When is a lawyer not a “fit and proper” person and when does a lawyer not have “integrity”? If, say, a lawyer had deliberately misled an Inquiry set up by a previous President in terms of legislation, if that lawyer had drafted a letter that contained an unlawful instruction to the head of an independent body and had thus probably commited a criminal offense, if that lawyer was humiliated and his credibility absolutely destroyed under cross examination during the Inquiry, is that lawyer still a fit and proper person with integrity – as long as the President and the Minister of Justice say so?
Apparently that is what President Jacob Zuma and his lawyers believe. They contend that when our President says that somebody is “fit and proper” and is a man of integrity – regardless of the objective, proven, facts – it is legally true. In his answering affidavit in the case challenging the appointment of the purported National Director of Public Prosecutions (NDPP), Menzi Simelane, President Jacob Zuma argues that the requirements – set out in the National Prosecuting Authority Act – that the NDPP must be a fit and proper person (and hence must be a person of integrity), are subjective requirements not capable of determination by court of law.
In the following astonishing passage the President seems to reveal a disturbing belief that he IS the state and is thus not bound by the requirements of the law that are explicitly made applicable to him.
Whether a person is fit and proper to be entrusted with the responsibilities of the office concerned is my subjective decision. I am the person, as the President of the Republic, to be satisfied that the person is fit and proper. In doing so I have to take cognisance of his/her experience, conscientiousness and integrity.
This is so absurd and laughable (but also dangerously anti-democratic) that I am quite surprised that any lawyer would have risked ridicule and humiliation by offering it up in all seriousness to a court of law. The requirements set out in the NPA Act that the NDPP must be a fit and proper person and hence a person of integrity, are clearly NOT subjective in nature.
There might be room for debate about whether a person is fit and proper and has integrity, but the principle of legality – which is part of the Rule of Law – requires the President to comply with these requirements set out in the Act. The President cannot have an absolute authority to decide what these requirements should mean because then the requirements would become irrelevant and the law would make no sense. Then we have rule by dictate and not by Parliament.
To hold otherwise – as the President and his lawyers want to do – would mean the President could appoint a mass murderer as NDPP. He could appoint someone who has defrauded thousands of South Africans out of their money, who has raped his wife, who had issued fraudulent cheques or had been involved in gang activities and drug running. The assertion by the President is that any such person would be legally fit and proper merely because he says so! This is not only wrong, it is also scary. Who think up these arguments? Clearly people with a very tenuous grip on reality and no grip on the law.
What is required is to ask from the objective standpoint of a reasonable and informed person, whether there will be a perception that the NDPP is not fit and proper and is not a man of integrity. Bearing in mind the diversity in our society this means that the perception here must be based on all relevant material information: we must ask how things appear to a well-informed, thoughtful and objective observer, rather than the hypersensitive, cynical and suspicious person.
The well-informed, thoughtful and objective observer must be sensitive to the country’s complex social realities, in touch with its evolving patterns of constitutional development, and guided by the Constitution, its values and the differentiation it makes between different institutions and the need for the NDPP to act without fear, favour or prejudice (in other words, the need that the NDPP should act honestly and with integrity and not like a mafioso or a gangster).
Using this test – and not the subjective one offered by the President and his lawyers – Simelane’s appointment can surely not be said to have been lawful. This we know from the Ginwala Inquiry and the subsequent report later used by the government to justify the unlawful firing of Vusi Pikoli. (It had to pretend that Inquiry made a finding it never did to achieve this result, but it did claim at the time that it was relying on the factual findings on the Ginwala report and therefore never disputed the accuracy of the findings in the Ginwala Report – the same report it now says it is allowed to ignore.)
The President claims that everything that happened at the Ginwala Inquiry and the Report produced by Ginwala can be ignored by him because this was not a judicial commission of Enquiry but merely “a fact-finding exercise”. He does not claim that Ginwala got it wrong. Neither could he claim this, as Simelane had a chance to give his side of the story before the Inquiry and was then cross-examined by a competent lawyer who proceeded to expose him as a fraud and a liar. So the President is really claiming that he can ignore both the law and the facts – as clearly established by a legal Inquiry – because he is exercising an Executive function and because the body that made the factual findings was not judicial in nature.
This is sophistry of the highest order. The fact that the President is offering these arguments means either that he and his lawyers are so ignorant and hubristic that they think they will get away with it, or that they have realized that they are in deep trouble and that the purported appointment of Simelane cannot be defended on factual and legal grounds at all.
But let us recall why Simelane is not a man of integrity and why he is thus not fit and proper and could therefore not have been appointed lawfully as NDPP by the President.
Ginwala found that Simelane deliberately withheld legal opinions from Adv Pikoli and the Inquiry. By persisting in this conduct he misled the Inquiry. Let me quote from the Report (and remember, no one has disputed the factual accuracy of these findings – not because they were lazy but because they can’t dispute the facts, many of them admitted to by Simelane under cross-examination).
It is unacceptable that the DG: Justice elected not to heed the legal advice that he sought and obtained from senior counsel relating to the relationship between his office and the NPA. The legal advice furnished to him clearly shows that his accounting responsibilities over the NPA were limited and did not extend to the areas of responsibility that he claimed. Not only did he ignore this legal advice; he did not share it with Adv Pikoli and he also did not disclose it to the Enquiry when it was his responsibility to do so – not even after it was requested. He attempted to suppress the disclosure of the information that was of significance to the work of this Enquiry. He only acknowledged the existence of these legal opinions when they were presented to him by Adv Pikoli’s legal representatives during his cross examination.
And later on in the Report this:
I must also state that I have found the conduct of the DG: Justice highly irregular. His failure to include all the relevant material at his disposal in the original submission by Government was not consonant with the responsibilities of a senior state official furnishing information to an investigative enquiry established by the President. He had a duty to place all relevant information before the Enquiry. His testimony before the Enquiry was also not particularly helpful to me; his evidence was contradictory and I found him to be arrogant and condescending in his attitude towards Adv Pikoli.
Later on the Ginwala Report says the following about Simelane:
The DG: Justice did not heed the legal advice he had sought and received, and continued to assert powers he did not have. His personal view informed the complaints against Adv Pikoli that formed part of Government’s submissions to the Enquiry. For that reason he made statements in his evidence in chief that he was forced to retract under cross examination.
It was also only during his cross examination that it emerged that the DG: Justice prepared the letter dated 18 September 2007 from the Minister to Adv Pikoli. It is in this letter that the Minister requires Adv Pikoli to supply her with all the information that Adv Pikoli relied upon to take the legal steps to effect the arrest of and the preference of charges against the National Commissioner of Police. The letter prepared by the DG: Justice did not conform to the request from the President to the Minister dated 17 September 2007. I point out elsewhere in the report that the literal reading of the letter conveys a meaning that Adv Pikoli was to stop any plan to arrest and prosecute the National Commissioner of Police until the Minister was satisfied that there was sufficient information and evidence to do so. The Minister has since on affidavit said that it was not her intention to stop Adv Pikoli from discharging his duties or performing his functions as the NDPP. Assuming this is correct, the conduct of the DG: Justice in drafting the document in the manner it reads was reckless to say the least. The DG: Justice should have been acutely aware of the constitutional protection afforded to the NPA to conduct its work without fear, favour or prejudice. The contents of the letter were tantamount to executive interference with the prosecutorial independence of the NPA, which is recognised as a serious offence in the Act.
And yet later Ginwala further demonstrates why Simelane is not a man of integrity and hence that no reasonable person would be able to conclude that he is fit and proper:
I must express my displeasure at the conduct of the DG: Justice in the preparation of Government’s submissions and in his oral testimony which I found in many respects to be inaccurate or without any basis in fact and law. He was forced to concede during cross-examination that the allegations he made against Adv Pikoli were without foundation. These complaints related to matters such as the performance agreement between the DG: Justice and the CEO of the NPA; the NPA’s plans to expand its corporate services division; the DSO dealing with its own labour relations issues; reporting on the misappropriation of funds from the Confidential Fund of the DSO; the acquisition of new office accommodation for NPA prosecutors; and the rationalisation of the NPA.
All these complaints against Adv Pikoli were spurious, and are rejected without substance, and may have been motivated by personal issues. With regard to the original Government submission, many complaints were included that were far removed in fact and time from the reasons advanced in the letter of suspension, as well as the terms of reference. This further reflects the DG: Justice’s disregard and lack of appreciation and respect for the import for an Enquiry established by the President.
With these undisputed factual findings in the public domain one thing emerges quite clearly. When the President appointed Simelane he appointed him despite the fact that Simelane was not fit and proper as required by the law. If the President is a reasonable person, he deliberately flouted the requirements of the law. If he is not a reasonable person it must mean that he appointed Simelane for an ulterior purpose. We all know what that ulterior purpose might be.
No wonder President Zuma and his lawyers had to embarrass themselves by making absurd and untenable legal and factual assertions in this answering affidavit. When one starts on the road of unlawfulness and deceit, it is sometimes difficult to keep one’s story straight.
this topic of semalane is now exhausted, it came several times on this blog in various forms,i mean if we follow your logic even pikoli would not be suitable since he lied about browse mole, does intergrity mean some one should be a priest.
