Many people have asked me whether the proposed Media Appeals Tribunal (MAP) would pass constitutional muster. We already know that the proposal for a MAP is wrongheaded, self-serving, deeply reactionary and unnecessary. But if Parliament passed a law that further limited the freedom of the printed media to publish what it deems important, and if such a law subjected the printed media to the dictates of a MAP, would this limitation on the freedom of expression be justifiable in terms of our Bill of Rights?
The short and somewhat unsatisfactory answer is that it is far too early to answer this question.
The various ANC proposals for a MAP and the various justifications for this Tribunal have been so confusing and contradictory that it is impossible to say what such a Tribunal would actually be empowered to adjudicate on, how it would be constituted and what its powers might be.
Last week Julius Malema stated that the ANC has already decided on such a Tribunal and that it wants Parliament to appoint it. He seemed to envisage that such a Tribunal would prevent the printed media from publishing certain facts which had been denied by politicians (and those lucky individuals connected to politicians) because such facts would be “mere gossip”.
These people [members of the printed media] are dangerous. They write gossip and present it as facts.
President Jacob Zuma, citing his experiences in Russia (that bastion of freedom of expression, respect for human rights and democracy), indicated last week that such a Tribunal would protect politicians from the publication of facts about their “private lives”. This is a contradiction in terms, as in an open and democratic society only the most intimate aspects of a politicians’ life can be said always to be truly private. (Of course, President Zuma has a vested interest in stopping the media from reporting on his private life, given the fact that his private life is rather adventurous and does not always conform to what he claims to believe when he speaks in public.)
He has also argued that the media tramples on peoples rights (by which I take him to mean the rights of politicians and their friends) to human dignity.
He continued by suggesting that the problem with the media was not only that it sometimes reported badly or even wrongly on events: it was ideological. Because some in the printed media do not agree with everything ANC leaders do and say, they are not in tune with the South African public. As President Zuma wrote:
The media must seriously conduct an introspection (sic) and open a constructive debate about the role of this institution in a post-apartheid South Africa. Is the media a mirror of South African society? Is it in touch with what the majority of South Africans feel and think? Does this institution actually know and understand South Africans? Why was it surprised by the explosion of national pride during the Soccer World Cup tournament? Why did South Africans decide to rise above the daily diet of negativity and defeatism that they are fed daily in the media?
So what is it to be? Will a Tribunal take over the role of the Press Ombudsman – but with enhanced powers? Will it censor journalists to stop them reporting “gossip” or other facts that are routinely denied by the well connected and the powerful? Will it be used to ensure that the media change its ideological stripes so that it becomes more compliant and in touch with what the majority of South Africans (read, members of the ANC) feel and think?
Before we have answers to these questions (on which the various ANC cadres who have commented on the need for a MAP seem to differ) it is not really possible to say whether the MAP has any chance of passing constitutional muster. A few preliminary points may be of interest though.
First, a MAP empowered to adjudicate on and punish members of the printed media will have to be independent. If it is not independent, it will be unconstitutional. A body appointed by Parliament will not be independent as it will in effect be appointed by the majority party.
If the proposed law therefore creates a MAP appointed by Parliament and that law empowers the MAP to punish journalists and newspapers, the law would be dead in the water. The limitation on press freedom would be so egregious that it could never be justifiable in an open and democratic society (although it might be well received in Russia) and would therefore not be found to be justifiable by our Constitutional Court.
Second, a MAP – even an independent one – that is empowered to address the perceived ideological impurity of some sections in the media will also be dead in the water. The very essence of media freedom hinges on the prohibition of state interference with the ideological content of what the media publishes. If the President does not like the attitude or ideological perspective of some in the media he has every right to complain and moan and shout about it. He can also make reasonable arguments about why the media is too cynical, hysterical or negative about South Africa.
But in the end – from a constitutional perspective, at least – he (or the legislature) has no power to interfere with the media to try and change the way it reports on what is happening in South Africa. If a newspaper only wants to report on corruption, crime, and how evil the ANC is, it has a constitutional right to do so (I might not buy that paper, but many others – with money to burn – probably will).
Just as members of the media can complain about the ANC but cannot tell the ANC what to think or do, so the ANC can complain about the media but cannot tell it what to write and what not to write. If the ANC wants to get the media to be more positive and less hysterical it needs to convince the media to do so through persuasion, charm and - just a thought – through good governance.
Third, if the MAP will be empowered to address the possible infringement of the dignity of individuals by the media, this might also be constitutionally problematic. At the moment courts are legally empowered to deal with this through our defamation laws. The Constitutional Court has developed our common law of defamation to bring it in line with the guarantees of media freedom and it is now far more difficult for any person – including any politician – successfully to sue the media for defamation.
If the MAT is required to apply a less onerous standard when it deals with complaints about the infringement of the human dignity of anyone, this would therefore most probably also be unconstitutional. If a court cannot impose a stricter standard to punish the media for defamation, then a MAP – who will always be less indpendent than a court – will never be constitutionally allowed to do so.
These preliminary remarks indicate that there is very little that the proposed MAP could legally and constitutionally do that the existing Press Ombudsman or the courts cannot already do. This suggests that the members of Parliament will waste lots and lots of their time – time perhaps better spent attending to the concerns of constituents about potholes, trigger happy policeman, lack of toilets and running water and dysfunctional schools. The legislature will thus either pass a law creating a MAP that will not change anything, or it will pass a law creating a MAP that would be unconstitutional and therefore would be declared invalid by our courts.
The question to ask (but maybe not of the Chief State Law Advisor) is: why bother?
Is journalism becoming irrelevant?
Sipho Ngcobo worries about the profession and the business of media.
JOHANNESBURG – It’s been a stressful, if not frightening week for the South African media as a watchdog and as business.
Despondent editors and journalists have been holed-up in conference rooms debating a battle plan in the face of the proposed Protection of Information Bill while industry leaders have been watching with keen interest on the developments from their executive suites.
There is widespread fear that the Bill is government’s attempt to clampdown and muzzle media.
While these editors and journalists were holding a meeting to discuss these threats, police barged in and arrested a journalist in the same building.
Mzilikazi wa Afrika, the investigative journalist at The Sunday Times was arrested on Wednesday by members of the police priority crimes unit, the Hawks without an arrest warrant on charges of fraud and defeating the ends of justice.
Apparently the journalist was handcuffed in full view of his colleagues, taken to his home where the police conducted a search and seized documents and laptops. Allegedly a search was carried out on his car too.
Sounds horrendous, doesn’t it?
