racist. The same applies to judges.
ISHMAEL MALALE, brother, you should get out more. May I suggest an outing to a comedy festival to lighten up? My aside was of course ironically meant. In any case, I never said that all black lawyers are inexperienced. I was merely restating a claim often made by black lawyers from AFT and the BLA that many black lawyers are often overlooked when advocates are briefed in high profile cases. You seem to suggest that this complaint is without any substance? If that is so I defer to your greater practical experience in this regard.
Pierre De Vos says:
October 6, 2009 at 16:31 pm
Is it possible that Ishmael was saying the same thing that you did (i.e. that many high profile people do not consult Black advocates where they could and should)?
Pierre, what will the unfolding of the detail in this case do to reignite curiosity about Zuma’s shelved corruption case?
Freeboot, I have no idea. I know what it SHOULD do. Re-focus our attention on the suspension and ultimate firing of Vusi Pikoli after he issued an arrest warrant for Selebi. If the State’s presents a credible case or – even worse – if Selebi is convicted, it will shine a very harsh light on the way in which our erstwhile President handled this matter.
I have been re-reading the Prevention and Combating of Corrupt Activities Act of 2004 and discovered that if Selebi is found guilty the judge may impose a maximum sentence of life imprisonment. Hectic.
h-e-c-t-i-c. Anyway, here are the threads to my answer:
1. If Selebi shows that there was discussion around his being charged, and is nevertheless convicted, it’ll reignite questions about the wisdom of Mpshe’s decision to abort the Zuma proceedings. In fact, there is a real risk that the Selebi case shows the difference in scale between the improriety of timing the charge,on the one hand, and the horror of the abuses on the other.
2. There is a real chance that the impropriety trails in the two cases (Selebi and the would-have-been Zuma case) are seen to overlap. If that happens, we’ll have the same feeling we had after the Shaik judgement, i.e. that a proper investigation of Zuma is begged. These trails involve not just money, but criminal abuse of power (e.g. illegitimate access to state secrets, which seems to feature in both trials.) The more we wade through the detail of Selebi, the lesser the likelihood that the two cases remain disjoint.
3. The NPA will reenter public focus. If the prosecution succeeds this will enhance the regard with the the prosecutors (as opposed to the politcal heads) are viewed.
This trial will be a watershed. So many loose ends to tie up, and all the players so desperate. At the very least it is the highest of drama as virtually all the nonsense of these past 10 years is now coming to a head in one court room for what may well be cataclysmic.
Who of South Africa’s major players in the degeneration of our society are not present in this action. And no, I don’ consider Julius a major player, merely a dangerous distraction.
Finally, it’s coming to a head. Now, if mafia behavior doesn’t silence our protagonist, just possibly we have a new SA miracle unfolding.
New24 – “The Pretoria Magistrate’s Court was closed when a second fire broke out in a courtroom, this time under a magistrate’s chair.”
What is going on here? – Mouse, I hope that wasnt your seat!
Pierre De Vos says:
October 6, 2009 at 18:36 pm
I have been re-reading the Prevention and Combating of Corrupt Activities Act of 2004 and discovered that if Selebi is found guilty the judge may impose a maximum sentence of life imprisonment. Hectic.
Hectic, but just a theoretical possibility. Remember the judge may also impose a life sentence for shoplifting, common assault or crimen injuria – in theory. What is more realistic is the provisions of s 51 of the Criminal Law Amendment Act 105 of 1997. In case of a conviction a 15 year jail term will be more than just a possibility.
Pierre and Ishmael are right.
Selebi and Zuma and Zuma and showed themselves to be appalling racists by appointing white counsel.
What rubbish that “experience” makes any difference in court!
(As Maggs has wisely pointed out, justice is all the luck of the draw anyway.)
Mikhaik Dworkin Fassbinder says:
October 6, 2009 at 21:59 pm
Hey Dwork!
Do you hold the view that Solomon Mahlangu would have been sentenced to death (and killed) if say Didcott was the judge at his “trial”?
Maggs, I don’t know about Didcott J, but I can tell you this: I blame “fight black” Tony Leon for the actions of his father, Leon J, in the judicial murder of Cde. Mahlangu.
(Did I mention that Cde Mahlangu is my personal hero? Placing a bomb in an Amanzamtoti mall full of black and white civilians is just the way to hit the racist state apparatus where it hurts the most!)
Mikhaik Dworkin Fassbinder says:
October 6, 2009 at 22:22 pm
(Did I mention that Cde Mahlangu is my personal hero? Placing a bomb in an Amanzamtoti mall full of black and white civilians is just the way to hit the racist state apparatus where it hurts the most!)
——————————————————————————————————–
Hmmmm – an interesting take on Mahlangu.
I thought this was it – but thanks for the enlightenment.
http://www.iol.co.za/index.php?art_id=vn20090401061036521C313838
Assume you are joking mikaik? but to the main point…. I agree with Pierre that we need to be very afraid.
Just when I was starting to think that perhaps I had been wrong to prejudge Zuma we then have this announcement and all the old fears are confirmed.
The biggest shock for me is that it illustrates and reaffirms the extent to which he just doesnt care about making this country a better place, its all about personal power, wealth and friends. What clearer illustration could we ask for than a highly politicised appointment of someone to this job that noone is ever going to trust or consider to be anything other than a puppet. It just cannot be good for SA and he cannot have thought it would be.
Thanks for the article Pierre.
Mikhaik Dworkin Fassbinder says:
October 6, 2009 at 22:22 pm
“I don’t know about Didcott J”
Of course you know the answer to that.
Snide comments and ducking it and does not support your position that the judgments are exact and replicable.
Thanks Prof for the tutorial on what has to be proven.
Let me throw in some trivial banter:
In the 80’s I used to go to Malawi for winters; initially via Zambia, where
as the only zungu bus-passenger, I witnessed how Kaunda’s thug-cops had 27
road-blocks between Lusaka and the Malawi border, where they separated the
men from the women for ‘contraband searching’. Zambia was less absurd
than loonie Julius Nyrere’s Tanzania re. ‘legislating the exchange rate’
– african socialism. When the Tete corridor opened, I once got a lift
with a IIRC “wheels for africa” truck. During the long trip back to Harare
the driver told me how, because Rautenbach had supported the liberation
struggle, Mugabe had given him the road transport licence. But there’s
something wrong with my story or memory, because the driver told how
Rautenbach’s son had gone to Durban to fetch his newly imported porsche
car and had been killed driving back. So that’s 32+2=34 years ago.
And if Selebi’s Rautenbach is 58 now, he must be the son of the one
who Mugabe gave the road licence monopoly to? The Germans are slik and
efficient with schmeergeld for foreign commerce, apparently having a budget
for it. They take a realistic long term view.