Kenneth, you grovellng ANC/Zuma apologist, do you not have a jot of integrity yourself that you try here – in the face of an impeccable argument by Pierre – to defend that odious little creep Simelane and his advocate, the putative multiple fraudster, adulterer, fornicator and liar, Zuma?
If you want to contradict this article, come with something substantive. Until Simelane is fired and/or locked up, the subject is never exhausted.
If the president incorrectly understood the qualifying criteria for the NDPP when appointing Simelane, is that not in itself a ground for setting aside the decision?
Kenneth: the only exhaustion here is that of the people who are losing hope in the judiciary and government. The real struggle in SA is about right and wrong, Would you perhaps have an understanding of this beyond your own selfish and special interests?
So many ANC cadres post on various blogs, stating: “Zuma is President! We the ANC rule. Live with it!” In retort I say: “Simelane, corruption, and service delivery failure is a miserable reality. The public and citizenry are not going to let the issue fade away, or you the ANC to get away with it forever. Live with that!”
Kenneth, your argument beggars belief. If we accept that prosecutorial independence is a vital aspect of our constitutional democracy and that that independence is as robust as the people who staff the NPA, then as Graham rightly says, until someone competent to the task at hand replaces that snake Simelane, this topic cannot be exhausted.
As it happens, I recently read some sentiments expressed by Arthur Chaskalson. His claim, as I read it, was that even seemingly small incursions into the rule of law and subversions of core institutions are intolerable. And implicit in his very wise cautionary note is the view that the eminently sensible appeals for jealous protection of our core institutions are not the problem here. Rather, the problem stems from your brand of democratic apathy and wrongheadedness.
Kenneth is one of those who allow loyalty to obscure reality and blind his judgment instead of dealing with facts. How long must we live with injustices. First Ncquka & McCarthy were used as scapegoat to drop Zuma case under the disguise of conspiracy despite ovwrwhelmin evidence and the fact that these two were only allegedly discussing the timing. You tell me if I steal and in my company I am campaigning to be the CEO and I overheard the NDPP discussing the timing of my arrest does that amount to conspiracy warranting the dropping of the charge? Secondly Simelane a declared dishonest, a man who lacks integrity and exposed as having no knowledge of the operations of the NPA particularly its independence, we are told is fit & proper to be NDPP.
The arrogance has no end!!
God was by toe die ANC gebore is, en dít is wat die regerende party van ander partye onderskei.
Só het pres. Jacob Zuma gister hier gesê toe hy ’n skare van sowat 15 000 mense op ’n nasionale biddag vir voorspoed met WB 2010 toegespreek het.
http://www.dieburger.com/Suid-Afrika/Nuus/God-was-by-ANC-se-geboorte-s%C3%AA-Zuma-20100520
puleng
you either forgetful of you do not read at all, at the time of discussion about the timing of arrest, bulelani was not part of NPA, basically the outsider who wanted his wife to be the president of south africa planned and discussed the timing, and that is just the info which was recorded, there was more info on the meetings they had which you do not have,
my advise to you is to vote for the party with intergrity of which will elect a man of intergrity (all white male), and those who are not white will serve you best by building you toilets without walls and or detroying the churches while supporting shebeens.
Just imagine the jews 15 years after holocaust, being called stupid for voting their jewish party instead of NAZI, there is a little difference between DA and NP,since all the strategists of NP are now playing the biggest rule on DA.and are told that we have freedom of expression as long as we do not critisize DA.
Kenneth: you seem to have a warped view of reality. Do you actually think that Jewish support of the Nazi’s would have saved them, please.
It all comes down to one issue. The gap between rich and poor; the true and meaningful rights and opportunities for the masses of SA are possible. Your ANC is not giving this any real signifigance. Taxpayers money, and scoff if you wish, are nevertheless paying for services, along with their prayers, that the poor be uplifted. We all know that without their upliftment this country will continue to fail as a developing state. On practical terms, their continued poverty is a threat to us all, not just the ANC. You are failing everyone. Racism has little to do with it. You are government, you manage or not. And for most of us… you are not!
Apart from that, what greater duty is their than to truly uplift your brothers and sisters? In my view there are more whites concerned with the state of the poor than anyone we see in government.
@ Kenneth
“this topic of semalane is now exhausted…”
Your submission bro is really ludicrous. Simelane is STILL the head of NPA! Pres Jacob Zuma, the man who appointed him, is STILL saying in an AFFIDAVIT that Simelane qualifies under the Act to be the head! The matter is STILL before the court of law!
Do the maths…
Pierre, you’re standing with your finger in the dyke (not the one from the porn site – the other one).
There can be no doubt that prosecutorial independence is a vital aspect of our constitutional democracy and that the NDPP must be a fit and proper person but surely our constitutional democracy can not remain standing while the other pillars that it rests on crumble one after the other. The Judicial Service Commission has lost its credibility to enforce the independence and autonomy of the judiciary while our dodgy former Public Protector now heads the Human Rights Commission. The Gender Commission is under administration because of financial mismanagement and how impartial is our Broadcasting Authority really? What’s more, have you ever heard anything from the Commission for the Protection of the Rights of Cultural, Religious and Linguistic Communities?
Antjie Krog said something recently that is well worth pondering: “The more whites support something like the constitution, the less legitimate it becomes in the eyes of the majority”.
Well at least you’re putting up a good fight. I’m not holding my breath.
@ Pierre.
“I am quite surprised that any lawyer would have risked ridicule and humiliation by offering it up in all seriousness to a court of law.”
LOL!
Maybe you should mingle with lawyers sometimes.
Sine says:
May 21, 2010 at 18:27 pm
Kenneth is wrong that the topic is exhausted – it probably won’t ever be.
He is probably also wrong on his interpretation of integrity – while it’s not so clear cut, lying to the Ginwala Commission ought to be interpreted as lacking in integrity.
However there are some valid inferred and direct points that he makes.
Integrity is glossed over by the usual suspects when the person whose integrity ought to be interrogated is likable – likable usually being someone who is anti-ANC, anti-Zuma or pro opposition.
Sirjay seems to be annoyed by ANC supporters saying “Zuma is President! We the ANC rule. Live with it!” – Zuma is President, the ANC does rule and South Africans have to live with it. Until the next general election that is (a point that Kenneth makes).
@ Maggs
Devoid of agreeing with you that Kenneth has also made ‘points’, I submit that he needs to learn to use more tact when making ‘points’ next time.
Ngobeni is going to classify this sort of thing in the future then Pierre will have to go to jail for 25 years if and when he reports on it.
Sine says:
May 21, 2010 at 22:27 pm
Hey Sne,
Kenneth ought to moderate his comments – the essence does get lost because of how he tries to make his points.
Beyond that, look at the other comments about Kenneth’s rather crude posts – they turned on Kenneth as Gregory Rockman once said, “like a pack of wild dogs”.
I do find the Antjie Krog quote “The more whites support something like the constitution, the less legitimate it becomes in the eyes of the majority” – now that it has been articulated so and if it is true then the majority have a very valid perception which I hadn’t thought about in that way.
Maggs quotes Krog: “The more whites support something like the constitution, the less legitimate it becomes in the eyes of the majority”
Krog and Kenneth are right.
I have always suspected that the Constitution a document with a white tendency that was imposed by liberal agents (or bastards, perhaps.)
The Boers basked in 50 years of unconstrained parliamentary sovereignty. Who would begrudge the majority of our people a few decades of legislative license?
A “progress report – with promises of a new clinic, water facilities and street lights – was delivered to the residents” of Balfour by our President.
There’s no bread, let them eat progress reports!
And meanwhile back at the ranch, “(f)ormer public protector Lawrence Mushwana sidestepped financial regulations by approving his own bonus and a R6.8 million golden handshake, former colleagues have alleged”.
Now there’s a matter to take to the Public Protector!
This oke is fit and proper!
—————————————————————————————————
“On Thursday, the Senate passed historic Wall Street reform. This movement proved again that the strongest special interests, who for so long have called the shots in Washington, can be beat.
When opponents in Congress tried to block the legislation altogether, you stood up — and they backed down. When the lobbyists pushed for loopholes and exemptions just before a final vote, you did not relent — and we fought them off.
Your support brought us to this day — and, because of that, we’re poised to implement sensible reforms that will provide a stronger foundation for economic growth.
Now, the House and Senate must iron out their differences before I can sign it into law. But the financial industry will not give up. They have already spent more than $1 million per member of Congress, lobbying on this issue. And in the coming days, they will go all in. This is their last shot to stall, weaken, or kill reform, and they are not accustomed to losing.
But this movement has you — and together, we have beaten the special interests before.
Every American has a stake in this bill.
If you have ever been treated unfairly by a credit card company, this reform works for you — never again will Americans be duped by fine print or hidden fees.
If you ever try to take out a home loan or student loan, this reform works for you — putting an end to predatory and deceptive lending practices.