For me personally, this invokes chilling memories of 1986 when apartheid security cops invaded Business Day newsroom and arrested me in terms of Section 29 of the Internal Security Act, an act of law mainly reserved for guerrilla insurgents or terrorists as they were known. I was no guerrilla insurgent. I was just a journalist trying to do my job. The arrest meant indefinite incarceration at John Vorster Square without access to family, lawyers, reading material etc. All I was given was a bible. It smelled brand new.
In terms of this piece of draconian legislation, the only people you had access to were cops. Then a magistrate would swing by once every two weeks and ask: “Enige klagtes?” Even if you had complaints, it basically was pointless complaining about anything.
There is virtually no real clarity as what Mzilikazi wa Afrika was arrested for. But we worry, I worry about him. I worry about the profession and the business of media. I am worried sick about the future of the industry.
But I cannot say I am totally surprised by the proposed Bill. There has been a lot of shoddy journalism taking place. Some of it has been outright criminal, extremely libellous, demeaning to individuals and families and even contemptuous to the courts. It has been so bad that I have often wondered what the future holds.
In fact, as a result one of the things I thought would be in place by now is an ANC-owned newspaper to counter shoddy journalism. It’s not publishing yet, but it is on its way.
The second tool I thought the ANC would consider is regulation of the industry and, this is happening through the proposed Bill.
As an example, the ANC has acknowledged for the first time that ex-Western Cape Premier Ebrahim Rasool was removed because of allegations that he paid two Cape Argus journalists to write favourably about him during his internal battles with another ANC leader Mcebisi Skwatsha.
At least one of the journalists Ashley Smith has admitted this in a sworn affidavit. What a shocker!
What do you call this?
Judge Squires went on a painful protest during the Shabir Shaik trial when he was broadly misquoted by the media. In what was a flagrant contempt of court, the media quoted Judge Squires as having said Shaik had “a generally corrupt relationship” with President Zuma during the trial. That was in fact the prosecution that had alleged that and not Judge Squires. The judge even wrote a letter to the editor complaining about this.
One of the first drills you are taught as an entry level reporter is never report inaccurately about a court proceeding. That is basic stuff!
When President Zuma was facing a rape trial, the media went on a binge of unethical behaviour, which resulted in a string of legal claims against publishing house after he was acquitted. Some of them have since settled out of court.
Fact of the matter is, there is a lot of shoddy journalism that is going on, and if the industry does not do something about this, journalism is going to become irrelevant and the industry is going to die a natural death.
*Sipho Ngcobo is former deputy editor of Business Report and ex-managing editor of Enterprise Magazine. He was one of the original team members of Business Day when the paper was launched in May 1985. He was a correspondent at international news agency Dow Jones where he reported on markets and companies in the early 1990s. He has also written for such publications as the Sunday Times, the World Paper in Boston and was employed by the New York Times Group in the US between 1989 an 1991.
Does the ANC have a point about the media?
By Jarred Cinman
Media freedom is one of those topics that its easy to raise a consensus around. For those of us that remember that bad days of apartheid, the consequences of a media held back by a government threatened by the truth needs no exposition.
It is thus not surprising that there has been a loud and consistent condemnation of the proposed media tribunal from most quarters. Editors, bloggers, twitterers and many members of the liberal public are united in their concerns. And various websites have adopted little badges proclaiming “Media Freedom” and the like.
That’s all easy enough. I read the predictable tweets with little enthusiasm, peppered as they are with circle jerking and false camaraderie. The arrest of Mzilikazi wa Afrika last week was pounced on as indicative of the problem. And the reliably misguided Julius Malema added his voice to the debate, in effect (and as usual) strengthening only the points made by his critics.
Watching from the sidelines, the first thought that came into my head is: does the ANC have a point? Has the media behaved recklessly or unfairly to such an extent that reining them in would seem to be in the national interest?
I have long watched as the so-called “liberal white press” (a misnomer by anyone’s standard, especially now) has both lit and fanned the flames of anti-government stories. This may seem to be a rash statement, and in fact one of the major arguments against this tribunal has been that there is no evidence that the media has, in fact, taken an anti-government position. My friend William Bird, an executive director of the MMA, argues that the government has failed precisely in this respect. It has presented nothing but unsubstantiated accusations against the print media.
Ultimately, this should be settled on the evidence, so let’s leave that aside for the moment. For the sake of argument let’s assume that at an evidentiary hearing both sides would be able to present some evidence in support of their case.
However, to try and see this from the ruling party’s point of view, and as a relatively unenthusiastic consumer of mainstream media, I see the following clear messages in the style and tone of media coverage of anything related to government:
1. Government is corrupt.
2. Government is failing to deliver on promises.
3. Government manipulates state institutions to its own (nefarious) ends.
4. Even where it is not corrupt or manipulative, government is incompetent.
5. The ANC is riddled with cronyism, nepotism and abuse of power.
Broaden the scope beyond the media itself, and into the “user-generated” content that the media invites and you can re-state the messages as:
1. The ANC is dangerous and dragging the country toward being “another Zimbabwe”.
2. Black people are lazy, corrupt and looking for a “free ride” now that the ANC has power.
3. Government is populated with stupid, selfish and ruthless power mongers.
4. We are in imminent danger of having the mines nationalised, farms stolen and the free press forcibly shut down.
5. The ANC supports crime, or at the very least, does nothing to stop it.
Now, I can’t present conclusive evidence for any of this stuff, and I’m happy to be proven wrong on any or all points. However I would be deeply shocked to see the evidence come out against my position because anecdotally, as a media consumer, these are the messages I am constantly encountering. Take a general look at how the Zuma trial was covered, how the news covers Julius Malema (and how much prominence it gives his every utterance), the messages of woe about South Africa’s preparation for the World Cup in the two year run-up to the event, the predictions of failure on the Gautrain project. And so forth.
Anyone who argues that the media has painted a generally hopeful view of the SA government over the past 10 years is reading very different newspapers and listening to very different radio stations than I have.
Now, there are two obvious reasons why this might be the case. One, the media has painted a fair and accurate picture of a government that is hopeless, failing and corrupt. The other is that the media has taken a particular view of the government which it relishes the chance to confirm.
And why, you may ask, would it do that?
Simple, really. Sales. No-one wants to read a good news story, with rare exception (maybe the soccer World Cup). Good news, any journalist will tell you, is classified by newsrooms as “soft news”. Hard news is, typically, something that has gone sour. “Boy grows up with parents that love him and succeeds at school” is not a story. “Boy is tortured by parents and now lives on the street sniffing glue”, is much better. If the government supplied the glue, then you’ve got a front-page headline.