Peter says:
October 6, 2009 at 21:21 pm
No, not my seat – that of a colleague of mine, Mr P Johnson. He is trying that notorious Pub-bomber, McBride. His office was also broken into and his notes etc tregarding McBride’s case stolen. Curiouser and curiouser it would seem. (P.S. – As far as I can remember, Johnson also tried quite a few other politician’s cases – e.g. Winnie Madikizela Mandela. Can it be that that is where the base for these senseless attacks on the lower court judiciary lies?)
Prof de Vos – I really like this thread. I’ve followed Glen UglyCoyote’s evidence yesterday with interest. Seems like there is good reason for not including Bulelani Ngcuka in the list of witnesses the prosecution intends to call.
Chris – “Hectic, but just a theoretical possibility. Remember the judge may also impose a life sentence for shoplifting, common assault or crimen injuria – in theory.”
Reminds me of this IRA guy in Dublin who once got sentenced to life imprisonment for ’shoplifting’ – because he ‘lifted the shop about 100 feet high’.
Bored, counter attack based on deep-seated racial suspicions, stereotypes. We are reinforcing our stances. Just utter scornful constribution which at times may just reflect our fears and subliminal unnoticed racial undertones.
don,t you think so brother or sister Bored ?.
I have seen that even previous progressive judges, some retired and others serving on the bench think political fealty is only possible in affirmive appointees.
I personally am not aware of judges appointed on the basis of affirmative action as this concept is not applicable in the judiciary. One must be properly ualified to be appointed. Judicial independence will ooze more perfectly out of the unelected white judicial minority under a black elected majority political rule.
I suggest that some people think judges use their colour than jurisprudential genius to exact their vote during judicial adjudication, that is why it is number crunching taking the lead when we determine support for appointments.
Voting on the basis of racial affinity in the three branches of the state is seemingly a popular tool.
I want to clamour for proportional representation not mere multiracial judicial composition to offset the historical racist court composition. This is the only viable strategy for hastened experiencial acquisition by the indolent and naturally incompetent blacks. This is my hard jest.
I hope I will learn to avoid jokes whose effect is entrenchments of racial polarity or solidarity to repel an attack from a perceived racial adversary where no real one subsists.
I concur will some salient points raised by De Vos. No offence intended.
@ Maggs
You are right: it is Andrew Zondo who was a particular hero of the struggle. (Poignant indeed to name a street in Amanzimtoti after this brave shopping centre-bomber!)
Your ultimate points stands. Didcott J wouild not have imposed capital punishment on Zondo either. So, your proposal that law is all about the “luck of the draw” remains valid. That is why, to save money, DOJ is considering the installation of roulette wheels in most major centres.
Mikhail Dworkin Fassbinder says:
October 7, 2009 at 8:54 am
‘roulette wheels’? What about throwing the bones?
Mikhail Dworkin Fassbinder says:
October 7, 2009 at 8:54 am
“DOJ is considering the installation of roulette wheels in most major centres.”
I have a better idea – they should have a linear scale for rape. In that way the sentencing could be correlated properly. If a rape on a scale of one to five is rated three then the sentence could be 60% of the maximum sentence.
Re child rapes they could use the degrees of separation, if it’s own children that are raped then the degree of separation is one so it’s not so serious then say 10% of max sentence, if it’s pupils of the rapist teacher then it is two and so forth.
For those who are caught the first time, well let’s give them a second chance.
Fraudsters who have little children should go free because the constitutional rights of their children will be violated – maybe we should advocate a change to the laws that crime is only a crime when the accused do not have any dependent children (younger than 35 years that is). Maybe we could throw in ailing parents.
If foreigners use South Africa as a base to overthrow foreign governments then it’s not so serious – some paltry fine will do great.
Hey, this could develop quite nicely – methinks I am onto something here.
Mikhaik Dworkin Fassbinder says:
As Maggs has wisely pointed out, justice is all the luck of the draw anyway.
There is an interesting letter on this subject by “hanging” judge Curlewis in the 1991 SAJHR on page 229. This is what he said:
“A person who deserves to hang was more likely to get the death sentence from me or my ilk than (at random) my brothers Roux, MacArthur, Van Schalkwyk, Nestadt, Goldstone or Gordon.”
And
“The above fact does not lead to people who do not deserve to die being sentenced to death; it leads to people who should be sentenced to death escaping the death penalty.”
The same argument can be used in any trial – a person deserving to go to prison can get away by getting the right (or wrong?) judge.
I read on News 24 that there woudl be a techincal argument today in the Selebi matter, whether Gerrie Nel is to be allowed to lead Agliotti on certain ioissues. I quote from the report:
“State prosecutor Gerrie Nel wants Agliotti to testify on an event which does not fall within the time period specified in Selebi’s indictment.
The event apparently refers to Selebi allegedly showing Agliotti a top secret UK intelligence report on his involvement in international drug smuggling.
But Selebi’s lawyer, Jaap Cilliers, told Judge Meyer Joffe that Nel should not be allowed to question Agliotti about this, because the time when it happened does not fall within the time period specified in the indictment.”
My feeling is that Agliotti can be led on that. If this relates to one of the ‘favours’ that Selebi did in return for money received during the time period specified in the indictment, it would certainly be relevant information to consider when the court tries to determine whether Selebi received the money with a corrupt intention. In other words, the fact that a favour was done after payment was received, that does not need to be specified in the indictment – all that needs to be specified is that the receiver at the time of receipt of the money intended to render official ‘favours’ in return.
@ Maggs
I assume you are joking, but in fact there is already a kind of “linear scale” in rape sentencing. So far as I know, this is the case not just in SA, but in most common law countries.
It does not seem outrageous to me that a particulary savage rapes of infants be punished more severely than the so-called “date rape” of an adult, where no physical injuries are suffered.
As for the case of fraudsters with infants, do you recall that in the Hugo case, special parole for women with infants was upheld. The Constit does provide that the best interests of children are pre-eminent. Could it be argued then that the fact that a person convicted of fraud has young children weighs against incrarceration? Perhaps.
Michael Osborne says:
October 7, 2009 at 10:10 am
Yeah – just digging Dwork and loving it.
On child rapes, I read many, many years ago that Polanski and/or some Italian doctor were advocating for the reduction in the age of consent to two years old arguing that the teeny boppers we able to give consent to sex with an adult.
I agree that rape of vulnerable children is worse than rape of an adult. But the view that it is less of an offense because some horrid person raped his own child is just sick.
If people with children are treated differently then we cannot say that all are equal before the law. If children are involved then other agencies (like child welfare or Dept of Social Services) must intervene to care for the children.
Aside from that, our constitution says that there shall be no cruel and inhuman punishment or thereabouts. Most of our jails have the most cruel and inhuman conditions ever – how is it that judges send accused people there?
On my side i cant wait to hear Mr Agliotti’s cross examination by Selbi’s team. i think it will make for facinating listerning. i must say though that the defense strategy employed by Mr Selebi of implicating others might have worked for JZ im rather not sure if it will work for Mr Selebi.