And, if you or your small business relies on credit from community banks that are being punished for playing by the rules while their competitors do not, this reform works for you — reining in the big banks and making sure all our lenders are subject to tough oversight.
These reforms would put in place the strongest consumer financial protections in history. And, by helping safeguard our economy from recklessness on Wall Street, it would ensure that a crisis like the one that caused this recession never happens again.
This is not a zero-sum game where Wall Street loses and Main Street wins. As we have learned, in today’s economy, we are all connected. When the economy prospers, we all win. Senators of both parties recognize that fact, and that is why lawmakers stood up to the lobbyists and worked across the aisle to ensure that Wall Street reform passed.
But this fight is not yet over. And it is up to us to overcome this final test and pass reform into law. When we do, the power of this movement to make change in Washington — despite the best efforts of the special interests — will no longer be up for debate.
Thank you,
President Barack Obama”
Thanks Maggs. I agree with your submission on Kenneth. For instance, I tend to lose interest in posts which are worded in language which does not embrace the values enshrined in the Constitution, in particular, dignity, or which is condescending; Brett would agree with me on this score.
Back to the main issue, Prof’s article is spot on…
Wow, what a moving speech from Pres Obama! I am deeply moved… Thanks once again Maggs.
Maggs — Yes, so inspiring to hear the words of a U.S. President who boasts of killing many more people in Pakistan (using drone-launched missiles), than even Bush achieved!
(Pierre, so enthused about Obama’s candidacy, has had nothing much about the U.S. President recently.)
Thank you very much.
Maggs and Sine are wrong.
I applaud Kenneth for his forthright insights.
He is unrestrained by liberal circumlocution!
Mikhail Dworkin Fassbinder says:
May 22, 2010 at 21:21 pm
Obama boasts of killing Pakistani people?
You lie!
Your hatred of Black people has taken you to greater depths of depravity than I imagined you were capable of.
Sorry Maggs, but in this rare instance, MDF has it about right.
I don’t think anyone disputes that civilian deaths in Pakistan caused by CIA strikes are way up since Obama took office.
Sadly, the President took the opportunity to make a joke about the civilian casualties he is, as Commander in Chief, responsible for.
See
http://www.daily.pk/obama%E2%80%99s-joke-about-predator-drones-backfires-17245/
Michael Osborne says:
May 23, 2010 at 9:38 am
Hey Michael,
It’s insensitive at worst (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WWKG6ZmgAX4) – worse than the Mrs Reagan thing.
But “boasts of killing many more people in Pakistan (using drone-launched missiles), than even Bush achieved” is just a “Black” lie!
Certainly, I have heard Obama supporters (defending him against Republican attacks that he has no coherent anti-terror policy), making a big deal about the elevated CIA drone attacks in Pakistan.
But beyond the rhetoric, what about the fact, as such, that Obama has launched many more drone attacks in Pakistan that ever Bush did? Does that not bother you just a little bit?
(I restrain myself from asking Pierre – who was positively giddy about Obama’s candidacy — to explain why it is that Obama has still not closed Guantanamo.)
Maggs is right.
Who could begrudge Obama having a little fun — by telling the White House Correspondents dinner that the thing about drones is that “you never see them coming”?
I suspect that even the mothers, brothers and sisters of those killed by the US bombs on Obama’s watch would have chuckled. Sadly, though, none were invited.
Michael Osborne says:
May 23, 2010 at 11:05 am
War or violence of any sort, for any reason bothers me.
It’s horrifying that people are planning or have planned violent attacks in South Africa during the world cup – we are after all, probably the most peace loving nation on Earth (notwithstanding the corrupt Arms deals).
It’s a discussion that I will avoid – I am not sufficiently informed.
But “boasts of killing many more people in Pakistan (using drone-launched missiles), than even Bush achieved” is just a “Black” lie!
Maggs, I am curious: Did the fact that you were “not sufficiently informed” ever stop you from criticising Bush’s armed foreign policy?
Mikhail Dworkin Fassbinder says:
May 23, 2010 at 11:21 am
Hey Dworky – support your statement that Obama “boasts of killing many more people in Pakistan (using drone-launched missiles), than even Bush achieved”.
I stand by what I said earlier – you lie!
Any opportunity to undermine Black people will do.
And when there’s none, make some up as you just did.
Michael Osborne says:
May 23, 2010 at 11:31 am
If you refer to the Iraq war in particular then my response is no.
For my purposes there is sufficient information available for me to conclude that that Saddam was evil and that Saddam’s evil presented the opportunity to invade for oil and the other commercial opportunities for those close to, or even managed, the Bush war machine.
Be that as it may – Dworky lied!
Relax, Maggs! I was jesting when I said Obama had boasted about killing Pakistanis! I know perfectly well he was just joking!
Like Obama himself, I was being “insensitive at worst.”
Thanks.
@ Maggs
I see.
You are one of those rare progressive critics who heremetically sealed your critique of Bush’s aggression in Iraq off from his aggression in nearby Afghanistan and Pakistan — because you know something about Iraq, but not about the latter.
Mikhail Dworkin Fassbinder says:
May 23, 2010 at 12:00 pm
Hey Dworky,
It’s a bit of a relief.
But it’s not true that he joked about killing Pakistanis (or killing anyone else) – the jest was around his daughters and their admiration of the Jonas brothers.
Michael Osborne says:
May 23, 2010 at 12:04 pm
Hey Michael,
I know at least the following :
Saddam and Saddam’s Iraq was a US creation. Saddam’s invasion of Kuwait was with the approval of Bush senior until the UK objected (after the Iraq invasion had started.
Bin Laden and his “resistance” machinery was a US creation.
Somalia under Mohammed Said Barre (and thus Somalia as we know it today) was a US creation.
What we also know is that Obama inherited the wars and Guantanamo Bay.
Bush in his own words wanted to be known as a “wartime President” and we know that the Iraq war was started on a pack of lies, not that it makes Saddam any less evil.
Bush was inherently bad, even evil, but suggesting that Obama is inherently bad because the nature of the war and the battlefront has widened is wrong.
At worse the man made two silly comments and undertook to close Guantanamo earlier than it was practically possible for his administration to do.
Be that as it may, it does not diminish his domestic successes (in health care and Wall Street in particular) at a scale never seen before in the US history.
Thanks Maggs for the Obama report: I missed that.
Fass: just what would you do if you were an American, or Obama. Turn the other cheek. Tell me, what does one do when there are those who are sworn to destroy you. Enlighten me if you would be so kind.
@ Sirjay
I do have enough information to know what I would do if I was Pres Obama.
But what I do know is that Maggs is right: There is nothing wrong with Obama making a little joke about American bombs falling on Pakistani villages.
Those Pakistanis should get a life.
Poor taste at worst.
Mikhail Dworkin Fassbinder says:
May 23, 2010 at 18:07 pm
Hey Dworky,
I see where you got your technique from.
“…in the big lie there is always a certain force of credibility; because the broad masses of a nation are always more easily corrupted in the deeper strata of their emotional nature than consciously or voluntarily; and thus in the primitive simplicity of their minds they more readily fall victims to the big lie than the small lie, since they themselves often tell small lies in little matters but would be ashamed to resort to large-scale falsehoods. It would never come into their heads to fabricate colossal untruths, and they would not believe that others could have the impudence to distort the truth so infamously. Even though the facts which prove this to be so may be brought clearly to their minds, they will still doubt and waver and will continue to think that there may be some other explanation. For the grossly impudent lie always leaves traces behind it, even after it has been nailed down, a fact which is known to all expert liars in this world and to all who conspire together in the art of lying.
—Adolf Hitler , Mein Kampf, vol. I, ch. X”
I wonder what is the purpose of De Vos peddling this very tired story with such skewed views. This matter is before our courts and thank goodness you wont be the judge.
What is abundantly clear to me is that De Vos and Co. represent the reminiscents of apartheid intelligence, which by the way are also full at the NPA. You just have to observe the high level documents leaked to the media (between NDPP and his immediate deputies). My advice to you De Vos -leave this matter to our courts and not try to unpack it. Maybe then we can get to understand what our courts think of the constitutional rights of witnesses and other important issues that this matter raises. Your obsessions with Menzi is clearly clouding your judgement or better still, your handlers judgement.
@ Maggs, I agree with you that Obama’s domestic achievements have been impressive. Although the Republicans and conservative Democrats watered down his Health Care law, it is still a historic step forward.
But I am not as sure as you seem to be that the domestic and foreign policy fronts can or should be considered separately. For example: How does Obama justify spending hundreds of millions bombing one of the poorest countries on earth, while the US itself suffers a crippling fiscal deficit?
You may not be aware that progressives in the U.S. who unabashedly supported candidate Obama have been severely critical of Obama’s stepping up of bombings in Afghanistan.
See, e.g.:
http://www.thenation.com/article/secret-us-war-pakistan
“Since President Barack Obama was inaugurated, the United States has expanded drone bombing raids in Pakistan. Obama first ordered a drone strike against targets in North and South Waziristan on January 23, and the strikes have been conducted consistently ever since. The Obama administration has now surpassed the number of Bush-era strikes in Pakistan and has faced fierce criticism from Pakistan and some US lawmakers over civilian deaths. A drone attack in June killed as many as sixty people attending a Taliban funeral.”