I’m not trying to condense media studies into one paragraph. But it is worth stopping and noticing the general tendency among the media — supported by a frankly disturbing lingering racism and afro-pessimism in its readership — to emphasise the failures.
The net effect of this is serious. The two most important negatives are:
1. Slow down the country’s progress due to constant refocusing on failures; and
2. Feed the fires of malcontent and mistrust, weakening our national pride and spirit
The World Cup was a stark contrast to both of these points. A common refrain from most South Africans was how nice it was to be in a positive spirit, and see the country pulling together for a change. Was this shift in consciousness a group hallucination? Or, more likely, a recognition that the media took its foot off the pedal of pessimism for a brief time, giving us all a welcome respite.
It didn’t last, of course. We’re now back where we started.
I’m not advocating censorship. Nor am I even arguing that a media tribunal or arresting journalists makes any real sense.
But I am saying that everyone is far too quick to dismiss the role that the media plays in setting the tone of public discourse. In a new democracy with a wildly divergent set of interests, and a lot of problems, the media can play a constructive or destructive role. Unfortunately trying to enforce a constructive one leads us inexorably down a dark alleyway. And so, the argument goes, we must allow the good with the bad.
But what do you do as a ruling party when the bad spirals out of control, when every radio talk show is filled with negative sentiment; when online comments forums (just wait till this article gets some) degrade into racism and vitriol; when the media wields its power not to strengthen but to weaken the institutions of the state?
The simple, liberal reply is: don’t screw up. Keep your noses clean, deliver on your promises and all will be well. But of course, no government can do that. The result is a paralysed state like we see in the US, where no good deed goes unpunished. And where stars like Obama fall before they even have a chance to rise.
Conservative interests like this kind of state, because it is impervious to real change. But is that what we need here?
This is a puzzling problem to solve. The interests of truth are not always aligned with the interests of nation-building. And truth, anyway, is a blunt instrument, because omission is allowed in a free press. Making Malema’s madness front-page headlines day after day is not a transgression, even although you are reporting on few (if any) of the successes in government. Because it’s “hard news”. Because that’s what people want to buy.
The best we can hope for is a media that is aligned with trying to make a great, proud, passionate country. But there really are no incentives toward this goal. The economics of the press pull in a different direction. One of the reasons China is an emerging superpower and South Africa is not is that they can efficiently manufacture consent, and put their efforts behind building rather than tearing down.
I’m not sure which is a better society: one that is “open” or one that is “successful”. To the extent we can have both, we should strive for that. But where there is a choice, which do you pick? And what do you do if you have a strong suspicion that powerful interests in the society are playing a destructive role?
The article by Jarred Cinman (quoted by Thomas above) just about captures all my views in this debate.
The article by Jarred Cinman is instructive, but deeply misguided. First, China differs from South Africa in many ways, not the least of them being that it is an oppressive state in which corrupt officials are executed (Schabir Shaik and President Zuma might have been dead had he lived in China), and in which the state functions relatively effectively and in which independent trade unions are banned. A closed state – except in very particular cultural contexts will be a more corrupt and inefficient state. The choice presented in the article is therefore a false choice. If we have a closed state it will become even more corrupt and inefficient and those who will suffer most are the poor and those unconnected to wealth or power who will be condemned to second class citizenship in perpetuity.
Second, in a democracy, the government can do nothing about how the media reports on it – as long as reports are based on facts – and it cannot do anything about the opinions expressed in the media – as long as these are not defamatory. The “problems’ highlighted in the article can therefore not be “addressed” without abolishing democracy in South Africa. Maybe I am naive, but I am rather in favor of democracy than of a closed, kleptocratic state.
Dear Mr Cinman
YOur article answers your own questions and you don’t even notice it. During the world cup we were all positive because for the first time in a long time things seemed to work. The stadiums were done on time and beautiful, the Guatrain was flying by on time, games started on time, the police were out for all to see, criminals were sentenced in record time, and so on and so on. You see, people are positive when they can see delivery. But when all they see is the same shack with no water and electricity as was there 10 years ago they tend to be negative. That is not the fault of the media publising a story on goverment’s inability to provide services, that is goverments fault for not delivering. It will not help to hide things, that won’t make them go away. Then you mention that China concentrates on building rather than tearing down. If the ANC goverment in also focused on building rather than tearing down maybe SA would also be a super power in a few years time. But they don’t, or maybe the focus is there, but definately not the political will.
Some argue that MAT is necessary because the electronic broadcasters has a similar body. This is not true. Broadcasters has an independent body, the Broadcasting Complaints Commission of SA (BCCSA), which its website describes as follows:
The Broadcasting Complaints Commission of South Africa (“BCCSA”) was established by the National Association of Broadcasters (“NAB”) in 1993. According to the BCCSA’s Constitution it is a body corporate, capable of suing and being sued in its corporate name, and of performing all such acts as are necessary for or incidental to the carrying out of its objects, and for the performance of its functions and duties under its Constitution.
The BCCSA shall be based in Johannesburg but the Chairperson may, when he or she deems it appropriate, decide to hold a session of the Tribunal of the Commission at any place in South Africa. The BCCSA was recognized by the Independent Broadcasting Authority (“IBA”, now ICASA) in 1995 in terms of section 56(2) of the IBA Act 1993. During these hearings before the IBA, the IBA emphasized that the BCCSA must be an independent judicial tribunal so that it could, without fear or favour, adjudicate complaints from the public against the broadcasters, which are members of the NAB.
The BCCSA has no jurisdiction as to election complaints. Such jurisdiction resides with the Complaints and Compliance Committee (“CCC”) of the ICASA, The CCC also has jurisdiction to hear complaints about content against broadcasters which are not members of the NAB. Complaints other than those which relate to content of broadcasts, all fall under the jurisdiction of the CCC.
Although the NAB provides the funds for the BCCSA, the BCCSA is, as a body corporate, entirely independent from the NAB. The BCCSA has an enforceable ongoing contract with the NAB, according to the BCCSA Constitution, to provide the BCCSA with its reasonable expenses. If the NAB does not provide the reasonable expenses, which would include all complaint sessions of the BCCSA, the BCCSA may take the matter to an independent arbitrator who will enforce the contract. If it is found that the NAB is or has omitted to provide such reasonable expenses, it is bound in law to do so.
Other features of the Constitution which uphold the BCCSA’s character as an independent judicial tribunal in terms of section 34 of the Constitution of the Republic, are the following:
1. The Commissioners are appointed by an independent panel chaired by an independent person (up to now by a retired Judge of Appeal) plus other persons appointed at an AGM of the BCCSA. Although it was, initially, the thinking that half of the Commissioners would be appointed from persons nominated by the NAB, the Constitution was amended at the insistence of the IBA so that all candidates would be nominated by members of the public.
