Maybe I owe an apology to Helen Zille, leader of the Democratic Alliance? I harshly criticised her earlier this year for challenging the constitutionality of the Erasmus commission of enquiry set up by then Premier Ebrahim Rasool, arguing that she appeared shifty and less than honest. I was particularly scathing of her criticism of Judge Erasmus, saying that:
I was rather shocked and surprised to read that Mrs Zille had told a radio station that “some judges allow themselves to be abused and I am afraid Nathan Erasmus is one of them”….Mrs Zille attacked judge Erasmus in very personal terms and accused him of being abused and used by the ANC and did this in a transparent effort to undermine the credibility of the judge and of the Commission that he chairs. This is no different from the ANC Youth League and Young Communist League diatribes and shows a scandalous disregard for our Constitution. If Mrs Zille was really a woman of principle she would, at the very least, have apologised for the comment – yet when given the chance she declined to comment further on the matter.
But today a bench of judges agreed with Zille that Rasool’s motive had in fact been the “improper one” of seeking to embarrass his political opponents, in particular the Democratic Alliance (DA), which leads the city. Judges Kevin Swain and Chris Nicholson, sitting in the Cape High Court, also said the appointment of a serving judge to chair the commission is incompatible with the principle of separation of powers, and is therefore unlawful and invalid.
Luckily I did not comment on the legal validity of Zille’s argument – otherwise I would have had serious egg on my face. However, in as much as my comments might have been interpreted as suggesting she does not have a case, I definitely owe her an apology. The Court, presented with all the facts, found that this Commission was set up with a political motive and thus that Rasool had tried to abuse the judiciary for short term political gain.
I have not had sight of the full judgment yet, so I cannot make an informed comment of the correctness of these findings. But it clearly is a serious slap in the face of Rasool and a vindication of Zille.
But I still feel that it was inappropriate of Zille to criticise Erasmus for agreeing to chair this Commission and that the way she criticised him in a very personal way undermined respect for the judiciary. The Constitutional Court has made it clear that it is not always inappropriate for a judge to sit as a head of a commission of enquiry and without all the facts presented to the Court, it would have been difficult for Erasmus to make a call.
What the judgment seems to suggest is that judges should be very careful before accepting such a position and when in doubt they should decline an offer of heading a Commission of Enquiry. Erasmus might therefore have erred in this regard by not being extra careful.
This might have been a mistake. But I would contend it was also a mistake of Zille not to wait for the Court to make a decision on this matter before suggesting that Erasmus was somehow an ANC lackey. Even where a judge makes such a mistake it is for a Court to decide whether accepting such a position is compatible with the Constitution.
It is not for a politician to cast aspersions on the personal motivations of a judge where he or she is seemingly legally appointed to head a Commission of Inquiry. This kind of personal criticism undermines respect for judges and for the judiciary. Judges are not prevented from heading Commissions of Inquiry and if they are asked to head such a commission they might err in accepting such a position but this does not mean they are political lackeys of a particular politician or party.
So, Helen Zille, apologies. But please, next time think before you personally criticise the motives of a judge even before a Court has made any finding on the appropriateness of such a judge sitting as the head of a Commission of Inquiry.
Well, I guess both Prof De Vos and Mrs Zille should exercise a bit of moderation and self-restraint in future.
Oh, I just saw your contibution to the Bill of Rights Compendium at 3J, I think, sterling work. There have been great developments in that regard and it helps to have an academic perspective that seems rounded and answers some key questions about where the law stands.
Well, well! The professor of constitutional law taught his own trade by the schoolmarm politician? Hubris is SUCH a swine, hey?
Given the finding of the Cape High Court in this matter, what will the net result be? It is all good and well for Helen Zille to have been vindicated in this manner, but what about Rasool? What sort of penalty does this decision carry?
The DA recently reported that litigation for the last three Premiers of the Western Cape has cost the tax payers of this province R 2.6million. That figure excluded this latest round of hearings and litigation.
So, once again, the taxpayers of the Province carry the cost of political malingering. Why is there no accountability for issues such as this?
