Comments on: Why the “weak” shortlist for Constitutional Court vacancy?

By: Friend

Friend — Mon, 01 Sep 2008 07:49:25 +0000

I agree with you that individuals problems cannot be attached to a group as a whole, but one of the problems, we bloggers have identified through our various debates, is where the blame has to go and this could be used to anyone’s advantage, because no one has to be held accountable. If a problem gets identified people gets scared of proposing a solution, because somebody is going to have to take the rap.
Polokwane addressed the solution and not the problem. Unless there where other topics on the agenda than the DSO.

By: T

Fri, 29 Aug 2008 14:25:51 +0000

Well Friend I get you. It is improper of you to take an individuals mess to that of many. The “political party” realy did no wrong. It is the individual, who afterall was removed by the party. The party had no business with Kebble or Stratton. One could hardly blame us.
It is true we need radical change, but I must inform you we already got that. Polokwane delivered it for us. wats your take?

By: Friend

Friend — Fri, 29 Aug 2008 06:38:03 +0000

T, by us, you mean the political party who is responsable for a very bitter situation in our country: The John Stratton, Brett Kebble bribes to Mr. Selebi, the Thint, President fiasco, the travel gate scandal, the JH mess to name but a few.
It is cristal clear that a radical change is needed before the Rand hits rock bottom, but instead the revolutionary voters, who puts loyalty before commons sense, will fight this losing battle to the bitter end even if it confirms the suspicion of mass stupidity, have a nice day

By: T

Thu, 28 Aug 2008 19:43:31 +0000

I might have come a bit late for this one. It is an interesting one prof. it is the character of transions to have speculations about what is to come. Joel phrases it better ” its a fear of the unkown.” But I believe BONGS is very much correct. The senior judges of this counrty concur with us, the CJ and his DCJ messed up in handling the Hlophe issue and the whole Zuma saga. I support them, no one would want to live in a dirty house. Pity they leaving us with this whole mess.

By: Mdanisi Xitlonyi

Mdanisi Xitlonyi — Thu, 28 Aug 2008 18:39:52 +0000

Mzo
I must commend you for such a substantive and factual submission you have made. I really enjoyed reading it. Back to the business of the day, I do get your point Mzo and will try to clarify my position in this regard thereby also providing reasons for my support to Sne’s submission. In my response to Bongs comment, I have not unfortunately considered what he might have said in the past about these issues. He also did not provide any substance to prevent us from misinterpreting his argument. But be that as it may, without support by any case law, both you and Bongs’ argument that the CJ and DCJ erred in going to the media before lodging their formal complaint with JSC is still as good as a speculation. And the same applies to Sne and I’s argument that, in accordance with the principle of accountability which is also central to the CJ’s justification of his (the ADCJ and DCJ)’s act, they were correct; until the JSC hears the matter and makes its ruling in support of either position in this regard.
Your argument that the possible cover-up that could have occurred had the CJ, ADCJ and DCJ lodged their complaint with the JSC first could still have been avoided, I think both Sne and I (not in this post) have correctly argued in our respective submissions that the matter was eventually going to come to the open Yes, but with more damage to the Concourt and the justice system in the country than to Hlophe JP. And if I were to choose between the two, I would rather sacrifice Hlophe JP – taking into account his contribution in the genesis of the whole saga – and spare the Concourt and the justice system. This I would do not in the interest of seeing Hlophe JP humiliated and suffer as a result, but rather in the interests of justice.
On your argument that “the CJ failed to inform the rest of us (and the JSC) that the two “complainant judges” in fact did not want to lodge a complaint and did not consider themselves to be complainants” – until they made a joint statement to this effect – I think you are incorrect. If you have read through the CJ’s 27 page submission to JCS, you will realize that the CJ explains the procedure followed after he had been made aware of the incident including the fact that the two justices refused to be the complainant themselves as well as the ground upon which he (the CJ), together with the ADCJ and the DCJ took it upon themselves to seek recourse from the JSC in this regard.
I am glad you also agree with Sne and I that “Nkabinde and Jafta’s conduct in this whole saga has, to a large extent, led us to where we are now”. But I do not agree with you that “[t]he conduct of the CJ, the Acting DCJ and the DCJ – presumably for having gone public with the matter – has worsened the situation”. Depending on where you stand with regard to this matter and the rule of law this might be the case, but I for one think the three justices could have made the situation worse only if they had, inter alia, allowed any proportion of act that could have given rise to a claim of cover – which is not the case here. The same argument goes for your argument that Hlophe JP is not the only one to blame in this fiasco – meaning the CJ, ADCJ and DCJ must share the blame for the manner in which they (mis)handled the case. We can only hope the hearing finally takes place in order for the JSC to help us close this matter once and for all, although of course there will always be post mortem debate on its findings.
Your contention that had the CJ, ADCJ and DCJ “acted with cool heads and due consideration of their actions, we would not be where we are now and that Hlophe would not have been given a platform to delay the hearing of the merits of the complaint”, is unfounded. Looking at his effort to block the matter from being heard by the JSC and the reasons advanced in his frivolous submission to both to the JSC and the High Court, as Prof de Vos critically analyzed them in one of his posts, there is no doubt that the man would have found another scapegoat to avoid facing his own sins before the JSC inasmuch as he would, I can safely bet, still find another scheme to do so in the event the High Court finds against him.