@ Sirjay: I take your point that international “terrorism” places Obama and the US in invidious position. The question is whether or not escalating Bush’s bombing campaign, with the inevitable “collateral damage,” may not inspire more “terrorists” than his bombs could ever kill.
Kay is right.
This goes beyond a mere “white tendency.” We are talking here about “agents.” I mean that literally. (MI5, MI6, CIA.)
Thanks.
I agree, Sne. Maggs is paternalistic and condescending. Let Kenneth stand or fall on his own initiative. He is an adult. He does not need Maggs’ intervention. That is his opinion – at least he is being honest, something Maggs knows little about.
I quote: “while it’s not so clear cut, lying to the Ginwala Commission ought to be interpreted as lacking in integrity”.
Not clear cut? Maggs, you dumbass, do you know what ‘integrity’ means? Yes, lying out to be interpreted as lacking in integrity! It chracterises the person telloing the lie!
No wonder you and JZ got on well. You both believe in situational ethics.
I ROTFLMAO when I see the words ‘fit and proper’! ‘Fit’ ‘proper’ and ‘ANC’ are oxymorons. Like ‘ANC’ and ‘integrity’.
I really am surprised at all of you. Talk about ‘missing the point’ and ‘veering off-topic’!
How is the Democrat war relevant to this thread?
Brett Nortje says:
May 23, 2010 at 22:55 pm
Hey Brett,
LOL!
Your stupidity is always amusing – just when I think you have displayed your lowest levels of dullness off you go and surprise with even dumber comments.
hahahaha – I read that there’s a group advocating for human rights for whales and dolphins. It seems that the whales and dolphins are smarter than you (but similar to some great apes).
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=human-rights-urged-for-wh
Dear Maggs, Dwork, Brett:
Is it possible that you three set up your own a separate blog for your charming mutual insults, recriminations, ascriptions of stupidity, etc?
Kay, the purpose of this post – which you seemed to have missed – is to point out that the President acted unlawfully by appointing a dishonest person who is not fit and proper as required by the NPA Act as head of the NPA to protect himlself and his cronies. You do not, I see, dispute this. So what is a man or woman like Kay to do if the facts so overwhelmingly supports the contention of someone who is criticising a leader you are following blindly? Well, one avoids at all cost talking about the arguments and the facts and launches a personal attack of course! After all, if one does that one can go on believing that the earth is flat and one never has to confront the facts. Easy. Why be honest if one can endorse dishonesty through ad hominem attack? It is, after all, the way of a certain type of paranoid bigot of which we have too manty in South Africa. Sadly that, my dear Kay, is soooooooo tired. What is not tired is to try and get everyone who holds power – regardless of political affiliations – to follow the law and to point out the scandalous abuses of power which is exemplified by the appointment of Simelane. Here is a tip: next time you get upset about something I write, engage with the substance of the post (both the facts and the arguments), because then you might be taken seriously. Now you are just laughed off as a crackpot.
With the start of this thread on Friday I was looking forward to arguments in favour Zuma’s case, perhaps because I couldn’t think of any. Unfortunately I’ve not seen one single legal of factual argument in support of Zuma, just insults and personal attacks on those pointing out the facts and the legal position.
Michael Osborne says:
May 24, 2010 at 8:39 am
Hey Michael,
Insulting Dworky is the nature of the beast. Brett is genuinely dumb.
Apart from that Kenneth’s comments (around which the opportunities for mutually charming insults to have emerged) contain some relevant point, to my mind at least, even though it is, as Sne says, without tact :
Integrity is far from a clearly definable construct in practical terms. It does often seem that integrity becomes an issue when people who are charged with lack of integrity are ANC supporters whose actions are inconsistent with the agendas of those who want to maintain remnants of the old order. Someone who wants to charge Zuma has integrity, someone who does not has no integrity.There’s also the race determinant – Black people potentially have integrity issues (unless they oppose the ANC of course in which case integrity is not of concern).
Kenneth makes a valid point in suggesting that the way to deal with issues confronting us as a society is through the ballot box. Parties that fail to make an impact on voters have themselves to blame, but rather than reinvent themselves they rely on the tired and disingenuous excuse of “stupid voters”.
A third point that I read from Kenneth’s posts is that where political parties have or have had the opportunity to demonstrate their readiness to govern, they have failed to grasp the opportunity to inspire voters at large and/or have pretty much the same issues that they attack the ANC for.
My invitation is still out there for someone, anyone to suggest a political party for me to support other than the ANC – if a convincing case is made I am on record as having said that I will switch allegiance. I really don’t want to know why I should not support the ANC, rather I am looking for why I should support another party.
Business Day on the Simelane debacle. http://www.businessday.co.za/articles/Content.aspx?id=109747
This “Integrity” seems to be the biggest predictor of performance/Efficiency. I can recall instances where we put people of Integrity in positions with disastrous outcomes Asmal, Dandala, Roman Catholic Priests and significant number of CEO’s are few examples.
I have indicated earlier that I believe JZ could have done better in appointing a head of NPA but the sustained campaign against Simelane that even ignores his attempts of improving the image and performance of NPA is unfair.
Now that others have decided to change the rules, I am still waiting for them to give permission to Simelane, giving him space to proceed with his good intentions. If he blunders during that implementation he must suffer the consequences.
By the way the standard requirements for DG Justice and NPA Head must be of the same calibre.
Gwebecimele says:
May 24, 2010 at 11:12 am
Agreed.
Perhaps some of the smarter people who comment here would be able to tell us why, if integrity was the ultimate indicator of suitability and the previous incumbents had what it took, does of our criminal justice system have many large pockets of problems.
Rumour(Sunday Independent) has it that Gama might be cleared by the inquiry at Transnet and if that happens I have no doubt that he will be a happy man. This guy was a favourite candidate to replace Ramos/Wells as Group CE but the vicious campaign in media similar to the one on Simelane might have caused irreversible damage to his chances.
In the same article, parastatals have been labelled as sluaghterhouses for senior black professionals and it is for this reason that media and other interest groups must not be left unchallenged when they plant seeds of bias destruction against black executives.
Friedman says
“A constitution cannot achieve what politics cannot deliver. If minorities seek greater tolerance or different political habits, they need to find the political allies they require to make these goals more possible — if they do not, legal victories will soon be overtaken by political reality. Across the world, the most effective steps towards greater justice and equity for the poor and disadvantaged have been a result of democratic political action , not constitutional tinkering”
Hey Maggs,
Thanks for illuminating the ‘points’ from Kenneth’s earlier post. You must note that I have always written ‘points’ and not points in relation to Kenneth’s post. To be honest, I still do not see them as points even at this stage. I will reply to them in the manner you have raised them in your post;
1. Your para which supposedly contains the first point has no point at all. The fact that the people who do not have or do not seem to have integrity are pro-ANC does not detract from the fact that they indeed lack integrity. Your argument or point here is more like saying white people cannot reliably observe racism against them since they are the ones who are historically response for institutionalising racism in this country. Basically, your ‘point’ assumes its ‘validity’ or power by discrediting the accuser instead of the accusation…
2. Secondly, the ballot box that you are referring to is used, from a national point of view, every five years. This argument is ludicrous at best or intellectually unsound. The reason is that the people who lack integrity do not wait for five years or for the ballot box to act out their foolish deeds. It did not take Mpshe 5 years to drop the charges against Pres Zuma. It did not take Pres Mbeki 5 years to suspend Pikoli nor his successor, Motlanthe, 5 years to dismiss Pikoli for crazy reasons. It also did not take Pres Zuma 5 years to appoint integrity-bankrupt Simelane to the post of the NDDP. So your ‘point’ fails miserably as well!
3. The fact that all political parties have the same issues that the ANC has does not absolve the ANC from constructive criticism, especially one that Prof has subjected the ANC to on a consistent basis. As far as I have been following this blog, Prof’s articles have always been aimed at trying to solutions to problems that he identifies, especially those which are constitutional in nature. of course he has included humour every now and then to keep people coming back and entertained when reading his articles. I also understand this since he does not want ot sound like he is writing a Masters or Doctoral Theses, considering that not all who visit his blog are constitutional lawyers or professors.
Lastly, this article, in my view, is not about ANC not being a good enough party, it is about the Pres appointing and then defending, using apparently illegal arguments or arguments which portray him as a dictator, someone who does not have integrity for a very important national position which explicitly requires integrity as one of its requirements.
Please Maggs, you can do better than your post above! I have faith in you…
Gwebecimele and Maggs, your argument is extraordinary and dangerous. In effect you are saying we may ignore the law and the Constitution – which requires an independent NPA and a NDPP who has integrity and is a fit and proper person, as long as the unlawfully appointed person will be more efficient. Surely it will also be more efficient if we ignored the rights in the Constitution to form and belong to trade unions and to strike, so you would say it would be fine if the state or a private institution unlawfully dismiss workers who strike because that would be more efficient. It will be more efficient if we dispensed with fair trial rights and just presume anyone arrested by the police is guilty. It would be more efficient if we dispense with elections and get some bureaucrats to run the country who can plan everything and can arrest any citizen who demands to be heard. They like that argument in China but in a Constitutional democracy based on the Rule of Law this is untenable. It is anti-democratic and endorses illegality in the name of efficiency. Down that road lies dictatorship (albeit an efficient dictatorship – like Nazi Germany who was rather efficient in killing 5 million Jews in such a short space of time, just a pity so many people had to die?).