2. The Chair is elected at an AGM without any intervention from the appointment panel or the NAB and may be a person from outside the Commission. So as to ensure the independence of the Chair he or she is in no way answerable to the Commission in so far as the judicial work is concerned. He or she appoints each Tribunal from the Commissioners and has, in any case, the right to appoint ad hoc Commissioners where Commissioners are not available or where it is in the interests of representivity.
3. The BCCSA is not, in any manner, accountable or answerable to the NAB.
4. Only the BCCSA may, at an AGM or SGM, amend its Constitution and it does so independently from the NAB.
5. Only the BCCSA may dissolve the BCCSA and the NAB has no right to do so or withdraw its funding of reasonable expenses.
6. The BCCSA appoints its own Registrar. The Chair appoints other staff members, including the accountant. The Chair is also in the sole control of the Office of the BCCSA.
7. All salaries or fees are paid by the BCCSA, which has its own bank account and appoints its auditor annually.
8. The BCCSA may impose sanctions, which include fines. It has an internal appeal procedure.
In sum, the BCCSA is an independent judicial tribunal which must reach its decisions on the Broadcasting Code independently and in line with the precepts of administrative justice, as required by the Constitution of the Republic and legislation that governs fair administrative justice. Although initially set up by the Broadcasting industry, it is entirely independent from that industry and it would be in conflict with its corporate independence to be called an “industry body”.
Thomas says:
August 18, 2010 at 14:37 pm
“they can efficiently manufacture consent”.
Now ain’t that sweet!
Maybe we should buy some – “Consent. Made in China. Eco-friendly. ISO 2010″. Hand made by organic labour.
Come to think of it, the Chinese may have exported some Consent to Zimbabwe which had to be rerouted via DRC or somewhere along the West Coast because SA trade unions refused to allow the containers of Consent to be offloaded at any of SA harbours.
Prof: “Maybe I am naive, but I am rather in favor of democracy than of a closed, kleptocratic (criminal – my words) state.” Amen to that.
I continue to observe as a western raised farm boy the changed times in SA.
For those of you who have no time for the hysterical, bigoted, childish views of the many trolls on the web, well evidenced on the Times news site for example, well of note today I see that virtually most of the former opponents are one, both from the anti and pro ABC, in condemning the refusal of said ABC to accept the present striker’s demands.
Of particular note is the anger of ABC supporters about the government’s stance, and they virtually all express anger about government waste, living the high life, and the regime’s fraudulent activity. the rationalists say: ‘well, this is what you voted for”. Then the e-yahoos who have consistently defended the indefensible, who insist they would kill for the ruling regime, often threatening vile acts, well, this is the first time I have seen them so angry about their beloved government’s theft and waste, because it appears they are finally groking it, that a corrupt government hurts everyone, including they the supporters and their families. Naturally, they want a piece of the pie that their rulers so obviously hold, as in enough is enough. We want our share; interesting, ne.
Appears there is both growing awareness and common ground after all, and even possibly… reasonable hope. The ABC is self destructing, corruption does that; its called Karma, which always catches up with you. In the west we even distinguish the different kinds of Karma. Both in the short and long run, there is no escaping it.
As for ABC; well the ANC isn’t what it was and in many folks views doesn’t deserve to be called or viewed as ANC.
[...] Pierre de Vos discusses the constitutionality of the proposed Media Appeals Tribunal (MAP) in South Africa: “The legislature will thus either pass a law creating a MAP that will not change anything, or it will pass a law creating a MAP that would be unconstitutional…” [...]
What about foreign print media? How do the ANC have planned to stop the ‘Western-Capitalist Media’ from printing their stories on those abusing power or corrupt? I hope we can could on them again if South Africa takes its politics ‘retro’ aka NP style…
By the way: can they ban foreign newspapers too with this tribunal (e.g. The UK Times, Telegraph, etc) from appearing in book stores if they contain ‘unsavory’ stories or outright counter-revolutionary views?
What about foreign print media? What do the ANC have planned to stop the ‘Western-Capitalist Media’ from printing their stories on those abusing power or corrupt? I hope we can count on them again if South Africa takes its politics ‘retro style’ aka NP style…
By the way: can they ban foreign newspapers too with this tribunal (e.g. The UK Times, Telegraph, etc) from appearing in book stores if they contain ‘unsavory’ stories or outright counter-revolutionary views?
(sorry about dbl-posting, damn BBerry)
My issue with all of this is that the government is trying to turn us into a nanny state. By deciding on what information we, as the public, should be privy to, they are essentially sending out the message that we are incapable of handling information.
I agree that the press is sometimes negligent in their reporting, but I have faith that the average person has sufficient intelligence to distinguish between fact and fiction. The average person also has the right to choose what information he or she wishes to access.
I know many people who don’t read newspapers or watch the news because they don’t want to know what is going on. This is the choice they make. I know others who devour every item of news they can find and thrive on the drama of it all. But most of the people I know, read the news or watch it and make up their own minds.
To state that the media are focusing on corruption and poor service delivery merely in a bid to sell newspapers is a pathetic argument. Even without the media, one can ascertain that not all is well with the ANC government. The roads in the Eastern Cape are diabolical. Healthcare is failing at primary level. Education is abysmal. Food parcels are being denied to non-ANC members by SASSA officials. Stock theft is crippling our farmers and the government want to reduce the sentences for those caught. These are issues that I see every day in my community. Even if I wasn’t aware of how endemic the corruption is at national level, I witness it regularly in my community.
These arguments in favour of the MAT are a gross insult on the intelligence of the people of this country.
SkyLukeWater says:
August 18, 2010 at 18:15 pm
What about foreign print media? What do the ANC have planned to stop the ‘Western-Capitalist Media’ from printing their stories on those abusing power or corrupt?
What a good question. I think that the AC (after coputer) people in SA will still be updated of banned news on SA via the internet.
Hhhmmm…a Unit Standard on reporting accurately about a court proceeding…
Just what the doctor ordered???
A Unit Standard on Batho Pele in the newsrooms? What is wrong with that?
Justice in South Africa:
Victim of dog attack agrees to lesser claim
2010/08/19
AN EAST London pensioner whose face was badly disfigured in a brutal attack by two dogs in 2008, claimed a small victory in the city’s high court yesterday.
The emotional civil case was settled in the judge’s chambers after the victim, 74-year-old Bonakele Nqeniso, announced he had no plans to return to the operating table.