It seems to me:
That in this and perhaps other instances, contempt for the judiciary is the appropriate position. When judges such as Nathan Erasmus allow themselves to be used for plainly political purposes they dishonour themselves and betray the institution they serve. I wonder what sanction is contemplated for Erasmus?
Let us not forget that it was Nathan Erasmus that displayed his contempt for the South African public by accepting the dubious and clearly illegal appointment that initiated Helen Zille’s comments. Respect needs to be earned.
Pierre – that was a lot of undignified wriggling in a very confined space. Very entertaining.
Zille was proved spot on on all counts and has nothing to apologise about to anyone.
Wow! Prof Pierre you have once again outdone yourself… How many men out there would acknowledge that they were wrong and then apologise, and not only apologise but do so to a woman?
Thank you for being examplary in this regard Prof Pierre…
Well, well well! – so, it is possible for politicians to attempt to manipulate some members of the judiciary to achieve their political objectives AND it is possible for some members of the judiciary to fall into this political trap – what a revelation!
Prof you may have to prepare another apology speech soon!
I also applaud you for your apology. The original at thought leader was the very posting that brought me to your blog (:.
“It is not for a politician to cast aspersions on the personal motivations of a judge where he or she is seemingly legally appointed to head a Commission of Inquiry.”
I agree that Zille could have been more tactful in her choice of words and the way she said it. I also think that from her perspective she had the “inside view”, and if news reports are right, Erasmus was found to have acted improperly at some junctures. So she was vindicated even in terms of her criticism of Erasmus himself; though it could be argued whether she had any real evidence at the time of making her statements, which is why I think she could have been used more restraint in that specific aspect.
I wonder how many people will not accept the outcome of this judgment and whether the race card will come into play with the judges being white.
Bongs
The same could be said for the opposite side of the Hlope saga if that’s what you mean, so would you not need to prepare for one also? If I were to go with probability I’d say the odds are against Hlope, even if just based on the controversy and money trail. (:
What does Erasmus drive?
So much with the sentimentality.
What should be done to effectively stop such waste of of money?
Well spot on Bongs, and I have also argued somewhere that Judges cannot objectively emotio0nally dissociate themselves from their judgment, in other words I argued that Judges are subjective and that for SA Judges to attain credibility they should be transformed otherwise how do you explain Scott-crossly liberty, and the silence of the mostly vocal white media about it, Versus Shaik’s languishing in jail, and the defeaning cries about Shaik’s soft treatment from the same section of the society. This subjectivity and fallibility and pliability of the judiciary to media influence was also witnessed when Judge Hilary Squires went public to dispute the SCA that he never said that there was a ‘generally corrupt relationship between Shaik and Zuma’, but what did the media do they downplayed this!
So Prof, I agree with you that the independence of the judiciary must be respected, but not blindly so because this are fallible beings very much susceptible to even prejudice as was witnessed during ap-arthed with the exception of the Honourable Oliver Schreiner JA.So I say in a skewed society like SA, where the minority still dispenses justice and the majority are at the receiving end-just send Zuma to Court and you will have set in motion and triggered catastrophy for this country becasue the majority wont accept that verdict, I can assure you!
Okay prof that was splendind. I wonder what does Zille think now. Just hoping she does not get all delusional, the judgment and prof’s apology are not a ticket to the Union Buildings( are they still called Union Buildings, what union)
@Bongs I agree with you the prof will have to prepare a million apologies very very soon. I’m lookinghh forward to this. Lets grace ourselves.
Aluta Continua!!!
Oh Boy
Mdu // Sep 2, 2008 at 10:00 am
………………………………………………..
If we could be honest and truthful about it, we would realise that indeed judges, regardless of their training, are not above influences which are extra-judicial. This was alluded to in the judgment in S v Makwanyane where it was stated that “if public opiniom were to be decisive, there would be no need for constitutional adjudication.” Though the quote itself intimates that the influence of the public will not be the decisive factor, it does illustrate that it is indeed one of the factors to be considered when delivering a judgment.
Contextually, we cannot run away from Prof Pierre’s qualification of the apology meant for Mrs. H Zille. Prof indicated that he indeed apologises to Mrs. Zille but still had reservations about the manner in which Mrs. Zille attacked Judge Erasmus. This has also found support from z // Sep 2, 2008 at 9:28 am who intimated that Mrs. Zille could have been more tactful in her choice of words. I could not agree more.