Michael, I think you make a very fair point. It is certainly arguable that the fact that a convicted fraudster has children should militate against imprisonment. Speaking quite generally, incarceration of a breadwinner or minder would gravely prejudice young children and thus when the court considers sentencing, it would do well to look at other sanctions that would involve diminished prejudice to the children.
Now Gerrie Nel is claiming that it was only a typo, ‘2005′ in the charge sheet should have read ‘2006′. I wonder whether Joffe J will grant the amendment applied for (objected to by Jaap Cilliers. Of course, if amended, Selebi and his team could always ask for a postponement to prepare on the amended dates. How much more could Selebi have done in a year’s time that he needs to be prepared for? Obviously, the 2006 date must have been mentioned in Agliotti’s statement on the docket which had been divulged.
Nel – 1; Cilliers – 0. http://www.news24.com/Content/SouthAfrica/News/1059/2572fd6f2f1a4cbb8eb2bb5753871b5e/07-10-2009-12-48/Selebi_typo_to_be_fixed
I however still think that a ‘formal’ amendment of the charge sheet was unnecessary in the light of what I have said above. That is, unless Agliotti is still going to testify about further payments done towards the ‘maintenance’ of Selebi in this ‘generally corrupt’ relationship.
Hey, Khosi, have you seen this?
http://www.news24.com/Content/SouthAfrica/News/1059/3066328f216443ca8862981bcd9cf63c/07-10-2009-01-22/I_bought_shoes_for_Mbeki
Was this the day that TM said he would never try to wear Nelson Mandela’s shoes “because they were too ugly”?
It is former president Thabo Mbeki not “that great legal expert, Thabo Mbeki”. Show some respect “little” professor. Fact is you will never be in the same league as the former president-intelectually.
we are still to see someone prominent in our politics like Shaik serve his full term of sentence crimes and punishment is just for ordinary Joe Public..
perhaps only for having fallen out with the in group of the Ruling party may Selebi be hanged to dry…
There is another blog going on the same topic. This one is not by legal guys. So the reaction of master blogger and other bloggers are different. See :
http://www.thoughtleader.co.za/traps/2009/10/06/selebi-trial-the-burning-questions/
Hi Pierre
turn off your American spell checker please, it’s distracting.
Koos, Michael Trapido is a “legal guy”.
James says:
October 7, 2009 at 14:55 pm
“It is former president Thabo Mbeki not “that great legal expert, Thabo Mbeki”. Show some respect “little” professor. Fact is you will never be in the same league as the former president-intelectually.”
James you will have to admit that “that legal expert, Thabo Mbeki” has small feet. Probably smaller than those of the Prof.
The most logical reason for Selebi to air some of the ANC dirty laundry is to break down the credibility of some of the key state witnesses.
It’s going to be interesting…
Tatera says:
October 8, 2009 at 6:52 am
I would reckon probably smaller balls as well …
Trapido’s questions are interesting.
I have said before that if we think courts are the best place to solve all aspects of our lives then we are entering an interesting phase of our lives.
I suspect Gerrie Nel is nearing the end of his career and there will be no winners on this one.
God help us all.
Michael Osborne says:
October 7, 2009 at 10:10 am
What’s with the legal professionals?
“Defence advocate Musa Sithebe, arguing there were substantial and compelling circumstances to deviate from legislated minimum sentences, said Gcwensa’s father had been in jail most of his life and he had had no father figure.
“Van der Reyden asked: ‘Are you suggesting you need a father figure to teach you not to rape a two-year-old child?’”
http://www.iol.co.za/index.php?set_id=1&click_id=13&art_id=vn20091008043524858C289555
On a lighter note. I also have the pair of shoes in question from Grays.
It is a moccasin very soft(Aigner). The President must be enjoying them its a good shoe. Were they declared in parliament?
the article started nicely and suddenly the author becomes racist and undermining. who said white people are superior and was it necessary to write about that constitutionally speaking. that was very stupid. if you want more comments continue with the racist thing. hopefully you will get more comments
http://www.iol.co.za/index.php?set_id=1&click_id=13&art_id=nw20091008130053921C649477
Woza Friday. Gerrie Nel is going to have some fun.
Maggs.
I once said in this blog lawyers are not different from taxi drivers and other proffesions and yet they pretend to know it all and have unquestionable integrity.
Shame on Sithebe
@ Gwebecimele: “I once said in this blog lawyers are not different from taxi drivers”
This is a grave insult to all taxi drivers.
I suggest you withdraw this comment and apologise unconditionally.
ozone, I am perplexed. Please indicate where the article states that white people are superior and how this can possibly be seen as racist. A logical argument would be helpful. How on earth can it be racist to suggest Selebi should have employed a black lawyer? Please explain your logic (if any).
@ Ozone …
I think your post was very nonsensical to say the least. I don’t think the Professor’s article said or even hinted that white people are superior. I think even if you suggested to Selebi to favour being represented by a black lawyer, he would decline and say that he’s been very happy with the “services” he has received from other white folks, and trust his instincts.
Unlike you and I, this blog is visited and made use of by many learned and concerned South Africans who wish to add something to the robust debates the Professor makes comments about and sometimes find the elusive solutions to the legal and social problems our nation faces.
I hope that you will start seeing this and not clamour to cause discord.
What rubbish to say that there is a shortage of experienced black lawyers!
Everyone knows that, although many other options were foreclosed to black people under apartheid, the legal profession has always been completely open to all South Africans, at least since 1910.
That is why there are so many black advocates around with decades of experience, many of them having been regularly briefed by big commercial firms in the 70’s and 80’s!
Leigh says:
October 7, 2009 at 11:49 am
Michael, I think you make a very fair point. It is certainly arguable that the fact that a convicted fraudster has children should militate against imprisonment. Speaking quite generally, incarceration of a breadwinner or minder would gravely prejudice young children and thus when the court considers sentencing, it would do well to look at other sanctions that would involve diminished prejudice to the children.
———————————————————————————————————
Ja ne.
The constitutional rights of children is an overarching consideration.
Non-derogable or derogable (as some legal experts would argue) is the debate, if their parents are criminals.
As victims or children of victims it’s tough titties for them – constitutional rights is a fairy tale.
http://www.timeslive.co.za/news/article143721.ece
Well Mr De Vos I stopped taking you and you analysis seriously long time ago because you always get it wrong, The problem is that you so biased against people associated with the ANC, I bet if any of your student would oppose your view point he/ she would get a zero in an assignment. Regarding Selebi not hiring black lawyers I have this to say, It is the most patronizing statement to us as black people I have ever heard. If only you meant what you are saying, South Africa would be a better place to live in. If you meant what you are saying you would not be hating Judge Hlophe as you do.