By: Anonymouse

Anonymouse — Thu, 28 Aug 2008 17:33:44 +0000

Bongs – “If it pleases you, I take issue with whatever you said which is inconsistent with my views expressed in this blog on the manner in which Concourt handled Hlophe JP’s issue!”

Typical lawyerly remark that, but without legal spunk. It is almost like: “Is there anything (else) you want to change in your testimony?” – A question lawyers frequently ask a witness who has already indicated that he/she cannot remember all the details and before confronting a witness with his/her police statement; and, that while the witness has not even confirmed yet that he/she told the police something different. You remark, quoted above, almost daily presents itself in courts all over the country, notably by undefended accused persons, who would, almost invariably (after having confirmed [or not placed in issue] certain aspects of a particular witness’ evidence) put it to a witness: “I put it to you that everything you have said is false.”; or, more in line with what you have said above: “I put it to you that, in every respect where we disagree, your version is false.”; but, without any legal argument to support that averment. Pity you don’t really bolster your argument above (and elsewhere on this blog) with real ‘legal’ arguments; but you just keep on coming back to the same ‘lame’ accusation, namely that, because the CJ and the DCJ did not keep their complaint confidential, Hlophe JP is the victim rather than the perpetrator; and, that, therefore, he should be treated as if he is the one who was wronged, and not the CC judges.

By: Bongs

Bongs — Thu, 28 Aug 2008 14:29:59 +0000

Sne

Apology accepted.

I have written in this blog ad nausseam about my position on how CJ and DCJ handled the Hlophe JP saga. So, I did not want to rehash those arguments here since the topic is not about that and especially after Mzo correctly articulated our positions above.

If it pleases you, I take issue with whatever you said which is inconsistent with my views expressed in this blog on the manner in which Concourt handled Hlophe JP’s issue!

By: Sne

Sne — Thu, 28 Aug 2008 14:03:21 +0000

Bongs // Aug 28, 2008 at 12:46 pm
……………………………………………………..

My sincere apologies if that came out that way.

A more prudent look at my submission would reveal that you did not attack the CJ and the DCJ in their personal capacities but in their professional capacities.

I cannot ignore the fact that you have noted merely an “exception” against my submission and have not advanced an argument against the merits thereof. Well, we all know what happens to an allegation if not denied in a Pleading in civil law.

By: Bongs

Bongs — Thu, 28 Aug 2008 10:46:09 +0000

Sne, you seem to be too sensitive to what you perceive as a personal attack on you but you are forgetting that you also accused me of attacking CJ and DCJ. If you read my post correctly you wil notice that I ‘attacked’ (if you want to use that word) the MANNER in which they handled Hlophe JP matter.

By: Maurice

Maurice — Thu, 28 Aug 2008 10:03:42 +0000

Sne // Aug 28, 2008 at 11:03 am

I still agree with your views, which I believe you set out quite clearly.

The personal attack on you, because of a difference of opinion, is unacceptable.

I agree, however, with your decision not to retaliate in like manner.