I must, however, stress the point that judges are not at all beyong reproach. However, when one is levelling criticism against a judge, he or she should make sure that such criticism does not escalate into an attack of the judiciary as a whole. Secondly, contextually, it is always advisable to refrain from personally attacking judges. This is necessitated by the office which a judge holds. Imagine how a convicted person would feel after a judgment by the Judge Erasmus after he or she hears that Mrs. Zille uttered remarks to the effect that in making decisions Judge Easmus considers extra-judicial factors which do not have any bearing on the case at hand… S/He would feel that s/he was a victim of our criminal justice system…
On a conclusive note, it is advisable that people, regardless of their positions, but especially those who have an influence on the public, when criticising judgments, should take into consideration the long-term effects of their actions. A simple question to end this post;
Will a DA supporter accept a judgment against him or her delivered by Judge Erasmus after hearing the reckless or at least negligent criticism to which the DA leader Mrs. Helen Zille subjected the reputable judge devoid of thinking that it was politically motivated?
Well I’m kind of ammused that you expect appologies, T & Bongs, because Zille proved there is justice in this country now JZ will get same and then attempt to strengthen it with a subtle threat of majorities indoctrined not to except less than such a favourable outcome. I dispise your way of thinking, because I want to be able to insist on the rights that the constitution promises. Don’t be a dick.
Mdu, Sne, Prof: Judge Erasmus, as Ziller pointed out, was not even acting in his capacity as a judge but as the head of a commision. This is what Helen Zille tried to point out, but it fell on deaf ears.
Erasmus was leading a commision mandated with the task of embarassing the ANC opposition and got a hiding. This is no defeat for Jocob shower for AIDS Zuma
Because the Erasmus Commision is not a court?
Friend, as much as I want to, it is difficult to respond to your disjointed post because I can not follow the logic thereof – let alone your usage of what appears to be vulgar language!
All I’m trying to say is that although I could appreciate someone anticipating a favourable outcome for their team, it’s not nessecarily relevant to another teams victory. There are no simularities between Zille’s resolved matter and JZ’s pending matter except if JZ’s outcome is favourable.
The judges being criticized are sitting judges of the highest court in the land vs. The judge in Zille’s matter wasn’t acting in the capacity of the judiciary. And I promise you nobody owes JZ an appolagy the contrary is true.
Our Last English Chief Justice Orby H. Mootham- ‘When Chief justice Mootham apologized to a litigant’. WHERE ARE THOSE JUDGES?
‘This reminiscences is relate back to the period of about last 50 years from the time of last English Chief Justice Orby H. Mootham, Those were the days’-. Compare it now; Right from the period of the English judges to the present scenario. It has been said that those judges were mature, modest and commanded the respect by their very entry in the courtroom. ‘When Chief justice Mootham apologized to a litigant’. Chief justice Mootham entered the court smilingly, but became tense and pointed out to the Bench Secretary for the impropriety of behavior of a litigant, a gentle man who was sitting in the fifth or sixth row wearing a head-gear. The gentleman has removed his cap. The moment the functioning started, the chief justice regained his usual pleased posture, but the irritation was again visible, when he saw the gentleman recapped his head. However, when the orderly went towards the gentleman he voluntarily removed his cap. This was perhaps by reflexes that he wore the cap once again. The chief justice stopped functioning and asked the court officer to act upon and thereafter the gentleman was asked to leave the courtroom. It was per by chance that one contemporary Advocate went to chief justice’s chamber to make a mention. Justice Gyanendra Kumar was present in Hon’ble Chief justice chamber. The chief justice in a most inimitable style asked, whether he had seen the gentleman, who despite been told not to wear the cap, defied the advice of the bench secretary. The Chief Justice has also said that the gentleman looked a dissent person, but he wandered why he repeatedly wore his cap soon after removing it. Was it by the defiance to authority of the Court?