@ Maggs
Eish!! Your new political home has just collapsed.
http://www.timeslive.co.za/local/article466670.ece/PAM-leader-joins-ANC
@ PdV
How I wish that this requirement(Integrity + fit+ Proper) could apply to all those who occupy positions of trust and leadership in all our spheres of life. I wish to live in a country where those who fail that test are exposed and relegated to appropriate positions where they can do no harm.
Having said that, I will not support opportunistic and bias campaigns that are hell bent on destroying others and expect no good from them. There are plenty of individuals/businesses who have brought misery on South Africans and who should be infront of Simelane in the queue.
Let us focus on those cuplrits that bring misery to our people rather than selective character assassinations. Simelane is just one person in a big wheel of Justice and that wheel can turn with or without him. Let us all make sure that if there are sinister motives they must not succeed
I will repeat, I am no fan of Simelane but I choose to see the forest other than trees.
Sine says:
May 24, 2010 at 12:20 pm
Hey Sne,
Maybe you missed my comments elsewhere when I said (and still say) that I think that appointing Simelane was one of the worst of President Zuma’s decisions. And I think the President’s defence of that decision is outrageous. According to the President’s logic if, for example, the infamous Advocate Barbie emerged from prison in 10 years or so, having done the time, then she would be a potential candidate for NDPP because it’s the President’s prerogative to decide “fit and proper”.
Now on your numbered points (you must be a lawyer
) :
1. I think that Simelane’s integrity must and should be challenged and interrogated in every which way that it can – if he finds the heat too much in the kitchen then … . However, challenging the integrity of those who are unlikable and ignoring it when people are likable is of concern. It should be of concern if somebody’s wife received shares of millions of rands for no reason on the day that person was appointed to high office. It should be of concern if somebody who holds high office who has a family trust that deals with and through a shady money counterfeiter, not just when that somebody is a candidate for high office.
2. I will stand on the essence of the point that I made which is that South Africans have a very powerful tool in the ballot – ultimately it’s the only tool that we have.
3. I think the ANC can and must be criticised. I criticise the ANC (and probably only the ANC cos it’s the party I support) – and I regularly read, hear and see ANC members (senior and otherwise) challenging and criticising the ANC and government. Again like the integrity thing, those politically opposed to the government, not challenging people who do not appear to be pro ANC (or pro Zuma) or because they appear to be anti Zuma is wrong. But I also think that when parties criticise the ANC, which they must do where the ANC falters, they must also subject themselves to the same rigourous tests.
@ Maggs
Message for you from the President of the ANC
Leave ANC at your peril – Zuma
2010-05-24 08:08
Buks Viljoen, Beeld
Nelspruit – Any member of the ANC who dares to leave the party will be exposed by “the ancestors” and “will get sick”, President Jacob Zuma told about 30 000 people on Sunday.
Gwebecimele says:
May 24, 2010 at 14:22 pm
hahahahaha.
Any idea what was being smoked in Nelspruit?
Now that government is failling to implement “integrity policing” the Gauteng ANC, promise to do it better.
Read below.
During the meeting the PEC agreed on establishing an “integrity committee”. ANC leaders and public representatives in the province would have to declare and register their business interests with this committee once it was up and running.
The committee is the first of its kind in the ANC.
Pierre de Vos
Constitutionally Speaking
Dear Sir,
In reply to a note by Serjeant at the Bar , “JSC thinking leaves us in the dark”, (Mail & Guardian 23.4.2010) and to your question “What makes a good Judge ?”, posted on 19.4.2010 on your blog “constitutionally speaking”, I wish to advance the following comments for you and your readers’ consideration.
It would appear that the rejected applicant (for a post as judge for the Western Cape) had the required appropriate qualification, and the further consideration by the Judicial Service Commission (JSC), regarding race and gender, appeared to be not too great a concern in this case.
This leaves, as SERJEANT AT THE BAR indicates (M&G 23 April 2010), in terms of section 174 of the Constitution, for general consideration and for the JSC to decide whether or not the woman or man applying is “a fit and proper person”.
Or, as you understand the portion of section 174: this leaves to consider whether the lawyer “has the necessary integrity and honesty to be appointed to the bench.”
To use a euphemism: How “clean” in respect of her or his past legal performance should the future judge be so that she or he can be trusted?
Maybe, the following real instances provide examples to be scrutinized in the determination whether the person considered as judge is fit and proper:
• Is for instance a woman or man, who, with great forensic skills, constructs a client’s affidavit which quotes a falsified definition of an Act (giving that definition a completely different meaning), who refers to it in his or her heads of arguments before a court, and who, once found out, even defends those manipulations before a court, a fit and proper person to be appointed a judge ?
• Or, is a woman or man, who refers during an argument and in the papers before a court to a noun in singular form, despite the fact that the relevant Act specifies a plural for this noun, thereby changing the meaning of an entire provision of an Act and thus gaining an unfair advantage for her or his false legal argument, a fit and proper person to be appointed a judge ?
• Or, is a woman or man, who refers in a present matter before a court to a judgment which contains reference to her or his own manipulations constructed in a previous matter before a court (mysteriously accepted or overlooked by the previous court and published in reports), a fit and proper person to be appointed a judge ?
• Or, is a woman or man, who, in collusion with another officer of the court, constructs a signed written legal opinion which makes reference to another falsified definition of an Act, thereby changing completely its intended meaning, in order to gain an unfair advantage for her or his incorrect legal argument, a fit and proper person to be appointed a judge ?
• Or, is a woman or man, who, in collusion with another officer of the court, refers in a signed written legal opinion, which already contains her or his own manipulated definition, to a previous judgment of a Supreme Court judge in another Province, in which the same definition, correctly quoted by that judge in his judgment, has again been changed (manipulated) by her or him, so as to make it fall in line with her or his own falsification of that definition contained in the opinion – so to say, to make it really stick – , a fit and proper person to be appointed a judge ?
Is such person who has conveyed any of the above mentioned examples of judicial misconduct to a court (or to anybody), with “fallacious lucidity of one who has done the reading and thinking and has solved the difficulties”, constantly using euphemisms, and thereby misleading the court, a fit and proper person to be appointed a judge ?
Has such a person really the judicial well-being of this Country’s citizens at heart, knowing very well the detrimental ramifications of her or his unlawful court manipulations upon a vast number of members of the Public ?
Would such a woman or man not be labeled an incurably superficial and lying Jenny or Johnny know-all, and have their application, to be appointed a judge, rightfully dismissed or rejected by the JSC ?
I hope the above might enlighten us a bit regarding the thinking of the JSC and regarding your own good wishes for a quality person to be appointed a judge.
PS: These comments really belong to your blog heading “What makes a good judge”, but they seem also very appropriate under this heading.
Pierre De Vos says:
May 24, 2010 at 13:48 pm
I am saying none of those things.
The essence of my post is subject everyone to the same level of integrity testing.
Not just those we don’t like!
Well argued, Sne!
Gwebecimele, I would love to live in that country too. From schoolteachers to principals to clergymen to politicians. From the corner spaza to parastatals to big business. It is time the NDPP stopped playing politics and started enforcing old fashioned values like honesty.
Fraud is very widely defined.
Gwebecimele said:
“How I wish that this requirement(Integrity + fit+ Proper) could apply to all those who occupy positions of trust and leadership in all our spheres of life. I wish to live in a country where those who fail that test are exposed and relegated to appropriate positions where they can do no harm. “
No, Maggs. It is clear that you reject the idea of an objective morality in favour of situational ethics. This is a clash of world-views.
If there is no objective morality what are the chances of imposing objective universal norms coupled to sanctions?
Zuma’s statements are as embarrassing to every South African as Malema’s rants and chants and you laugh. How must the outside world view him? Like the UK media?
The essence of this debate is the distinction between right and wrong, and a good old-fashioned sense-of-shame.
Brett Nortje says:
May 24, 2010 at 16:50 pm
Hey wise Brett (see I am not going to upset Michael),
What would you consider “objective morality” and where is it visible?
@ Pierre…..very good, but this begs the question. To what extent is the global judicial community up to speed with the continued attacks on the South African legal system. There is a need to move this matter beyond the borders of South Africa and hope that some of the worlds top legal professionals will start to take notice.
Whatever de Vos…
Personally, I’ll engage with this issue again when it comes before court.
You are not the KNOW ALL of our constitutional democracy.
@Kay
If you have a blog similar to “Whatever de Vos” we all would love to read it. Or any other blog perhaps? Keep us posted!
Pierre, much as I hate to admit it, Maggs has a point.