Mbazo Mokoena
@ Harold Ferwood
I don’t believe ‘Ozone’’s post to be at all “nonsensical”. I think he / she has a very valid point. I, like you – apparently – am not as ‘learned’ as many of those who visit this blog. (I am however not sure how you arrived at the conclusion that ‘Ozone’ falls into that same category?). But that should not automatically infer that I, or ‘Ozone’, am any less a ‘concerned South African’ than those supposedly more ‘learned’. And we certainly do need people to “clamour to cause discord”, as I see no reason to humbly accept Professor de Vos as being the ultimate guru when matters legal overlap with matters political. There is every evidence, (in not only Professor de Vos’s contributions, but also in the ‘learned’ contributions from others on this site), of an inherently “undermining” tone and intent to much of the ‘insightful comment’. Professor de Vos enjoys his “ironic asides” – and yes, I did get the irony at first reading in this specific instance – but it still does not alter the fact that the spirit of that particular ‘aside’, (regarding the black-lawyer / white-lawyer issue), can, as ‘Ozone’ suggests, very easily be interpreted as “racist and undermining”. Why should patronizing little “in-jokes” be tolerated, merely because they are told by an ostensibly ‘learned’ man? Why should PdV’s explanation … that “I was merely restating a claim often made by black lawyers” be accepted as a satisfactory explanation? It’s simply a disingenuous but poor excuse! In what spirit was the “restating” of that claim done… which audience was PdV catering for at the time? PdV’s comment about “that great legal expert Thabo Mbeki” is probably just too subtle a form of ‘irony’ for a mere mortal like me – that’s probably why I interpret it to be just another indication of the Prof’s well-disguised personal agenda? When you have’ Anonymouse’ snidely asking: “what about throwing the bones?” and Sirjay Johnson cryptically, and sarcastically, proclaiming: “we have a new SA miracle unfolding” , it merely emphasises that underlying note of discordance which separates mean-spiritedness from constructive criticism. Let’s rather “clamour to cause discord”, than allow those who purport to represent the hallowed halls of ‘academia’ to wallow in a DA-style of negativity and opportunistic criticism.
George is right.
Professor De Vos’s snide irony reminds one of Tony Leon’s “Fight Black” campaign, representing the very height of DA-style whinging and “Botox” Zille “Madam”-style admonition. Professor: We beg you to drop your elitist “know-it-all” hermeneutics, which is perceived by the majority of Africans as nothing more than racist heel-digging anti-transformationalism.
P.S.: There is no word in the Pedi tongue for “hermeneutics”; and nor should be be.
George, I am not a guru and do not want to be one. I happen to have opinions and express them. When those opinions do not agree with yours, I am suddenly a racist. You and ozone do not point out why my opinions might be wrong (which I would welcome). Instead you say I am not allowed to express opinions no matter how correct they might be, merely because I happen to be white. Your view is that because I am white and because I sometimes spot the hypocrisy of people that happen to be black and mention this, I am racist. In other words, you believe criticising a black person when one is white is ALWAYS racist – even when the criticism is absolutely valid. Thus in your view I am a second class citizen. Our Constitution, however, states that I have human dignity and that I am not a second class citizen. I choose to follow the Constitution and your view seems therefore not of much interest. If, however, you can make an argument about why Selebi is NOT hypocritical I would be happy to hear your argument. If, furthermore, you can make an argument about why it is racist to point out the hypocrisy of someone who happen to be black, I am happy to entertain that – as long as your only argument is not that I am white and must shut up. That is not a constitutionally tenable argument. Its also a bigoted argument, by the way and speaks of a lack of confidence and an internalised racism.
George, I suspect the real reason you and ozone are cross is because you know my aside was spot on. Unlike me you probably equate the actions of any person with their race, so if I hit the target with Selebi you think I criticise ALL black people. That is the clear example of race-infested thinking. You have completely interbnalised the racist discourse of some white South Africans and are prisoners of white people’s racism Free your mind brother.
Pierre De Vos says:
October 11, 2009 at 20:29 pm
All high profile Black people should employ Black lawyers, as opposed to who they think is best able to represent them, seems to be the essence of your aside.
If that is so, how is that not racist?
george says:
October 11, 2009 at 16:52 pm
I can assure you that The Professor and I have very different opinions on a number of topics. Just a quick survey of his blog will quickly illustrate this. No doubt this professor is extremely learned and well-read, and whose passion for the law and the constitution must be admired. I also do appreciate his endeavors to highlight very important issues which are of concern to us as South Africans. But like all of us I do think he is oblivious to certain things, by no fault of his own. Therefore if you are able to constructively “educate” him on where you differ with him, I am sure he will be very receptive to it. Anything less would make him the same type of hypocrite he so easily exposes many times on this blog.
I know at times that some things are so obvious that they do not even warrant evidence or facts to substantiate them, but I cannot shrug off Ozone’s accusations with the same reasoning. Don’t get me wrong! I am not as proficient as it would seem at articulating my views in the manner which many here can do with such ease. But I learn and take in what they say, mull it over, and then state my opinion with as much logical and sound reasoning I can summon.
Maggs, it seems that one way in which to unpack the Professor’s ‘aside’ is that many people in this country bemoan the fact that the legal profession remains untransformed in many key respects. These people also lament that gifted black advocates are not given the chance to thrive. It strikes me that the Professor’s central point is that there has been rather a marked paucity of criticism Selebi for failing to opt for black counsel. And while black people can go off at a complete tangent when white people overlook black advocates, white people have no standing to speak when black people do so.
You are of course correct to say that Selebi should be able to choose the advocate he wants. But as the Professor’s point runs: the hypocrisy is obvious. That is, black people can freely bemoan the tendency of large commercial firms to brief white advocates. And yet the Professor must remain silent when he underscores that a prominent black person in a prominent case opts for white counsel. It is as if they are saying that the Professor enjoys a diminished right to freedom of expression.
lol still everyone plays the race card again, anyways moving on….any thoughts on last week on the Selebi case?? Alot of blunders seem to be popping up esp from Nel ( could this be a strategy?).
I even like the tall tail of Pikoli is the the person who murdered Brett Kebble.
Pierre your thoughts on where Nel is standing right now? There was little objections from his side last week. Perhaps Nel (former scorpian) will deliever the last sting on Selebi. How ironic
Leigh says:
October 12, 2009 at 7:55 am
I do not agree that the suggestion from any of the commentators is the Pierre (or anyone else for that matter) should be silent on matters that they think is worth commenting on.
Even if some did, so what?
Anyway, your comment does not address my question to Pierre .
I think Harold is wrong in suggesting that “But like all of us I do think he is oblivious to certain things, by no fault of his own”.
Pierre is a commentator note and therefore should be far more circumspect.
Be that as it may, the suggestion that Selebi and Zuma ought to have employed teams of entirely Black lawyers is racist – in his own words “(t)hat is the clear example of race-infested thinking.”