Justice Gyanendra Kumar, a very pleasant conversationalist, intervened. He said “Chief Justice”, your lordship in the English society, people take off a hat to show courtesy, but we in this country wear a cap to show our respect. Thus the gentleman was only trying to repeat his gesture of respect. The chief justice perhaps never knew it otherwise this was not causing irritation to him. The tall person, the chief justice broke into laugher and asked the bench secretary to trace and bring the gentleman in his chamber. Perhaps the gentleman was still out side the chief justice chamber. As soon as he entered, the chief justice expressed regret to him and pleaded his ignorance that the cap is worn to show respect. Soon, the gentleman after being happy from the reprimand made by the chief justice was again called to request him to be in the courtroom soon after the lunch. Justice Gyanendra Kumar was curious as to why the chief justice was insisting to have the gentleman in court. On being inquired the chief justice Mootham observed:- ” He has been reprimanded in court by me and therefore he deserves an apology from chief justice in the court itself. Later the chief justice apologized in court itself. This has been never seen or heard by any judge about such gesture even to a lawyer when there is no good ground for reprimand.” HOW CAN SUCH A JUDGE, THOUGH HE RETIRED IN 1961 CAN GO OUT OF MEMORY OF THOSE WHO HAVE SEEN HIM WORKING IN COURT AND OUTSIDE”?
There gesture of kindness to the lawyers and courteous dialogues used to blush out of their modesty even if their faces looked red and they were scared in the moment. They entered the courtroom right at 10.00 A.M. never before or a second afterwards. The chief justice was so cordial, warm and affectionate that this was the etiquette of high constitutional functionaries. The unusual dissent conduct with a strange warmth decency of Chief Justice Mootham was continued to remember even after his death to heavenly abode from this world.
“Every Act and every inquiry and similarly every action and pursuit, given by him was thought to aim at some good, and for this reason, the good has rightly been declared, to be that, at which all things aim. But a certain difference is found among ends”. For him “For best was he who knows all things himself good, he that hearkens when men counsel right. But he who neither knows, nor lays to heart another wisdom, is a useless night”.
“Life is a shylock; always it demands. The fullest usurer’s interests for each pleasure Gifts are not freely scattered by its hand. We made returns for every borrowed treasurer. Each talent, each achievement and every gain me necessitated some penalty to pay. All you bestow on causes or on men of love or hate of malice or devotion somehow and sometime shall be returned again. There is no waste toil, no lost emotion. The motto of the world is to give and take. It gives you favour out of sheer goodwill but unless a speedy recompense you make you will find yourself presented with its bill”. “Competition is a struggle for existence because there is always be survival of the fittest”.
Justice Raghubar Dayal, an Advocate has written this that he open his submissions by using a phrase from the privy council’s judgement without referring to it. He said that the learned District Judge has carved out an new case for which no place was found in pleading! Justice Raghubar Dayal did not open the file and remarked – if counsel have learned to use this kind of language so early in life, he would land himself in disaster. Advocate immediately apologized. He said that he has escaped his lordship wrath and will have a chance before another judge, but justice Dayal said to him that he might present in the courtroom at 10.00 A.M. as this case will be taken as part heard case. Justice Dayal was tensed and his earlier day’s annoyance was apparent. Advocate said that he was relying Privy Council judgement where the judicial committee has used the same language. He said that he was conscious that he did not know English to well, yet he use such word, which were used by Privy Council. Justice Dayal admitted the appeal, but refuse to exercise discretion for staying the decree for demolition. He has written that his indiscreet use of language cause lost to his client. The house of the client was demolished but Advocate has written that he has repented this incident through out his life as to find out where he was wrong. Justice Raghubar Dayal, who retired in 1960 as the judge of Supreme Court, still had the great respect from Advocate, as he never committed such mistake through out his life.
With regard to Justice and injustice to an individual’s opinion assessments, we must consider the kind of action. It’s means and the justness for considering its effect and solution. Thus the justice is always represent in corresponding sense. An advocate’s world is to convey the idea generated through such experiences with the same precision Ideologically some time antagonistic to his own opinion, but from its very inception of the correct analysis of his perceptions with the desire, aptitude and knowledge in adequate representations. This is a heterogeneous conglomeration of disparate and desperate interests designed mainly hedge against common enemy on both the constituents. .The cultivation of moral foundations is called our cultural heritage.