Mighty institutions like the Catholic church, the Judiciary and the Trade Unions and the DA have long set demanding “integrity” thresholds.
Yes, look how corrupt they have turned all out to be!
So why now do you suddenly demand that Mr Simelane be so-called “fit and proper!?
Hey?
Mikhail Dworkin Fassbinder says:
May 24, 2010 at 23:00 pm
Hey Dworky (see, l show some respect for Michael – no words like liar, thug .. comes to mind at all),
Which part of “I think that Simelane’s integrity must and should be challenged and interrogated in every which way that it can” did you miss????
All of it?
@ ewald.
Indeed.
It never ceases to amaze that some who comment choose mundane attacks rather than engaging on the substance.
That was Maggs/Zuma_He is fit and proper because I say so_now shut up/3.2
Of course, the reason why I ROTFLMAO when I see the words ‘fit and proper person’ is because, whenever the Central Firearms Register’s Field Marshal Jaco Bothole appears on TV – shows like Fokus met Freek – to explain why there is a 5 year backlog with firearm license renewals he inevitably explains that to own a firearm in the Republic of South Africa you have to prove that you are a fit and proper person to own a firearm in the Republic of South Africa which includes, inter alia, that you have to acquire a certificate proving that you are a fit and proper person to own a firearm in the Republic of South Africa which entails, inter alia, that your home is inspected to ensure that you have the necessary safe-keeping facilities to own a firearm in South Africa and that your neighbours are interviewed to inquire whether you are a fit and proper person to own a firearm in the Republic of South Africa.
Then Teflon-mannetjie would go on to assure Freek that the five-year renewal process is fully up-to-date. Then Teflon-mannetjie will assure Freek – after not-so-gullible Freek asks about outstanding renewals and waiting periods of x-years for new licenses – that the backlog in licence-renewals which he had denied 30seconds before will be completely wiped out by the end of 2010, 6 years after the 5 year renewal-process started and 1 year after the new 5 year renewal-cycle (which no-one now mentions) had been due to start again.
Of course, not-completely-gullible Freek likes his job too much to ask how many of the ANC MPs who enacted the Firearms Control Act were fit and proper persons to own a firearm in the Republic of South Africa, how many Parliamentary Portfolio Committee Chairs were convicted Travelgate fraudsters, what kind of ‘fit-and-proper’ police commissioner tells Parliament (to the approval of the fit-and-proper MPs) that he refused to pay compensation for surrendered firearms because the gunowners would want to pay their rent with the money and what kind of fit-and-proper Minister would tell Parliament he refused to comply with S137 of the Firearms Control Act.
Maggs, show me one ANC leader who is a fit and proper person to own a firearm in the Republic of South Africa?
The ANC is a corrupting fungus – worse than dry-rot or rising damp in the way its corruption spreads.
Brett Nortje says:
May 25, 2010 at 7:25 am
Oh Wise One,
“The ANC is a corrupting fungus – worse than dry-rot or rising damp in the way its corruption spreads”.
You applying for refuge status in Canada?
Re guns – I have no idea who is fit and proper to own a firearm licence, maybe all of them are – I think private ownership should be totally banned.
Would it help if I say which people I think shoot their mouth off?
You see, Maggs, the dividing line between the ANC and everyone else (which Kay does not get and you do not seem to care about) is the willingness to live with lies.
So, how is this attempt of yours to define ‘integrity’ along racial fault-lines working for you? Gwebecimele does not buy it, Sne does not buy it.
Must just be you that thinks integrity is a black/white thing.
Or, is that why we now have 3.2?
Brett Nortje says:
May 25, 2010 at 7:40 am
“the dividing line between the ANC and everyone else” is I would say 65.9% – 34.1% = 31.8%.
That’s a rather broad dividing line, isn’t it?
p.s. I think you missed the thrust of Sne’s and Gwebe’s comments, as expected because you’re ultra, er, smart.
You’re not very perceptive, are you? (Like when you thought Michael was peeved at the name-calling rather than the fact that I described the invasion in Iraq as another Democrat war….)
You would prohibit (consider for the sake of this hypothesis we let you) the private ownership of firearms, when Cele has just admitted that 10 000 of SA’s finest are serving time for crime????
Does this mean that you are ready to debate the constitutional implications of ‘gun-control’ at last?
Do you not think that Cele’s admission strengthens – immeasurably – a claim I have made several times that gun owners do not commit crimes of passion nor property crimes at nearly the rate that members of the SAPS do with their service firearms, and that everybody should shut up and sit down till they do?
Yes.
Maggs, that rather broad dividing line is symptomatic of a country in the grip of a moral malaise. The kind of country where 18 000 men women and children are murdered, a year.
A country where people do not distinguish between right or wrong.
A country where there is no objective morality.
The kind of country where, to political leaders, there is no such thing as an objective reality.
Which brings us back to the absurd claim:
“Whether a person is fit and proper to be entrusted with the responsibilities of the office concerned is my subjective decision. I am the person, as the President of the Republic, to be satisfied that the person is fit and proper.”
Hey wise Brett,
I am not gonna do the gun thing.
If integrity was an evenly considered construct, how did the likes of Tannebaum, Brown and the like get away with the biggest swindles this country has ever seen (with still no resolution)?
And why are several white collar criminals being protected by the Australians?
Why too are only the Black executives of Cipro suspended?
Brett Nortje says:
May 25, 2010 at 7:58 am
“that rather broad dividing line is symptomatic of a country in the grip of a moral malaise”.
So, according to you, Black people are inherently immoral!
Are you planning to apply for political asylum in Canada?
Hey Brett,
As you know, I am functionally illiterate.
Please explain complex phrase which you used “objective morality”.
Maggs is right.
He is functionally illiterate.
Brett, remember, he is also young. Maggs has a lot to learn. But he is worthy to inherit this blog.
Anyway, it seems somewhat unfair that an intellectual giant like yourself should hound Maggs on matters philosophical.
Thanks.
Hey Dworky,
Don’t interfere with wise Brett.
I have acquired some rather erudite sounding phrases from him.
- objective morality
- objective reality
- moral malaise
- 3.2
Soon he will tell me in simple terms what it means, then I can impress my easily impressed friends.
I learned from Brett that when Michael said “charming mutual insults, recriminations, ascriptions of stupidity, etc”, meant that Michael was peeved at the fact that Brett described the invasion in Iraq as another Democrat war.
Brett is helping me understand the finer points because, for example, Nic Dawes pointed out that I am not too good at getting the nuanced thingies.
Integrity at play and that is all this woman will get from Lady Justice.
http://www.iol.co.za/index.php?set_id=1&click_id=13&art_id=vn20100525043408702C384717
Maggs,
The single fact that Brett has supported my submissions is enough to make me withdraw them.
Kindly ignore my submissions above Maggs…
I thought ANC was the only one capable of purging.
http://www.sowetan.co.za/News/Article.aspx?id=1145090
Gwebecimele says:
May 25, 2010 at 11:44 am
LOL, COPE remains the champion!
Gwebecimele says:
May 25, 2010 at 11:44 am
“I thought ANC was the only one capable of purging”.
Eish Gwebe, which planet do you live on?
http://www.internafrica.org/2010/05/da-paid-r8m-to-get-rid-of-16-officials.html
Chris says:
May 25, 2010 at 11:51 am
Two champions are better than one!
http://www.dispatch.co.za/article.aspx?id=404485
Sine says:
May 25, 2010 at 10:23 am
LOL!
The Wise One is very silent – maybe doing research on those rather interesting terms and phrases (to teach me the true meanings of course).
Maggs Naidu says:
May 25, 2010 at 12:00 pm
To bad you can’ read.
BTW for a person who can’t read your spelling is not to bad.
Leigh says:
May 21, 2010 at 16.35pm
Arthur Chaskalson’s sentiments, referred to by Leigh, are very much relevant and to the point. His claim regarding the intolerableness of the effects of small incursions into the rule of law may be compared to what is otherwise known as “the sensitivity of a system or of an equation upon its initial conditions.”
In other words: If the initial conditions, or say the definitions of a law system (an Act), are changed ever so slightly (by a sleight of hand or by express manipulation), it might and in most cases it will result in a drastically changed meaning of a portion or of entire sections of that Act.
Small incursions like a missing “no”, an added “the”, a change from “their” to “the”, a missing plural “s”, collocations changed from small to Capital first letters, a missing number from a list of numbers, left-out words from a defined collocation (sui generis) – are all real examples of illegal and fraudulent tools used by some members of the legal and administrative community who either are ignorant or incompetent to understand the laws of the Country or who deliberately want to give them a different meaning than intended in order to achieve a winning argument for their clients and cronies.
See HP May 24, 2010 15:53 pm
HP says:
May 25, 2010 at 15:30 pm
“some members of the legal and administrative community who either are ignorant or incompetent to understand the laws of the Country or who deliberately want to give them a different meaning than intended in order to achieve a winning argument for their clients and cronies.”
Eish!
Now where did we hear something similar before?
Er, let me think ……
Could it be here?
http://constitutionallyspeaking.co.za/mpshe-was-wrong-to-drop-zuma-charges-says-plagiarised-judge/
Thank you, Sne, for that perfect illustration of the difference between integrity and situational ethics.