It’s racist to suggest that Black people must employ Black lawyers simply because transformation is advocated.
Consider that transformation is important for our country – we cannot deny that our dark history was a reality and it still significantly impacts on us.
Pretending that this is a non-issue may come back to haunt us – for example the disasterous “Land Reform” programme of Zimbabwe has its roots in those aspects of the Lancaster House agreement that was largely ignored/glossed over.
p.s. If Manto ends up with AIDS I would rather that she gets ARVs instead of garlic and beetroot.
Maggs, no that is NOT the essence of my aside. Leigh summed up my position with her usual clarity. My aside in NO WAY commented on the ability of any black lawyers. Instead, I am arguing that if we are serious about transformation we should be consistent and should criticise litigants (especially high profile one’s) who employ old guard lawyers when up and coming or well established black lawyers would do. We should also criticise the supposed champoins of transformation when they champoin transformation only selectively – as this is hypocritical. How this could be perceived to be racist is beyond me. Unless of course one holds the view that if a white person criticises a black person or points out the hypocrisy of a black person it is by definition racist. The latter view is not one I hold as it is deeply demeaning to both white and black and is based on the premise that whites should hold black individuals to a lower standard (or, really, to no standard at all). That seems to me deeply insulting of the agency, abilities and dignity not only of white individuals but also of black individuals. I would be interested to hear whether you agree.
Maggs is right.
The rules are as follows (Pierre – listen carefully now!):
1. BLACK people should brief WHITE counsel.
2. WHITE counsel should retain BLACK juniors.
3. BLACK juniors should accept briefs from INDIAN attorneys.
4. INDIAN attorneys should employ COLOURED articled clerks.
5. COLOURED articled clerks should employ MALAWIAN gardeners.
6. MALAWIAN gardeners should be groomed for the CONSTITUTIONAL Court.
Hope this clears things up!
Mikhail – LOL!! As an aside – Go and see my remark on the Simelane/Pikoli issue under the Berlusconi+Zuma=Politicains thread. The ride just got bumpier and bumpier.
Pierre De Vos says:
October 12, 2009 at 9:16 am
While Dworky is being his usual silly self, the possibility of perpetuating abnormal stratification may well gain some ground if we allow it.
“Unless of course one holds the view that if a white person criticises a black person or points out the hypocrisy of a black person it is by definition racist.”
That (and the converse) will happen. Again I ask so what?
(My aside is that I have been called all kinds of names, been reminded of the Uganda and 1949 Durban race riots among other race based reactions – I got my middle finger in the air for those who did).
Curling up in a corner is not an option for me because some twits cannot sustain their arguments.
Back to this matter – the call for transformation is a broad and general one.
If you can point out any specific matter in which Black people or organisations condemned the selection of legal team on the basis of race (as opposed to the general call for transformation) I may be influenced to change my views.
I don’t think the Professor took into account that Jackie Selebi will be fighting for his liberty and freedom, and therefore issues of Transformation are not something he will be considering at this moment. Everyday that passes certain individual’s testimony will show that he lacks the necessary martyrdom qualities such as Judge Hlophe who is will to be sacrificed on the altar of concerted transformation, Though Hlophe did have the moral high ground in his arsenal.
The inequalities that exists in the justice system is clearly much more broad than first perceived. Merely seeking counsel of colour will not assist you when you still have to encounter the deeply racist processes and persons which still have their clutches on the legal system. Only an idiot would not consider using a fellow “member” of this fraternity and use it to his advantage.
This situation makes one think of a John Grisham Novel …
Maggs, I have to say that I agree with the Professor that we ought to criticise people who champion transformation selectively. It is hypocritical to accept that black people can freely reproach certain behavioural patterns but that their white counterparts are denied the same freedom.
These so-called champions of transformation typically take exception to black advocates being denied complex work. My question is: how is the Professor’s apparently not uncontroversial ‘aside’ any different? That is, he also takes exception to black advocates being denied complex, high-profile work. When viewed in this light, I must say respectfully that the grievances with the Professor’s ‘aside’ are quite daft.
Let me also say this Maggs: if you take exception to the view that the Professor cannot adopt the very same line of reasoning that the so-called proponents of transformation often advance, well then you should, in this instance, be defending the Professor. But if you do not take such exception, then I would resepctfully ask you for an explanation.
Maggs is right.
Organisations like the the Black Lawyers Association would never dream of criticising the appointment of white counsel. Admittedly, one does see the occasional story like this: http://www.thestar.co.za/index.php?fSectionId=&fArticleId=vn20081204140657474C577693.
But the BLA was probably only joking.
Maggs, from an article by Advocate Vuyani Ngalwana: (see http://www.nokwe.co.za/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=104&Itemid=17)
“We hold positions in private companies and state-owned enterprises that confer on us the power to decide which firm and which advocate gets the privilege to represent the companies we lead in litigation, or to provide us with a legal opinion that could help our companies either avert litigation or successfully engage in it. Yet we run instinctively to a white firm and white advocate and then claim, without any rudimentary research, that there are no black firms or black advocates with capacity to handle the work we generate. Worse still, we brief one black advocate in a matter. He mucks it up and we conclude, satisfied in the accuracy of our prediction, that black advocates are no good. This is scandalous.”
See also: http://www.iol.co.za/index.php?click_id=13&set_id=1&art_id=vn20080818054855498C943474 and http://www.iol.co.za/index.php?set_id=1&click_id=15&art_id=vn20060428104014280C547643
Leigh says:
October 12, 2009 at 10:16 am
I ask the same of you – if you can point out any specific matter in which Black people or organisations condemned the selection of legal team on the basis of race (as opposed to the general call for transformation) I may be influenced to change my views.
“That is, he also takes exception to black advocates being denied complex, high-profile work.”
It’s interesting that we see different things in the same text – I see a cynical comment, you see something meritorious.
I am amused that you think that a different opinion is necessarily “daft”.
Why gives you the impression that I “take exception” to Pierre’s comments?
I don’t see it as my role to defend Pierre or anyone else for that matter – I will comment where and when I want but not to defend anyone. Our constitution offers everyone the protection they need and that is enough.
“These so-called champions of transformation” – what does that mean?
Pierre De Vos says:
October 12, 2009 at 10:40 am
It seems that I phrased it poorly – I am aware of the general arguments.
You pointed out the Zuma matters and the Selebi matter as specific examples of where some of the legal teams are white.
I would like to be pointed to examples of specific matters before some or other court of where the selection of white lawyers was criticised by, as Leigh calls them, “(t)hese so-called champions of transformation”.
Maggs is right.
Pierre and Leigh: You appear to unable to grasp a basic principle of logic.
One can never accuse someone of hypocricy just because they repeatedly make general statements against practice X. You must wait for someone to point a finger at any particular instance of practice X. Then only can you accuse him of hypocricy for their failure to object to a further instance of that same practice.
Hope this clears things up.