Yogesh Kumar Saxena
Advocate, High Court
H.I.G.203, Preetam Nagar, Sulem sarai, Allahabad-211001
yogrekha@gmail.com, yogrekha@rediffmail.com, yogrekha@yahoo.co.in
Founder President- World Citizenship Group Foundation, Swami vevekanand world ethical foundation,
Executive Member- World Parliament Experiment conference 2008 at Bonn (Germany),
Vice President- Geeta Asharam International Cheritable Trust, Rishikesh, Pauri Garhwal
Ex Vice President- Advocate’s Association, High Court, Allahabad
Special Counsel/ officer, Ganga Pollution Matter, High Court, Allahabad
Bongs // Sep 2, 2008 at 2:39 pm
………………………………………………….
Mahle aphuma endodeni…
(I could not have said it better…)
I would want to read this judgment at the earliest possible opportunity. Judges who sit in commissions should only be required to do so within constitutional limitations. They do not sit there as courts of law. The fact that other judges are now required to determine a matter that is being handled by their colleague is not ideal. In Mauritius a judge chairing a commission of inquiry was taken on review before another judge for his conduct during the inquiry with the sad result that one judge had to determine the rationality and reasonableness of his colleague’s conduct.
I hope no Zuma fanatic will say one of the judges in this matter is a DA man when judgement is delivered in PMB soon!
A very good point Mdu. I want to read the Scott-Crossley judgement as soon as I can. If it is as I imagine that he was only proven to be an accessory after the fact then there is little the courts can do. As I understand it, the state cannot conclusively (or beyond reasonable doubt) prove that Scott-Crossley was the one who killed his ex-employee. What he did do, with certainty, was feed him to the lions.
I understand that this is wrong on a number of levels and it really doesn’t instill confidence in our fellow man but the law is the law. It cannot regard that act too differently form dumping a corpse into a river, ocean or burying it.
And I think that it is Prof De Vos who will be owed an apology. Let the struggle for honesty and decency continue, let that be our weapon that we use to better society. especially against those armed with baby oil, shower caps and pulsating showers.
That was the worst apology I’ve ever come across! Since when should someone curtail their freedom of speech to the extent you suggest in order to satisfy your subjective sense of ethical public discourse.
Thank goodness we are free to speak our minds without checking with you first!
Next time stick to; “I’m sorry.”
Mdu
“the mostly vocal white media about it”
Which white media would that be? And here I thought the majority of editors were not white? Or are we talking coconuts?
“becasue the majority wont accept that verdict”
Which majority would that be? The 60% of delegates of paid up members of 70% of the country? That’s less than 42% of the country!
Ok so let’s estimate the percentage of the 70% support who are paid up members of the ANC, I’ll make aliberal guess at 60% then we are looking at 60% of 42% which is around 25%.
In Cape Town in contrast to the 5000 (for the first day) in KZN, something like 100 people turned out for the Zuma court case protest a month ago. Wow! I seriously overestimated them.
That some of them are militant I won’t deny. And that militant people often make big trouble I won’t dispute. But majority, now that’s hard to prove!
Just because you’re vocal doesn’t mean it’s a majority view. Right on that point Mpho?
Samaita – go to
http://www.saflii.org/cgi-bin/search.pl
and search under the CPD decisions. If the judgment is anywhere to be found, it should be there.
Nkululeko – the Scott-Crosley judgment has been publisghed in the SACR a long time ago already. Go read it there
I have to agree with llluvator’s comment on this one.
Z and Lilly, I am not going to engage with you on numbers(perentages) as I am not the intellectual-num eric-far-removed-from-the-ground-type of an attorney, but remember what happened to the academic type of people in Polokwane-they were astonished and even asked weren’t they told people’s representative were not happy, so again I say next year’s election will prove that I was right about the majority!
Z and Lilly, I am not going to engage with you on numbers(perentages) as I am not the intellectual-num eric-far-removed-from-the-ground-type of an attorney, but remember what happened to the academic type of people in Polokwane-they were astonished and even asked why weren’t they told people’s representative were not happy, so again I say next year’s election will prove that I was right about the majority!