Maggs Naidu says:
May 25, 2010 at 17:17 pm
Oh-my-oh-my, Maggs Naidu !
No, unfortunately, your surmise is incorrect. It is a bit offensive, though.
Hope you are not just fishing!
Rather, contribute to the arguments advanced, before you try unreasonable and unsuccessful personal attacks.
I shall be pleased to answer any intelligent question on the subject, even of a personal nature, from you or from anybody else, at a later stage in the debate – my promise.
Ps: Where is this “court” violence coming from ?
HP says:
May 25, 2010 at 19:01 pm
Huh?
What’s “unreasonable and unsuccessful personal attacks” about that?
All that stuff is in the public domain.
What’s unreasonable about having asked the question?
Maggs, I am seriously tempted. Please stop me from replying to him…
Integrity is a funny old thing. It is easier to say who has none than who has.
In Gwebecimele’s example: Who has integrity? The judges who thought the Apellant was guilty as sin but turned him loose because that is what the integrity of their office demanded? The Magistrate who indulged his outrage and vented?
Who has real integrity in this country? Not many are really ‘fit and proper persons, now are they? How many are prepared to live with pleasant lies which accord with their world-views? Many US colleges and the military have a honour code which usually reads along the lines of: “I will not lie cheat or steal nor will I tolerate anyone who does”.
When we look at the legal profession where do we draw the line about who has integrity and who does not? How many people have the integrity to support a position that is anathema to their world view or damaging to their pockets because it is closer to the truth than their own position?
You all know what I am getting at. The integrity of your so-called Rechtstaat? Those protections have not extended to gun owners and many of you cheered.
In Mistry Albie Sachs stated that the moment a regulatory inspection extended into a private home prior independent authorisation is needed. A search warrant.
Who cares about S14 of the Constitution? Guns are dangerous. If people have to have them they ought to be locked up so they cannot get into the wrong hands, right? The SAPS should check that people do, right?
http://www.jacarandafm.com/kagiso/content/en/jacaranda/jacaranda-news?oid=758494&sn=Detail&pid=6182&Pretoria-police-warn-about-bogus-inspectors
Pretoria police warn about bogus inspectors
25 May 2010 – 13:25
By Jacaranda News
Guard against bogus firearm-safe inspectors who are in fact robbers, Pretoria Police are warning.
Spokesperson, Captain Tessa Jansen says there are people taking advantage of the fact that the firearm amnesty has expired.
“Be wary of these people,” says Jansen, “don’t just open your home up to people pretending to be the police.”
In terms of the modus operandi these criminals employ, she says “they come to your house under the pretense that they work for the police and want to inspect your firearm safe.”
Jansen says it is after the unsuspecting firearm owner allows them into their house that they attempt to rob them of their possessions.
She says that the correct procedure that police follow is to inform the firearm owners of the visit in advance, as opposed to making unannounced visits.
Upon arrival, the inspectors also have to produce an appointment certificate.
“Another thing which sets them apart from bogus inspectors is that they will always be dressed in proper police uniform,” says Jansen.
Sine says:
May 25, 2010 at 21:10 pm
hahahaha.
You’re safe now – saved by the four letter word.
Here is another good example of attack on black professionals. Blue IQ directors and Mashatile are being attacked and humilated for earning up to R25 000 a meeting as board members.
Lets get few things clear.
1. Mashatile appointed these members and agreed to the R25000 FEE but he does not convene board meetings.
2. It is strange for the Chairperson to earn R900 000 in a year out of fees, to qualify for that amount she must attend 36 meetings or 3 a month. That needs to be investigated.
3. The R20 000 per board meeting is a normal rate just ask any Consulting firm, Law firm how much they charge for a senior professional a day. Marcus earned above R3M p.a at ABSA, Maharaj earned ABOUT R1.3 at FNB and this amount should add to less than R200 000 PER MEMBER per year based on 6-8 meetings. What we need to check is the value created rather than silly headlines ” Blue IQ pays R20 000 PER MEETING”. Based on the the dossier dropped by the CEO when she resigned, I believe the media can do better.
The opportunistic dragging of Mashatile now that he has won the Chairmanship does not assist in the long run. The Nomvula vs Mashatile drift in the news can only serve opportunist politics.
The DA asked good questions but it can do better, same with the media, surely we can have a better story than what is reported. To the ANC clean before they come and hold culprits responsible.
http://www.timeslive.co.za/business/article470170.ece/DA-complains-of-Blue-IQ-fees
To: Maggs Naidu
Good Afternoon Maggs,
The Seagroatt judgment you referred to, in my reading of it, deals with the abuse and manipulation of the process of law.
My contentions are different; they are two levels higher up and are of a far more serious nature. They concern the manipulations of the written words of the law, the law that is cast in stone, and the subsequent interpretation of that changed or manipulated law (sections of an Act), and the consequences deriving from the interpretation of such false, manipulated section(s) (note the plural “s”) of an Act.
I can imagine you might find this impossible to ever have happened, but see for example (they are not mere typographical mistakes): Steel and Engineering Industries Federation and Others v National Union of Metalworkers of South Africa (1) 1993 (4) SA 190;
and at (1992) 13 ILJ 1416 (T);
and also compare the original judgment (case A1118/92) of Myburgh, J, signed by him on 7.9.1992;
and compare the relevant affidavits of the representative of the Appellant;
and compare the Heads of Argument of counsel for the Appellant.
You might have problems finding copies of the last three items, but I will be pleased to post full copies at your request.
As a matter of interest, in connection with manipulations generally, I advance the following:
Manipulations only one level higher up than those mentioned in Seagroatt’s judgment would, in my view, concern manipulations of written evidence before a court, as for example quoted in the 1938 Report of the Commission of Inquiry into the Charges made against Leon Trotsky in the Moscow Trials, at Part Three, VII Procedure of the Soviet Court, paragraph 18(5), page 34.
This report complains about “the prosecutor’s systematic falsification of universally known facts of history for the purposes of his case against the accused and Leon Trotsky: also his editing, for the same purpose, of quotations which he cited as evidence”
Back to our matter at hand:
Kindly note that, so far, we have only dealt with one item of the list of (I may call them “level three”) incursions into the rule of law, mentioned in my previous post. There is much more to come – so watch this space.
This brings me to our little flare-up previously.
HP May 25, 2010 at 19:01 and Maggs Naidu 25 May 2010 at 19:28pm
At first sight, reading your quotation of my words (referring to “level three” manipulations) and your reference to a matter concerning plagiarized parts of a judgment (referring to “level one” manipulations) by another person, made me (incorrectly) assume, without even having read the judgment, that I am thrown by you into the same pot in which the other person was simmering already. I found this to be personal and unreasonable, particularly since I have used those quoted words in several official submissions long before Seagroatt’s judgment – hence my reaction.
But this was not the purpose of your post. Therefore please accept my apologies for having misread your approach and not read your reference before replying. (I am new to blogging – you know)
Otherwise, keep up the good work and maybe you can help to tempt Sine a bit more, to an even higher level of seriousness (if that is possible), take the stop away from him and make him ask questions relevant the issue at hand, regarding the effects of (level three) manipulations of the law on members of the Public, and whether or not a person involved in it is fit and proper to be appointed a judge – and please stay posted.
HP says:
May 27, 2010 at 15:29 pm
Hey HP,
Since you admit to being new to blogging, let’s give you some pointers.
Usually we greet newcomers so :
Hello HP. How are you? Do you have a condom?
Now that the pleasantries are out of the way, let’s see.
You seem like a legal professional of sorts. I am not, neither legal nor professional that is. That aside let’s see if I can get to grips with your comments.
Your introductory comment (May 24, 2010 at 15:53 pm), which in my mind holds the title “Bullshit beats brains” henceforth to be referred to as the BBB rating, referred to the M&G piece around the refusal of the JSC to appoint (or is it nominate for appointment) Jeremy Gauntlett to the Cape High Court.
You seem to have been making the point that Gauntlett is a rascal and therefore he was dumped – please correct me if I am wrong (Nic Dawes has aptly pointed out that I am not too good at getting the nuances).
But remember to wear your think skin if ever you feel like being so direct – when threatened, the right whingers will retreat, form into a mighty laarger (not to be confused with larger as was pointed out to me). And then, ag, nothing much will happen. Just some noise and hurling. A few useless insults, sort of like Saddam’s scud missiles.
Sine?
What you got against Sne – if you think that was a reference to your comment, better you withdraw it quick. Sne was referring to our resident genius, Brett, when he said “Please stop me from replying to him…”.
There’s a few landmines here – you’ll know when you step on one!
” President Jacob Zuma says Sudanese leader Omar al-Beshir, sworn in for a new term Thursday, will face arrest if he comes to next month’s World Cup.