Nqeniso slapped his former Beacon Bay employer, Heather Graetz, with a R1.2 million civil suit after her two boerboels ripped off his nose, ears and lips in a savage attack on May 19, 2008.
Nqeniso had been working part- time in Graetz’s garden at the time of the attack.
In court yesterday, Nqeniso said his family had accepted his mutilated face “the way it is” and that he did not feel he had the strength to undergo further surgery. The Mdantsane man has already undergone 10 operations.
Nqeniso was admitted to the intensive care unit at Frere Hospital where he spent close to three months on a ventilator and had to be fed intravenously .
He also underwent 10 operative procedures, including skin-grafting and lip reconstruction.
Nqeniso needs a further two operations before the reconstructive surgery to his face is completed. Plastic surgeons estimated this to cost in the region of R1.2 million – the original amount claimed in damages.
Although the Daily Dispatch, due to an exclusivity clause, cannot reveal the settlement amount , it was significantly less after Nqeniso announced he no longer intended undergoing further surgery.
Nqeniso’s attorney, Loyiso Godongwana, said: “The R1.2m my client was originally claiming was calculated to cover a further two reconstructive operations.
“However, the family decided…and made it clear this morning that they wanted to settle. Mr Nqeniso feels he is not strong…young enough to undergo further surgery.”
Nqeniso said he was “happy” the case was finally over.
“From the start I did not see the need to go to court. One can obviously see just by looking at my face that I was attacked by dogs.”
Nqeniso said he still battled to speak about how the attack affected him emotionally.
H is son, Zazisile Nqeniso, said his father often had nightmares and was petrified of dogs. “He gets scared every time he hears a dog barking.” — By KATHRYN PARKES
Court Reporter
Thank you, Thomas!
But, how does that story even faintly pertain to the topic: ‘Would Media Appeals Tribunal be constitutional?’
The General Council of the Bar has just pronounced the Information Bill ‘dangerous’. That relates.
Here is a story that relates more to the topic:
http://www.businessday.co.za/articles/Content.aspx?id=118279
ALLISTER SPARKS: The swift trashing of our World Cup image
The speed at which we are trashing the positive image of this country created by the soccer World Cup is astonishing.
ALLISTER SPARKS
Published: 2010/08/18 06:41:56 AM
The speed at which we are trashing the positive image of this country created by the soccer World Cup is astonishing.
A mere six weeks ago the world was applauding us for the success of that event. Thousands of visitors were expressing their pleasure at being here in what was a visible display of our “rainbow nation,” expressing surprise, too, at our wonderful infrastructure, our fine hotels, the efficiency of our services and the harmony of our multi-cultural society. It was way beyond what they had expected, given the bad publicity we have had about our crime rate and poor governance.
Investors were beginning to reassess us as the realisation spread that South Africa was different from the rest of what many still perceived to be “the hopeless continent,” riddled with corruption, coups and incompetence.
It was the greatest public relations bonanza this country has ever had. But now, only these few weeks later, our government seems to be going out of its way to blot that new image. It has delivered a series of public relations disasters.
This began with some questionable interventions by the Department of Mineral Resources that appear to have been aimed at diverting mineral and prospecting rights into the hands of senior African National Congress (ANC) figures, including family members and friends of President Jacob Zuma . This has rattled the mining industry as well as investors at home and abroad.
The most dodgy of these deals began when the big steel company AcerlorMittal failed, apparently through oversight, to convert its prospecting rights at Sishen iron ore mine in Limpopo Province to new order rights, as the law required. That meant these rights reverted to the state.
Kumba , Mittal’s biggest supplier of iron ore, grabbed the opportunity to hike its price to Mittal from a discounted figure fixed years ago when the old Iscor, which owned both the mine and the steel plant, was split and privatised.
Kumba also seized on Mittal’s lapse and applied for the conversion rights for itself — only to find that a little-known company with no mining expertise, Imperial Crown Trading (ICT), had done likewise. And, hey presto, ICT was awarded the rights — although the issue is the subject of what is likely to be a long legal battle.
Meanwhile, it just so happens that one of Zuma’s sons, Duduzane, is a key figure in ICT along with the Gupta family, enormously wealthy immigrants from India who appear to have become the President’s best friends and are on the point of publishing a new pro-ANC daily newspaper, New Age.
The chief executive of the Gupta family’s investment arm, Jagdish Parekh, also has a substantial shareholding in ICT, while Duduzane Zuma’s twin brother, Duduzile, is a business partner of the Guptas.
Sensing which way the wind was blowing in the conflict between Mittal and Kumba, Mittal has now moved to secure its supply of cheap ore from Sishen by offering ICT a cool R800-million for its rights plus R9-billion worth of shares in Mittal itself. All in the name of Black Economic Empowerment.
It’s an outrageous steal — “money for jam,” as one beneficiary brazenly put it — and a grotesque abuse of BEE. That policy was introduced to benefit the disadvantaged people of this country, and there is nothing disadvantaged about the beneficiaries of this windfall. They are already among the stinking rich, politically connected fat cats.
Hardly had this shocker hit the news than another followed. The Department of Mineral Resources ordered Lonmin , an international mining company, to stop selling nickel, copper and chrome from a portion of one of its platinum mines, because it had awarded exploration rights for these minerals to an empowerment company called the HolGoun Group.
HolGoun is an investment company controlled by the family of Sivi Gounden, a former Director-General of the Department of Public Enterprises. Political connections again.
As it turns out, these other minerals cannot be separated from the platinum in the mining process, so the Department of Mineral Resources has rescinded its order.
But the damage to South Africa’s image in the investor community has been great. Mining is one of our major employers, and given our distressing unemployment figures we badly need to keep the industry going. Many of our mines are nearing the end of their productive lives, so it is imperative that we seek new deposits and open new mining operations. But opening a new mine requires huge capital investment. Nobody is going to make that kind of investment in a country where there is uncertainty about the security of mineral rights.
So it is the poor and the working-class who are going to suffer from these shenanegans aimed at bloating the already rich and politically connected — all in the name of BEE.
The rot spreads well beyond the mining industry. The ANC itself admits that it is a deeply corrupt organisation. One of its discussion documents prepared for next month’s national general council meeting lists a number of “tendencies” leading to “organisational decay.” What’s more the ANC leadership has known this for years. When Deputy President Kgalema Motlanthe was still general-secretary of the ANC he admitted as much in a remarkably candid interview with the Financial Mail’s Carol Paton.