This is a re-post:
Samaita – go to
http://www.saflii.org/cgi-bin/search.pl
and search under the CPD decisions. If the judgment is anywhere to be found, it should be there.
Nkululeko – the Scott-Crosley judgment has been publisghed in the SACR a long time ago already. Go read it there
Illuvatar // Sep 2, 2008 at 8:41 pm
……………………………………………………
Lilly Web // Sep 3, 2008 at 10:23 am
………………………………………………………..
The way Illuvator has phrased his post and Lilly Web’s subsequent approval thereof devoid of any qualification is lamentable.
It is not in dispute that we should all be allowed to exercise our right to freedom of expression and opinion. This is a Constitutional right; see section 16 of the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa, 1996.
However, as a corollary of our exercise of that right, there is a corresponding duty to respect other rights. This means that the right to freedom of expression and opinion is, just like all other rights, not an unlimited right; it is subject to the limitation in terms of subsection (2) of section 16 (internal limitation) and also to section 36 of the Constitution (the limitation clause). The grounds for limiting the right to freedom of expression and opinion are clearly spelt out in section 16 and section 36 and will therefore not be re-iterated here.
Contextually, Prof Pierre was not contravening Mrs. Helen Zille’s right to freedom of expression and opinion but he was merely taking note of the fact that in the exercise of her right, she must consider other people’s rights, notably that of Judge Erasmus.
What, in my opinion, caused Prof Pierre to write against Mrs. Zille’s utterances was the fact that her utterances did not merely amount to the exercise of her freedom of expression and opinion but extended to allegations of Judge Erasmus being the lackey of the ANC. This was not only calculated, in the sense of its consequences, to tarnish Judge Erasmus’ reputation as a judge and as a human being, but it was also an attack on the judiciary itself from a pragmatic point of view notwithstanding that Judge Erasmus was acting in his capacity as the head of the commission and not as a judge.
In my view, Mrs. Helen Zille should have disputed the legality of the commission and the legality of the acceptable as head of the commission by Judge Erasmus and point out her reasons for doing so without attacking the learned judge and alleging that he was the lackey of the ANC. The latter allegation was not proved in court and so Mrs. Zille may still face a civil action for impairing the dignity of the judge by saying he is the lackey of the ANC.
Lastly, viewed from this angle, the apology by Prof Pierre to Mrs. Helen Zille was just a matter of professional courtesy to her as a politician whose life depends on her reputation… In any case, the Prof can be said here to have acted in a fair and reasonable manner. Well done once again Prof Pierre…
It becomes a problem when emptists attempt to engage in matters that they have no knowlegde of . No ANC member is a hooligan, and the ANC is not a circus where people express their emotions by uttering absolutely nonsense. The person who has commented about the number of people tha turned out in JZ’s case is an absolute cloun who does know what he is talking about But then people of this nature are supposed to be given amnesty and God will then forgive them. I was there in the night vigil of JZ’s case and the whole of PMB was on its toes. Thousands of people showed up to give support to the president of the ANC ans soon to be President of the country, who has been unfairly treated by the Constitutional court or is it the judges who when they are in those sheebens they discuss the future of the case of Cde President. I will request that people ask questions about JZ ‘s case and how it reached this stage and i will tell tou the truth that your President Cde T. Mbeki is the brain behind this plot and justice one dat will prevail once he steps down from that seat.!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Can I propose a Zuma deal:
Zuma charges are dropped.
Zuma drops from the race for the State Presidency.
As they say in Mafia, “everyone is happy!”
Sne, beautifull, although I doubt if the judge will run to the court if someone called him names, you’re still right, he could. In which case the Ziller could provide the dictionary discription af the word: “Obedient follower, somebody who is excessively willing to obey another’s orders”. If I weren’t so scared of being lackey of certain things, I’d be married.
Samaita // Sep 3, 2008 at 11:27 am
……………………………………………………….
Definately no deal!!!
This case will serve, from a practical point of view, to show that everyone is subject to the law. If Zuma is to be the President of this country, he must show respect for the law and that means that the law applies to him just like it applies to everyone. His supporters must also show respect for the law. If Zuma’ s charges could be dropped just because his supporters say so, who else will be prosecuted?