“South Africa respects the international law and certainly we are signatories and we abide by the law,” Zuma told lawmakers, when asked in parliament if Beshir would be arrested under an international war crimes warrant.”
http://www.timeslive.co.za/africa/article474237.ece/Sudans-president-will-be-arrested-if-he-comes-to-South-Africa
Yeaahhh … Maggs Naidu,
To save excessive expenses for all concerned, maybe President Jacob Zuma should send him and his dummy back home, together with his spin balls and bats, jeweler glasses, remaining dandruff and all, and let the solicitors there deal with his excessive antics.
They are most probably sharper and better informed than our local fraternity and will quickly take him to task.
Also, our President Zuma could appoint a Durban lawyer with many years of experience for his assistance up there, but wait – then he most probably will even quicker be lost.
HP says:
May 28, 2010 at 9:26 am
If we stop harbouring international criminals then maybe we will have a case to make to Australia who are a haven for many who have committed crimes here (and went there with the oodles of stolen boodles).
Expenses for the well being of despots is not an issue – we have an abundance (of despots and resources for their well being that is).
It’s money for the less important things that is in short supply – like education, provision of services and so on.
So who’s the lawyer that you want to dispatch to Sudan?
http://www.legalbrief.co.za/article.php?story=20100531085831941
Gun owners who surrendered firearms seek compensation
June 01 2010 , 8:25:00
http://www.sabcnews.com/portal/site/SABCNews/menuitem.5c4f8fe7ee929f602ea12ea1674daeb9/?vgnextoid=c85108b3b12f8210VgnVCM10000077d4ea9bRCRD&vgnextfmt=default&channelPath=home
Gun owners who lawfully surrendered their firearms
want to be properly compensated in accordance with the
Constitution and Section 137 of the Firearms Control Act. A case
that could have huge financial implications on the fiscus and
also see gun legislation reworked has been heard in the Western
Cape High Court.
The Justice Alliance of South Africa (Jasa) and the
False Bay Gun Club have asked the Court to reaffirm an order of
August 2009 that proper guidelines must immediately be drawn up.
It has been argued that though many of the gun owners surrendered
their firearms, they have never been compensated and as a result,
some of the shops claim they lost millions of rands in the
process.
In August 2009 the court gave the State 90 days to
say how they would compensate owners who had surrendered their
firearms. In November the State hit back and yesterday the
Western Cape High Court heard very technical details of why
Sections 137 and 138 of the Firearms Control Act 2000 are
unconstitutional.
Both parties argued about the specific interpretation
of the Act, which is not clear on compensation. Jasa’s John Smith
says this case is important to the millions of people who
surrendered their firearms in the last five years. He says if the
judge finds in favour of the State, compensation will only be
payable in exceptional cases where the State will keep certain
firearms it intends to use for training purposes.
Judgment has been reserved.
http://www.iol.co.za/index.php?set_id=1&click_id=13&art_id=vn20100608125027460C695028
You can’t prosecute me: Zuma June 08 2010 at 02:10PM
Prosecuting President Jacob Zuma during the World Cup will cause “untold embarrassment” to South Africa, his legal team has argued in court papers.
Zuma is also arguing that, as the president, he is “not susceptible to criminal prosecution” – but that this contention is not based on any “personal claim to special and favoured treatment”.
The matter of the criminal charges Zuma faced before he came to power in May last year is still hanging over his head because the DA has brought an application to review the decision to drop Zuma’s prosecution on fraud and corruption charges.
The DA filed an application in the High Court in Pretoria yesterday to force the National Prosecution Authority (NPA) to explain its “irrational and arbitrary decision” not to prosecute Zuma.
He is trying to quash the review of the criminal charges against him and has warned in heads of argument filed in the Pretoria High Court that “the criminal prosecution of the president carries with it certain impracticalities”.
In written heads of argument, Zuma’s lawyer, Kemp J Kemp, said: “The imposition of a criminal sentence of imprisonment would make it impossible for the president to carry out his constitutional duties. The stigma and opprobium during the process of the trial would not only hamper a president’s ability to execute his duties but would affect public and foreign relations both domestically and internationally.
“The embarrassment to this country, particularly during the World Cup soccer, will be untold.”
Kemp also pointed out that “the incumbent of the Presidential Office is not, whilst in office, susceptible to criminal prosecution”.
“This contention does not rest on any arrogance of office or any perceived elevation above the law and its processes or on any individual or personal claim to special and favoured treatment.”
In joining the NPA in opposing the DA’s application, the president submitted that his criminal prosecution would be impractical and hamper him in carrying out his duties.
Zuma also opposed an application by Richard Young and his company CCII, a contractor in the defence industry, to intervene in the main application.
He described the CCII as “mere busybodies meddling in affairs which do not concern them”.
More than a year after launching an urgent court application to have the decision set aside, the DA argued that it first needed access to the materials on which the decision was based.
The NPA and Zuma have asked the court not only to deny the DA access to the decision-making record, but also to dismiss the review application.
Both maintained that even a reduced record, which excluded “confidential” submissions made by Zuma, would infringe on Zuma’s dignity and privacy and that of a number of other people.
DA counsel Sean Rosenberg SC argued that the decision not to prosecute Zuma appeared to be “fundamentally illogical and irrational”, especially as it appeared that Zuma had a “damning case” to answer.
He argued that the decision not to prosecute Zuma appeared to have been based solely on the basis of “the McCarthy shenanigans”, which he said had no relation to the merits of the prosecution. He was referring to the phone calls between former Scorpions head Leonard McCarthy and former NPA boss Bulelani Ngcuka, allegedly colluding to charge Zuma again after the ANC’s Polokwane conference in 2007. – Sapa
This article was originally published on page 1 of Cape Argus on June 08, 2010
NPA in spotlight after audit
September 29 2010 at 01:12pm
By Michelle Pietersen
The DA said it was worrying that since the employment of Menzi Simelane as National Director of Public Prosecutions, the department had received a qualified audit after years of having had a clean bill.
The National Prosecuting Authority has come under scrutiny after the department received a qualified audit from the auditor-general, with irregular expenditure amounting to at least R560 million.
The A-G said in his report that management had failed to address audit findings from the previous year, and that resolutions of Parliament’s watchdog standing committee on public accounts (Scopa) had not been implemented.
The A-G found that the NPA had violated the Public Service Regulations and the Public Finance Management Act.
Certain senior managers had not entered into performance agreements, other officials had not declared their financial interests, and some had submitted their forms late. …
http://www.iol.co.za/news/politics/npa-in-spotlight-after-audit-1.682459
Justice Department in chaos, says A-G
22 Sep 2010 | Anna Majavu | 20
Wed Sep 29 14:29:47 SAST 2010
comments
THE Department of Justice has received a negative audit opinion from the auditor-general – again – after clocking up R812 million in irregular expenditure.
Officials who failed to board flights or show up at their reserved hotel rooms cost the department R346,000 The department’s annual report, tabled in Parliament yesterday, shows that things have gone from bad to worse.
Last year auditor-general Terence Nombembe found the department guilty of irregularly spending R26 million.
Nombembe said he was unable to satisfy himself that this was the total amount of irregular expenditure.
Another R2 million was found to be “fruitless and wasteful expenditure”.
Officials who failed to board flights or show up at their reserved hotel rooms cost the department R346,000.
The department also failed to report irregular, fruitless and wasteful expenditure to the Treasury as required by law.
Nombembe could not find whether another R296 million had been properly collected and recorded as Third Party Funds, which are where fines, bail and maintenance money are paid.
“I could not rely on the adequacy of the funds’ financial and control system,” Nombembe, pictured, said.
He said he did not know whether R74 million collected by March this year had been properly collected and recorded by the fund.
Apart from the financial problems, Nombembe painted a picture of a department in chaos.
“Not all senior managers entered into performance contracts. Not all leave taken by officials was recorded timeously or accurately,” he said.
Nombembe warned that Justice Minister Jeff Radebe was failing as a leader because the department did not have enough systems to make sure the law was obeyed.
Meanwhile, the SA Police Service is still one step away from a clean audit, according to its annual report.
Nombembe gave Police Minister Nathi Mthethwa’s department a clean audit, but with “emphasis of matter”.
This because the SAPS ran up R1,1 million in fruitless and wasteful expenditure and another R3,4 million in irregular expenditure. It is a great improvement on the 2009 financial year when fruitless, wasteful and irregular spending by the police hit R18,4 million.
Gwebs,
Nombembe could not find whether another R296 million had been properly collected and recorded as Third Party Funds, which are where fines, bail and maintenance money are paid.
I am sure that it is safely kept somewhere – it’s highly unlikely that any cash was stolen.
Nombembe warned that Justice Minister Jeff Radebe was failing as a leader because the department did not have enough systems to make sure the law was obeyed.
Nombembe must be wanting to be “redeployed”. Where the darn PoIB when we need it most?
@ Maggs
I hope Auditors report will be factored into performance agreements of Ministers unlike during Mbeki’s time when they were ignored and half the DG’s had no performance contracts.
Gwebecimele says:
September 29, 2010 at 16:03 pm
Gwebs,
How does R296 million disappear without a trace?
The report you posted goes further :
He said he did not know whether R74 million collected by March this year had been properly collected and recorded by the fund.
It’s not possible to hide the trail of that kind of money.