Mikhail Dworkin Fassbinder says:
October 12, 2009 at 11:26 am
Interesting comment.
In the early 80s I was in at a management workshop in two groups were set against each other. (In those days Black people had to go through a ten year “management development programme” before being considered ready to appointed as managers while immigrant barbers, truck drivers, street sweepers qualified by virtue of their origins).
Anyway the two teams were equally pitted and winning revolved around the meaning of “patronising”. The other team insisted that it meant “speaking nicely”. I stood my ground on “speaking down” whereupon the other team leader pronounced that “Maggs is trying to teach us English”, us being all the white faces in the two groups, whereupon even my team members jumped to the other side and it was seven against one.
Ja ne, so like Pete (the other team leader) yours is a divinely or genetically inspired (maybe both) right to give proper meaning to my words – thank you for kindly taking the time to help put what I say into the correct context, as Oom Hendrik would have said, knowledge and wisdom is the preserve of the chosen people.
Re “Oom” Hendrik, I know you are joking, but I have always preferred the honesty of his unadorned racism to the insidious bigotry of his liberal critics. More to the point, Pierre etc. seem unable to understand that, just as black people are incapable of racism, we also have no capacity for hypocricy. (Hypocricy is always about power as congealed in complex structure of strucural racism.)
Mikhail Dworkin Fassbinder says:
October 12, 2009 at 12:31 pm
“Hypocricy is always about power as congealed in complex structure of strucural racism”.
Also that which informs what you consider your deeply profound right to give meaning to what I say.
Nevertheless – I agree with that comment. Yippee we finally agree on something.
Maggs, I am beginning to suspect there may be a technical problem with my postings to this blog. Perhaps you are reading an imposter writing in my name who keeps contradicting you. (Pierre, please ask your techy to look into this?)
In fact, I overflow with enthusiasm for almost everything you say. Mostly, the only purpose of what I write is to amplify, applaud, underscore and elaborate your fabulously insighful comments.
Respek!
Mikhail Dworkin Fassbinder says:
October 12, 2009 at 14:14 pm
In fact, I overflow with enthusiasm for almost everything you say. Mostly, the only purpose of what I write is to amplify, applaud, underscore and elaborate your fabulously insighful comments.
———————————————————————————————————-
Right.
Black people are really stupid as your uncle would have said and to prove it just see how few can fly commercial airplanes and how few medical specialists there are. Add to that, that I cannot even correctly interpret your written comments.
It’s wonderful that you have chosen to mentor and help me along and explaining to others what I mean (even though it’s not what I mean but that’s ok as I will accept that you know better about what I mean than I do) – I am truly inspired and eternally grateful.
p.s. Good heavens we don’t even know our places in the supermarket queues these days – we expect that just because there’s now a democratic government we think that gives us the right to our place in the queues and we even want to use the main entrances at the post offices. I even want to drink out of proper glasses and cups when I visit white people, empty jam tins are no longer acceptable. I know all that may be wrong but that what I voted for the ANC for after all.
“I even want to drink out of proper glasses and cups when I visit white people, empty jam tins are no longer acceptable.”
Do you know white people that have finished all the can foods they stocked up on from 1994?
Harold Ferwood says:
October 12, 2009 at 14:36 pm
Maggs, I would like to address you here – and forgive me please in that my comments will not be directly relevant. And in addition, I would also like to direct this post to Mr Fassbinder.
I think it would be a mistake to disregard Mr Fassbinder’s posts as a matter of course. I have done that to my cost and I would not like to see you err similarly.
I think it was Michael who recently opined the Mr Fassbinder’s points often call attention to certain views in fairly crude ways. That is not untrue. But let me say a few words here: for a start, a good point that is crudely made is still a good point. And in the second place, sometimes Mr Fassbinder’s points are far from crude.
I would like to offer an example to illustrate my second point. And I wish to do so for two reasons. The first reason is that a case needs a basis. The second is that I should have made a concession to Mr Fassbinder some while ago but stubbornly refused to consider the relevant point because Mr Fassbinder made it.
Our dearest Dwork argued along the following lines: if the presiding officer due to hear one’s case typically based her decisions strictly on that for which legal principle provided, then one would do well to brief a barrister that could (a) manipulate legal principle and (b) present a case that did not stray from the applicable elements. But if the decision maker had shown herself to be willing to look beyond the legal requisites and consider also the suggestions of say Ubuntu, well then one would do well to opt for counsel that was comfortable with that sort of thing. The basic point, as I read it, is this: a good strategy can be rendered great if it takes cognisance of what the judge is like. I think that this is a pretty fair point and in truth, I regret that I did not show the maturity to give it the consideration which it deserved just because our Dwork made it.
So with respect, keep an open mind when you read Mr Fassbinder’s posts. If anything, they may inspire you to take a brave look at your own preconceptions. I would like to think that I derived something of that advantage. I, for instance, will make a greater effort to think laterally in the future. And Mikhail has had a bit to do with that.
@ Leigh
Respek!
@ Mikhail
‘Respek’ right back at you.
Leigh says:
October 12, 2009 at 20:40 pm
I am uninspired by Dwork apart from the comedy value, not because he challenges my views by because he thinks it his place to tell me what I am or should be thinking.
But more than that, his opinion of anyone who advocates transformation is that they are idiots.
That he does so in a roundabout way does not make his comments less offensive.
Maggs, I am sorry I have let you down, again.
Let me assure you: I support Transformation unequivocally, with all my body, all my heart, all my mind.
Thank you, and goodnight,
@ Maggs and Leigh
I see a time when Dworks will be compared with the great satirists. His genius is clearly misunderstood. He has veiled his comments to such a degree that it would make Nietzsche probably sane.
Mikhaik Dworkin Fassbinder says:
October 12, 2009 at 22:20 pm
Cheers Dworky.
Have a great one.
Harold Ferwood says:
October 12, 2009 at 22:27 pm
Yeah – it’s a pity that he’s so counter productive.
Harold, I am glad you see it that way
Good night mate.
Hey Dworky – this one’s for you
http://www.dispatch.co.za/article.aspx?id=351362
@ Harold: no problem; I certainly had not placed you as being an uncritical standard-bearer in the PdV-camp. I had merely thought that your admonishment to ‘Ozone’ – to “not clamour to cause discord” – could easily be deconstructed to read: “don’t rock the boat mate; PdV’s credentials are above reproach”. In any case … I’m a sucker for praise, so your appreciative comment, (to the post where I had tried to highlight the Zackie Achmat- brand of bull-dust), has made us friends for life… as far as I’m concerned!!
@ Maggs: I am certainly keen to explain / defend myself; I unfortunately cannot always visit this site as timeously as I should. But, for what it’s worth – I feel you; and that goes for your opinion regarding the merits of the Dwork-approach as well.