This will go a long a way towards making South Africa a “pure democracy” as opposed to a “constitutional democracy”. As I have alluded to in this blog. The reaosn why we decided to make the Constitution the supreme law of the country (see section 2 thereof) is because we wanted the Constitution and not Parliament to be supreme. We do not want the government by the majority at the expense of the minority. The minority forms part of South Africa and the interests thereof must be protected also. That means that Zuma will not act with impunity just because he has supporters to demand that his charges be dropped. If they wish to do so then they must approach the court just like Mrs. Helen Zille and have the court declare the charges against him malicious and an abuse of the administration of justice with a view to kill his political career.
Until such time as the court makes that order, the police force will be used to maintain order while a competent court tries Zuma! This is the South African law and fortunately Mr. J Zuma is not immunue to it! He will earn my respect as an innocent man after being declared not guilty by such competent court. As to my respect as the President of this country, I do not want to go there. I will just quote my colleague above;
Samaita // Sep 3, 2008 at 11:27 am
……………………………………………………….
“Zuma drops from the race for the State Presidency.”
This morning I heard Prof commenting on SAFM about a magistrate who has apparently filed an affidavit in the pending Zuma review application wherein the magistrate is impugning the intergrity of Billy Downer SC as a lead prosecutor in the Zuma matter. I thought by now Prof would have posted something on this important development.
The details are scanty at this stage and I doubt the relevance of the Honourable Magistrate’s affidavit in the Zuma matter – but this is another indication of how polluted and divisive Zuma’s prosecution has become-even amongst the members of the judiciary!!!
Bongs – I’ve also heard that on the Afrikaans news (RSG) at lunch today. A total ‘nitwit’, that guy. Apparently he says that he can demonstate to the court how Billy Downer SC has in the past dishonestly manipulated or fabricated evidence to obtain a favourable outcome for the prosecution in other cases. Quite some nerve this guy has, to accuse a Senior Consultus of dishonesty. If I were in Billy Downer’s shoes, I’d sue the pants off him. The magistrates Commission should act against him swiftly and decisively, because it is unethical and amounts to misconduct of a serious nature if a magistrate (even if he is an admitted advocate) becomes involved in the defence or prosecution of any case outside his line of duty. A magistrate may not even act on a pro amico basis, not even for someone in a disciplinary hearing. I wonder whether this guy has thought his actions through carefully. It would have been a different thing for him altogether if he merely gave the information he had to Zuma’s Counsel to pursue, and he could have been called as a witness. But for him to become involved as a legal representative or a legal adviser (so-called ‘friend of the court’), is preposerous to say the least. (Wonder if he is related to Zehir Omar, who also applied to be admitted as a so-called ‘friend of the court’ in circumstances where he could rather be seen as a ‘foe to justice’?) I think, he might be one of those who aspire to become a CC judge under the Zuma regime, one of the innuendo’s hanging in the air in the Hlophe thing. That would perfectly explain this kind of conduct.
mouse = lindelani??
Pierre, let me correct you: yes, you do have egg on your face. Lots of it.
And you don’t need to wait for a professional biologist to test it first and to tell you that all that slimy yellow stuff on your face is indeed egg.
If it looks like egg, feels like egg and tastes like egg, it’s probably egg.
Eish z! Can I have a calculator before I respond?
Peter // Sep 4, 2008 at 10:34 pm
mouse = lindelani??
Almost I think!
Anonymous = the person who can write a coherent sentence that sometimes proof reads and ghost writes for Lindelani
Peter et Mpho
Anonymous // Sep 3, 2008 at 11:15 am = Not me (possibly, or even probably, lindelani)
Anonymouse // Sep 4, 2008 at 2:07 pm = Me
See further my comments on “Calling the Magistrates Commission” above.
Pierre, perhaps you don’t know that Judge Nathan Erasmus chairs the Western Cape Province’s Provincial Awards and Honours Committee and has done so since at least 2001. Presumably he had frequent meetings with Premier Rasool in connection with this aspect of the Western Cape Province’s functions during his tenure as Chairman of the Erasmus Commission?
Gingerbread Man – Is that why your foot has been broken off?