The trouble is, a fatal precedent was set right at the outset — right at the top. A 1995 document, unearthed from ANC archives at Fort Hare University and published by the Sunday Times last weekend, gives details of how then Deputy President Thabo Mbeki requested Shabir Shaik, of arms scandal notoriety, to set up a company that would fund the ANC through “patriotic” dividends paid out for major government contracts.
The ANC was seriously strapped for cash in the early nineties. Its funds were seized when it was banned in 1960, it had no accommodation and no means to build its organisation and run election campaigns. The need for money was obvious and understandable, but the means of acquiring it turned out to be dubious. Shaik formed his company, Nkobi Holdings, which was to feature prominently in the arms deal scandal. That was the start of the corruption — and sadly corruption, once started, expands exponentially. Especially when started by heroes bearing the halo of heroic liberators.
That is why the government has had to go to such extraordinary lengths to avoid any proper inquiry into the arms deal — and to avoid President Zuma’s having to go on trial, where he might well have blown the whistle on many others who were involved.
That is why corruption is now rotting the very soul of the ANC.
And that is why this desperate government wants to stop investigative reporting, because it is the media that keeps exposing the scale of the corruption which the government cannot stop because too many at the top are involved.
But what Zuma and his government seem not to realise is that ending freedom of the media means ending free speech, and nothing can do more to shatter the image of a country than that. Because a country that does not have free speech is no longer a free country. Add to that the heavy-handed arrest and political interrogation of journalist Mzilikazi wa Afrika and investors begin to catch the repellent whiff of another Zimbabwe.
WTF is a ‘Jarred Cinman’?
If nothing else, Cinman reinforces my point that ANC control over the media is quite simply aimed at the way those nasty mhlungus exercise their freedom of expression.
The media hypocrites should be consistent: If it is OK for ICASA to regulate broadcasting to try and keep licenses out of the hands of your Radio Pretorias, and make granting a license subject to a self-regulatory regime like the BCCSA (BTW, the BCCSA’s website has been down for like, 3 years?)
THEN WHY SHOULD YOU NOT BE LICENSED TO PRINT YOUR LITTLE ZAMISDAT?
After all, does S9(1) of the Constitution not guarantee equality before the law and equal protection by it?
@ Brett,
Well, there is actually an important diference between printed media and radio which is the reason why most (all?) countries demand licenses for raido stations while not necessarily doing the same for newspapers. The difference is that whereas there are no limits to the number of newspapers that can be published, there are only so many radiowaves, meaning that the number of radio stations that can publish in a specific area is limited. Consequently, a system is needed to distribute the space in an equitable manner.
You might also argue that since radio is beamed directly into peoples’ homes, hate propaganda (which e.g. played a devastating role in the Rwandan genocide) brought by radio is more damaging than what ever is printed in a newspaper. This could also be an argument for more control (for want of a better word) over radio stations.
Suppose the tribunal is established, which is more likely than not, what must be its nature, character anf role ? I would like you guys to contribute your perspective.
I have noted your total rejection of this mooted entity, nonetheless your abstraction may help in the interfertalisation of ideas on this controvertial issue.
Headed by a strongly liberal retired judge, four journalist and a lawyer [constitutional expert]. Who appoints it Parliament upon recommedation by the law society, the media houses and the judiciary.
What sort of disputes can be referred for quasi-judicial decisions? I suggest this path because bare rejection is defeatist.
I must say the media must continue to report on corruption. We need it so much. Are the current remedies adequate to deal with malicious reporting?
Few points:
1. We must all agree that the media has never been free in this country until the so called ABC or ANC took power.
2. Most Journalists were brought up and practiced in a racially divided country, where being black was regarded as inferior. (Except if we are saying journalists by profession are not affected by racism).
3. We must also agree that most newspapers during the apartheid days supported the ruling party and government.
4. We must agree that very little “transformation” has occurred in the industry. Ownership is still in white and foreign hands
If you read news headlines on a daily basis, like I do, you will realise that the main point that the media is sending is that “Blacks cannot rule”. Therefore they write stories everyday about government corruption. If there is no story they drag the same story for months just to enforce the belief that blacks cannot be trusted and are corrupt. You read in many articles the word “incompetence’. But somehow incompetence is only levelled at white members of the government.
Judge Heath in March this year said I quote: Corruption is more rife in the private sector than the public sector”. Why does the print media not publish such corruption stories? Is the argument that its not public money actually hold water when most of these corrupt companies are listed and leave pensioners with nothing? Or do we feel that private sector corruption is acceptable? Or is it more important to shield “white corruption” from the masses.
When the City of Cape Town spent about R350-million without going through open tender processes the very same media explained this misuse as I quote: But the deviations from the open process were all legal and above board, and in line with supply chain management provisions, the finance portfolio committee has heard.
When the same explanation is given by other provinces or departments the media crucifies them as corrupt and incompetent.
When there are service delivery protests in ANC (“black”) run provinces it’s a sign of incompetence, poor service delivery and corruption. When it happens in the Western Cape this is not regarded as a sign of incompetence, poor service delivery and corruption. If you look at the statistics I quote: “So where are these protests taking place? According to information available, 27% of the protests since 2004 have taken place in Gauteng, 14% in North West, 12% in both Western Cape and Mpumalanga, 11% in Free State, 10% in Eastern Cape, 7% in KwaZulu-Natal, 4% in Limpopo and 3% in Northern Cape. 45% of the protests have taken place in the metros. 34% have been in informal settlements.” Since April elections there have already been four service delivery protests in the Western Cape yet we don’t hear the same rhetoric from the press.
The Minister of Public Enterprises has been having a tough time managing the public enterprises but she has been hailed as a “competent” leader and everyone else has been blamed for problems.
All departments run by Blacks are attacked daily by the print media and those run by non blacks somehow miss criticism.
When the CCMA is accused of R23.6 million irregular expenditure, the media goes to the defence of their white brothers by articles like I quote the Headline: Mudslingers fail to make any dirt stick to CCMA. In the article we get the comment I quote: “The irregular expenditure was not fraudulent or corrupt; it was money spent without following the minutiae of the National Treasury’s procedures.” the writter goes on to say, i qoute: “Make no mistake, our country, economy and society are infinitely better off as a result of the work of the CCMA. In its first year of operation in 1996 it dealt with 67 000 case referrals. Last year the number had increased to 153 000.”
Why such a discripancy in reporting when the same is done by black controlled entities? Why don’t they quote the good that the department has also done since 1996?
The print media is just sending the message that the stereotypes about blacks are true. This is worrying indeed. This is scary reporting. Whether this needs a tribunal is not clear but what is obvious is that the press ombudsman is not solving the problem. Do we need a better way of making sure the press is reporting honestly? I think we do.