@Professor de Vos: As I noted in response to one of your posts concerning the ‘Religion in Schools’-debate: your careless approach to detail, and disregard for accuracy in your reasoning astounds me! I had always assumed that those would be non-negotiable qualities within the upper-echelons of the legal fraternity?
I had not once referred to you as “a racist”, or stated that you had committed any act of “racism” – yet you repeatedly state and / or infer that an issue of “racism” represents the essence of my original comment! I had stated that “…the spirit of that particular ‘aside’… can, as ‘Ozone’ suggests, very easily be interpreted as ‘racist and undermining’. Does this logically lead to a conclusion that I am accusing you of being a racist?? If this is what you are suggesting… I’m absolutely confident that your line of reasoning will not hold in a court of law. I merely demonstrated my understanding of ‘Ozone’s’ point-of-departure – I absolutely CAN understand that the spirit of your ‘ironic’- cum- sarcastic ‘aside’ COULD be interpreted as ‘racist and undermining’. It is that inability, that unwillingness, to RESPECT the contextual significance – of eg. the language you chose to deploy within your ‘aside’- which is so prevalent in South African discourse. It is doubly infuriating, and depressing, when the spirit of the language used within supposedly ‘intellectual’ debate is so obviously dismissive of its interpretive implications. One encounters that same contemptuous spirit within the majority of ‘white-interactions’, and in a multitude of different environments, on a daily basis. One also expects to find it, as a standard feature, in the pages of ‘Die Burger’ and ‘Rapport’. Your ‘aside’, if translated, would be perfectly at home within those murky environments. When that same absence of insight is demonstrated by someone of your apparent ’stature’, it cannot just be disregarded as being inconsequential. The post-’94 ‘liberated’ approach which you seem so proud of — that it is acceptable to ride rough-shod over all sensibilities of racism, as racial sensitivities are merely an indication of “race-infested thinking” and “internalised racism” — is SO convenient an attitude for someone in your position to adopt, isn’t it? i.e. “I have rid myself of all the shackles of the past; bad luck if you’re finding it a little harder to do the same, bad luck if my barbs seem to resemble the reactionary-talk of yester-year, bad luck if you’re finding it difficult to trust me … brother”.
I DID however use the labels “patronizing” and “opportunistic”, and I consider those appropriate. However, as you might have deduced had you considered my post worthy of more detailed analysis, my chief objection was related to the MEAN-SPIRITEDNESS which permeated your ‘aside’; the ‘in-joke’ quality of the writing – which one would rather expect to encounter in the nudge-nudge-wink-wink around the ‘braaivleis-fire’. When you state that “…you and ‘Ozone’ do not point out why my opinions might be wrong…”, you miss the point entirely. I was quite clearly not referring to any of your opinions… I was drawing attention to your cheek, in casting aspersions on other parties’ choice of legal counsel, by INTRODUCING a racial-angle — which smacked of pure mischief-making. Your ‘aside’ is related more to the genre of the ’sly-dig’, than to the introduction of any novel or insightful ‘opinions’.
I had hoped to take part in these discussions without having to submit to any form of irrelevant racial-profiling; but your attempts at type-casting me are so ridiculously wide of the mark, that I simply HAVE to draw attention to that. I am ‘white’ PdV, and when you inform me — that I, (and ‘Ozone’ apparently), “… have completely internalized the racist discourse of some white South Africans and are prisoners of white people’s racism”, and then add, ” Free your mind brother” — it would be truly hilarious, if it wasn’t so tragic. Your (totally wayward) brand of racial-profiling proves — more effectively than anything that I’ve attempted to convey above — that YOU are the prisoner of that “race-infested thinking” which you make mention of so regularly. Which of the facets, pertaining to my first contribution above, had seemingly made it impossible to consider that I was ‘white’?? I am honoured by your misjudgment, (prejudice?), Professor – but I believe that the ‘mean-spiritedness’ of your initial ‘aside’ was sourced from that same personal framework of perceptions and pre-conceptions that led you to assume that my views reflected a ‘black’ perspective.
george says:
October 13, 2009 at 7:41 am
Pierre’s piece is very interesting and informative.
The aside was unfortunate and, as the comments show, took the main stage.
I am still waiting for details of any specific matter in which as Leigh calls them “(t)hese so-called champions of transformation” bemoaned the selection of other than Black lawyers as opposed to the general call for transformation.
I am waiting too for Leigh to say what that term meant in the context that it was used – it sure sounds ugly to me.
George is right.
Pierre’s comment (re it being ironic that Selebi employed white counsel), was by no means overtly racist. But, as George correctly points out, it “COULD be interpreted as ‘racist and undermining’.” There are reactionaries on this blog- and I mean not only Pierre himself – who habitually package their racism in sly asides and sarcastic little barbs.
I call upon all who contribute to this blog to show the sensitivity and discretion that is appropriate to this stage of our transformative enterprise. Please, people, restrain yourselves from saying anything that could conceivably be taken “the wrong way”!
@ Dwork …
These are volatile times! Everything is taken in the wrong way, just ask Mr Malema …
You are always able to foresee and accurate interpret veiled nuances when commentators themselves aren’t even aware of what they implied, but I think you are dead wrong about the “sensitivity and discretion that is appropriate”.
That “courting period” is long over and our true colours will be showing very soon, if not already.
Soos hulle in afrikaans se “die koeel is deur die kerk”.
Mikhaik Dworkin Fassbinder says:
October 13, 2009 at 9:44 am
“who habitually package their racism in sly asides and sarcastic little barbs”.
Namely one Mikhaik Dworkin Fassbinder!
Maggs is right.
Anyone familiar with the debate will have observed that BLA, AFT, DLA always speak about the need for transformation in purely race-neutral terms.
Perhaps that is because they fear that racist opportunists will jump down their throats if they dare to suggest that specifically “black” lawyers should be given more opportunities!
How do you plead Dwork?
Harold Ferwood says:
October 13, 2009 at 10:03 am
“How do you plead Dwork?”
I would go with “pronounce” rather than “plead”
As in Mikhaik Dworkin Fassbinder says:October 13, 2009 at 10:02 am – Dworky knows what I should have meant, rather than what I thought I meant, and he has kindly massaged the import of my comment to give it the correct meaning.
Thanks Dworky – I owe you one!
Jeez, I can’t keep up anymore .. the Professor is like a bullet train, jumping from one topic to the next. It is certainly a lot to take in.
I wasn’t aware that there is a new video hiring franchise in South Africa – NIA R’ US!
It seems like citizens most private moments can be recorded and then lent out to the highest bidder …
I hope nobody get their hands on mine, as I have ambitions to have my 15 minutes of fame and wouldn’t want to be cut down to size just because I had some unadulterated fun with Michael Hutchence, the members of SNG’ and a brick of white powder …. as Arnold Schwarzenegger would of said … it was the 90’s, everyone was doing it!!
