It is clear that no legitimate objective is advanced by excluding domestic workers from COIDA. If anything, their exclusion has a significant stigmatising effect which entrenches patterns of disadvantage based on race, sex and gender…. In considering those who are most vulnerable or most in need, a court should take cognisance of those who fall at the intersection of compounded vulnerabilities due to intersecting oppression based on race, sex, gender, class and other grounds. To allow this form of state-sanctioned inequity goes against the values of our newly constituted society namely human dignity, the achievement of equality and ubuntu. To exclude this category of individuals from the social security scheme established by COIDA is manifestly unreasonable.
When Mr Jacob Zuma’s lawyer was asked about the origins of the tapes illegally and criminally handed over to the Zuma camp and then used by the NPA to drop charges against Mr Zuma he said that attorney-client priviledge prevented him from saying where the tapes came from.
Who is Mr Hulley’s client whom he is protecting?
Seems to me it is reasonable to ask whether Mr Hulley gave away the game with this comment. It strongly suggests that the tapes come from Mr Zuma himself. Could that be why there is attorney-client priviledge between the person handing over the tapes and Mr Hulley who received them. Or does Mr Hulley have other clients who have an interest in this case. Can he claim attorney-client priviledge when he was party to a crime and or covering up a crime?
So, when will the police begin investigating this crininal act of handing over and receiving the tapes? Will the NPA ever charge Mr Hulley and or Zuma or any other client of Mr Hulley for this criminal act?
I am sure they will. And I am sure Thabo Mbeki will soon admit that he was wrong on HIV and Aids, Xolela Mangcu will give his shares back to Tokyo Sexwale and the Independent Democrats will win the election.BACK TO TOP