Brett Nortje says:
August 19, 2010 at 8:04 am
Thank you, Thomas!
But, how does that story even faintly pertain to the topic: ‘Would Media Appeals Tribunal be constitutional?’
______________________________________________________________
The point is that the media can take away its own freedom when it wants to: “Although the Daily Dispatch, due to an exclusivity clause, cannot reveal the settlement amount , it was significantly less after Nqeniso announced he no longer intended undergoing further surgery.”
When the poor are being cheated by medias “own” they don’t disclose figures. How “free” is this press? Is it really giving us the information we need?
Sorry meant to say; But somehow incompetence is only levelled at black members of the government.
Here was the wise judges said in Khumalo v Holomisa 2002 (5) SA 401 (CC)
“In a democratic society, then, the mass media play a
role of undeniable importance. They bear an
obligation to provide citizens both with information
and with a platform for the exchange of ideas which
is crucial to the development of a democratic culture.
As primary agents of the dissemination of
information and ideas, they are, inevitably, extremely
powerful institutions in a democracy and they have a
constitutional duty to act with vigour, courage,
integrity and responsibility. The manner in which the
media carry out their constitutional mandate will have
a significant impact on the development of our
democratic society. If the media are scrupulous and
reliable in the performance of their constitutional
obligations, they will invigorate and strengthen our
fledgling democracy. If they vacillate in the
performance of their duties, the constitutional goals
will be imperilled. The Constitution thus asserts and
protects the media in the performance of their
obligations to the broader society, principally
through the provisions of s 16.”
The debate must explain how the unscrupulous reporters must be dealt with. The available remedies do not seem to deter them from unprofessional journalistic antics.
Some stronger measures are required. The envisaged tribunal must be independent and involve experts in the field, retired judges or Senior Counsel. We can debate the modalities or mechanism to secure independence and intergrity.
ISHMAEL MALALE:
I agree with you.
[...] “Would Media Appeals Tribunal be constitutional?” by Pierre de Vos. [...]
Thomas, many will dispute this statement:
“We must also agree that most newspapers during the apartheid days supported the ruling party and government.”
There was vigorous opposition to government by many newspapers – in fact, in many cases the very same newspapers that are now getting up the government’s nose.
Be that as it may, the fact that you have this perception only serves to underscore the point that “news” produced by a repressed media creates a distorted image.
ISHMAEL MALALE says:
August 19, 2010 at 9:19 am
“Suppose the tribunal is established, which is more likely than not, what must be its nature, character and role ?”
There was some extensive discussion around this on another link http://constitutionallyspeaking.co.za/the-return-of-fake-morality/
The UK’s PCC (thanks to the challenge from Ricky) with the suggested revisions seems a very sensible route.
Check it out at http://www.pcc.org.uk/index.html
France’s special media courts also may be worth considering.
p.s. Ignore our Mossad Guy’s whinging.
ISHMAEL MALALE says:
August 19, 2010 at 10:11 am
Hey Ishmael,
As I understand it, the pressure for the MAT (in whatever final form it may take) is mainly to protect politicians from severe media scrutiny.
Sometimes the media are really cruel, vicious and unrelenting in unwarranted persecution of politicians – case in point is the allegations around KZN Premier Zweli Mkhize and his family.
That has to be corrected.
However, politicians and other high profile people cannot expect to be taken out of the gaze of the media, even if the media sometimes get it wrong (even deliberately so).
If people want privacy they must choose a lifestyle that is suitable.
Thomas says:
August 19, 2010 at 9:40 am
Hey Thomas,
“Do we need a better way of making sure the press is reporting honestly? I think we do.”
It’s best you read SA Good News regularly http://www.sagoodnews.co.za
It will give you all the nice, lovey-dovey news you want to hear and more.
From any of the news published today – which do you find objectionable?
You go on to say “most newspapers during the apartheid days supported the ruling party and government”.
Which mainstream newspapers, in your view, supported the apartheid regime?
The Daily News, the Mercury, The Witness, the Rand Daily Mail, The Weekly Mail?
Yeah, and don’t forget the Vrye Weekblad that was financially ground to a standstill by the government’s misuse of the law…
This is a very interesting argument.
Is it not a reality that the constitution can be amended with a two thirds majority in parliament?
The ANC has about 65.7% in parliament and with the agreement of another party that is willing to be persuaded, they could well pull this off.
But the deprecations will be devesting because it is not possible to fully censor word of mouth, the world wide web or other courtiers following this story abroad who may even sanction South Africa in whatever ways they deem fit.
That is why I understand the pressure South Africa is putting on Bric countries to join this economic bloc because this will ensure that we have allies when times are tough.
Its a complicated issue, however I believe it will make the ANC extremely unpopular if they implement the media appeals tribunal with mischievous intentions.
Tebogo Ditshego
Thomas says:
August 19, 2010 at 9:40 am
Thomas, this post contains so much bullshit and so many non-sequiturs I am not even tempted to respond to it on a point-by-point basis.
To clarify, though: Have you done any homework about the “exclusivity clause” you mention? Is it a non-disclosure clause in the settlement agreement or has Nqeniso sold the story to a tabloid?
Ricky says:
August 19, 2010 at 8:44 am
Ricky, I have seen the print media make that argument.
It is bullshit.
Simple rebuttal: How many channels does your DSTV dish provide for?
just for the feed
Thomas Aug 19 @940am
“Is the argument that its not public money actually hold water when most of these corrupt companies are listed and leave pensioners with nothing?”
Please give examples – names of companies, corrupt activities, who committed the corruption, the consequencies of the corrupt activities for the companies and the names of the pension funds affected by the corruption that had the effect that pensioners were left “with nothing”.
ANC has point that our media is already controlled forces foreign to us, thus it propagates a certain agendas for ulterior motives. Unfortunately this propaganda is divisive at any costs. In a country where corruption is so vast, there is absolutely no reason for news to be fabricated as there is so much already, yet our media will go at lengths to fabricate, just to create havoc.
Just have a look at the much hyped and fabricated storries about Xenophobic attack that was supposed to happen after the World Cup. The only reason for the divisive reporting was to dampen the World Cup spirit and nothing else. Infact e-TV tried to do this even before World Cup by going at length to find supposed to be criminals planning to attack visitors, they paid to make footage, and some family ended up loosing a loved one.
Our media has an agenda that certainly is ridden by hatred for South Africa. If Media was a natural person, she would have moved to Australia long time ago. Having said that, though, to give credit were it is due, our media does a good job uncovering corrupt affairs from politician, (it would be nice if it was fair) and unfortunately some of the members of the ruling party thinks that is the reason a Media Tribunal is required.