Ok Pierre, you’ve been redeemed (for your aside that is)
http://www.timeslive.co.za/opinion/columnists/article155121.ece
Maggs Naidu says:
October 18, 2009 at 13:26 pm
So in the New South Africa we must rather strive to a “nonracial society where hitherto disadvantaged people would be given more access to better opportunities professionally and otherwise?” rather than one where one has the freedom of choice in deciding what is best for one’s individual interest in accordance to constitutional values?
Is the issue is not whether Black accused uses white counsel, but why do white accused continue to use white counsels themselves? I can see a goose-gander answer coming ….
Harold Ferwood says:
October 18, 2009 at 13:42 pm
I am more concerned about who our previous Police Commissioner had as his friends (finish and klaar) than whom he selected as his legal counsel.
@ ‘Maggs’
Why would you feel that the article in question “redeems” Professor de Vos’s ‘aside’??
Firstly: I am not surprised that Pinky Khoabane would express those sentiments; not because she happens to be ‘black’, but because she is disseminating views for public consumption in the mass media. The very basis for my objection to PdV’s ‘aside’ was the fact that it devalued the ‘Jackie Selebi’- posting, by focusing on peripheral aspects of the case in an unbecoming manner– thereby lowering the tone of the debate to that of mass-media partisanship. (The fact that I also believe Pinky Khoabane’s indignation to be driven by genuine concern, but cannot accept that Professor de Vos’s bona fides could be traced to any similar brand of concern – not because he is ‘white, but because of the whiff of ironic mockery in that ‘aside’ – is a subjective judgment-call, and irrelevant).
Secondly: Is the choice of ‘white’ counsel in this particular case not merely a perfect illustration of the ‘Dwork’-doctrine, which ‘Leigh’ explains at length on October 12; 20:40, (see above)?? In that posting, ‘Leigh’ urges you to re-assess the value of ‘Dwork’s contributions by referring to that doctrine of choosing your legal-representation in the manner that would provide the best ‘fit’ with the authority presiding in your case. Although I cannot share ‘Leigh’s’ opinion that the ‘doctrine’ represents a staggering originality of insight, the bottom-line — that “a good strategy can be rendered great if it takes into cognizance of what the judge is like” — surely does apply in this instance? Therefore, ‘Follow the money’; or, (with apologies to Buzz Lightyear) ‘follow the Cilliers paper trail from the past … and way beyond’??
george says:
October 19, 2009 at 1:58 am
@ ‘Maggs’
Why would you feel that the article in question “redeems” Professor de Vos’s ‘aside’??
———————————————————————————————————-
It doesn’t – I was bored.
Dwork’s ok – even though he sometimes tries to dig half a hole.
Maggs Naidu says:
October 18, 2009 at 14:14 pm
Which Friends? Oh!! “I am an African”! But I don’t recall that he has been subpoenaed.
“It doesn’t – I was bored.”
What kinda statement is that? You do the Professor no favours by giving him charity.
Harold Ferwood says:
October 19, 2009 at 9:11 am
Friends = Uglyote, Nassif and co.
“You do the Professor no favours by giving him charity.”
Maggs Naidu says:
October 19, 2009 at 9:44 am
Friends = Uglyote, Nassif and co.
+ Thabo
http://www.mg.co.za/article/2006-11-20-mbeki-trust-me-on-selebi
Mbeki.
Harold Ferwood says:
October 19, 2009 at 10:10 am
Lots of worms coming out the woodwork lately.
Arms Deal II promises to be bigger, better and coming our way soon.
How these okes could have committed what seems like hundreds of billions to buy some unnecessary toys for boys and then claim to have no money to better pay the poorly paid soldiers beats me.
And shut down teacher training colleges, skimped on health and and and.
@ Maggs …
I don’t know hey, ARMS DEAL I is certainly riveting for me, Probably because I had played a small role in it and making it acceptable to a degree.
But don’t get me wrong. I am more concerned about where is our diminutive Ex president. I don’t understand how such a remarkably great intellectual, but small in stature, can disappear just like that. I would think he would be on his way to getting his own Nobel Peace Prize or something, since they seem to be giving that away practically for free.
If you, or anyone for that matter, have any information of his exact whereabouts, it will be highly appreciated. I truly miss him.
Harold Ferwood says:
October 19, 2009 at 10:36 am
Exact whereabouts – Hmmm tough one. Try Google Earth ( 30°30′39.09″S, 115°22′55.66″E).
More fascinating for me is how a “remarkably great intellectual” with absolute control of the ANC, control of the state agencies, control of the state resources, control of the state, respected and admired, by the developing and developed world leaders alike could have lost so dismally to a guy with no formal education, dismissed from government, charged with rape and charged with corruption.
And then fired from government at that.
I heard some snippet yesterday that sums it up nicely that “democracy is when leaders can be fired”.
@ Maggs
@ Harold
I certainly do not think Mr Mbeki was our best President, or that General Selebi was utterly beyond reproach.
Still, it distresses me to see so much finger pointing, while the real villains get off scot free.
I mean of course, the DA and the racist white liberals.
It is they that are behind all evil. (Finish and Klaar!)
Hey Dworky,
Behave yourself or the big, bad Uglyote will get you.
Check this out
http://www.iol.co.za/index.php?set_id=1&click_id=13&art_id=vn20091019044047414C225969
Maggs Naidu says:
October 19, 2009 at 11:03 am
LOL, No need for co-ordinates … I don’t intend sending him a guided tomahawk!
In most cases its arrogance and underestimation, as history has shown. But in this particular case, the resilient nature of the Zulu people, amalgamated in one tough individual!
But you know when he lost control of the the first, he essentially lost everything. I sometimes think we kinda had our own BUSH era. But let me shift gear before I get accused for dwelling too much on the past.
It seems the Minister of Justice has been busted again for running an enormous hotel bills again. Another shrug of the shoulders coming up. Lets see if your democracy theory passes the test.
Mikhail Dworkin Fassbinder says:
October 19, 2009 at 11:12 am
I would never advocate violence so keep the Tomahawk.
Those are coordinates for a UFO captured by satellite pics.
Minister of Police – eish!
Oh well 2011 is around the corner.
http://mg.co.za/article/2009-10-21-selebi-asks-judge-to-withdraw
I have personally experienced the corruption of Selebi in action, when he provided false SA border records for a foreign national who was directly involved in the murder of my brother. I have no doubt at all but Selebi is a very corrupt man and deserves to be on trial and if SA law stands for anything he will be convicted and sent to prison for a long time.
Someone should be investigating the corrupt relationship between Jackie Selebi and Gavin Varejes. http://www.123people.com/s/gavin+varejes
Anonymouse says:
April 29, 2010 at 14:12 pm
Whoever you are, you’re using my pseud!
Jacob Zuma’s lawyer is not white!
Tume, I am afraid Adv Kemp is classified as “white.”
This is outrageously racist, when there are thousands of black advocates around!