Media freedom should be advocated, but lies, stealing and collaboration by media with certain quater, should be condemned and be held accountable, if need to be brought to book so be it.
@ Dan
“ANC has point that our media is already controlled forces foreign to us”
Dan is right. Why do you think the U.S. ambassador has come out against the Bill?
In light thereof, I am convinced that the “foreign forces” to which Dan refers is IMPERIALIST in its ambitions, and consists of a coalition of some or all liberals, neo-conservatives, Jews, Freemasons, the Roma, ultra-left tendencies, plus an assortment of bloody agents and bastards!
Thanks.
Pallo Jordan has written an enlightening piece on freedom of the press here:
http://www.anc.org.za/docs/anctoday/2010/at31.htm#art1
In this article he praises freedom of the press more than anything, using interesting references to pioneers of the free press like Thomas Pringle, John Bunyan and more recently Joe Gqabi, Ruth First and Donald Woods, and pointing out the role the ANC played in securing these rights.
I’d like to insert an interesting quote from the article. Pallo Jordan writes the following in defence of freedom of speech:
“Securing the right of the citizen to express whatever opinion he/she subscribes to, as long as the exercise of that right does not harm others, remains among the objectives all South African democrats should pursue. The removal from our statute books of the laws, ordinances, regulations and administrative measures that abridged the rights of South African citizens to receive and to transmit information, which repress the freedom of the media to publish, are among the finest fruits of the democratic transformation that the ANC led and initiated.”
and …
“The value we place on a free, independent and outspoken press in democratic South Africa cannot be overstated. A free press can temper the appetite of any government to amass power at the expense of the citizen. A free press can be the vigilant watchdog of the public interest against the temptations to abuse power.”
It seems to me that Pallo Jordan is very much for freedom of the press in South Africa. What do you think?
Dan, my take on the xenophobia story differs 180 from yours.
IMHO Nathi Mthethwa, Bheki Cele, SAPS, the media and the ngo’s on the ground deserve 9/10 for their handling of the xenophobia threat.
Why is the handling of the issue not a textbook example of
o responsive government
o alert media
o good intelligence properly used
o dedicated ngos on the ground watching the faultlines, showing a lot of foresight
o forceful decisive policing?
The proposed media appeals tribunal (MAT) is receiving “overwhelming support” from South Africans, ANC spokesman Jackson Mthembu said during a debate on the matter in Johannesburg.
http://www.timeslive.co.za/local/article619496.ece/Overwhelming-support-for-MAT–ANC
Dan says:
August 20, 2010 at 14:04 pm
Hey Dan,
Anthea, from the Shapiro piece, would probably have her wish to see better headlines come true if the MAT as envisaged is implemented. Not much in reality would change (maybe things would get worse) but the headlines will probably be less “sickening”. Everybody can then live in their happy corners having convinced ourselves that we have indeed created a better life for all.
David Shapiro: “The headlines make me sick,” exclaimed a harrowed Andrea sitting alongside me at a hairdresser on Saturday morning, “This country has to regress and rediscover its spirituality.”
http://www.timeslive.co.za/opinion/columnists/article619081.ece/Three-strikes-and-were-out
Is this the taste of things to come or is the bill already in action.
http://www.news24.com/SouthAfrica/News/No-closed-meeting-on-SABC-board-20100824
[...] Vos on why the media tribunal is a case of “Boiled chickens pretending to be plumed peacocks”. “Would Media Appeals Tribunal be constitutional?” by Pierre de Vos. The Press Ombudsman’s website, where it publishes all its rulings. Sanef’s [...]
From an objective viewpoint, I don’t disagree with the notion that we need to enter into a debate about the media, or even a tribunal of sorts. Make no mistake, I acknowledge that this is no doutb an attempt by the ruling party to control its image through the current print media (in the least), or to censor dissenting opinion of its failing government (in the most), but objectively, are we not moving towards specialist tribunals administering “specific justice” in professional areas of social and economic life?
If we look at the judicial terrain, we see the Competition Tribunal, the BCCSA, various commissions, etc. The success of the Competition Tribunal and other regualtory commissions has the effect of removing otherwise litigious matters to a more efficient decision-making mechanism.
From a purely practical viewpoint, we all agree that the Courts are slow, laborious and costly, whereas “specific justice” can be achieved through special tribunals.
Divorcing the policital intent of this particular bill, are we not focusing on the wrong issues at hand. Should we not embrace the decentralisation of the judicialary, and look to introduce speedy, robust and cost-efficient “specfic justice” tribunals accross a wider spectrum of litigious areas?
“I do not agree with what you have to say, but I’ll defend to the death your right to say it” Voltaire, I think this is the same attittude that our democracy was based on, and should not be changed just because a few people believe so, at the same time seeking after their own intentions. our democracy is too young to be contradicting itself, and in any way it has been working just fine till now. if thay feel their privacy is being violated then they should not partake in anything to get us talking… but that is just my view. bottom line they are just showing us that they really have something to hide
I do not agree with what happening because we do all need to know about our leaders. it feel so ashamed that in this time of democracy there are some things that happened behind our back. i’m saying this because we are the citizen of this country so why they should limit us to know what they are doing?
Mr de Vos, You only get 11/20 for that article… Lack of cases law, tone inappropriate. But the severe lack of academic tone aside, your article lacks analytical depth, it is mere statement of obvious facts.
x, you idiot. Read the title of the blog, to wit: “This blog deals with political and social issues in South Africa, mostly from the perspective of Constitutional Law”.
I am of the view that the “blog”, as opposed to a scholarly “article”, is well considered, contains valid arguments and reads easy enough so as not to unduly exclude illiterate politicians.
Malema and his buddies probably lie awake at night, masturbating at the idea of the MAP becoming a reality in SA. Pierre puts it far too eloquently, 1) the MAP, if eventually constituted (5% chance) will be a dog without teeth and 2) that old dog will receive more daily beatings (in the form of constitutional challenges) than a red-haired stepchild.
Jeremy,
No one can rationally disagree with your contention that we should -
“embrace the decentralisation of the judicialary (sic), and look to introduce speedy, robust and cost-efficient “spec(i)fic justice” tribunals across a wider spectrum of litigious areas?
To the contrary, our legislature has, since 1994, looked to other jurisdictions internationally and has brought many of these ideas home with various degrees of success, all of which I am certain out performs the antiquated litigation process inherited from Western Europe.
The judiciary must however always retain the judicial oversight role it plays viz these commissions, which reintroduces specialist litigation into the equation unless the “review in chambers” process is introduced, which in itself is flawed.