Quote of the week

Regard must be had to the higher standard of conduct expected from public officials, and the number of falsehoods that have been put forward by the Public Protector in the course of the litigation.  This conduct included the numerous “misstatements”, like misrepresenting, under oath, her reliance on evidence of economic experts in drawing up the report, failing to provide a complete record, ordered and indexed, so that the contents thereof could be determined, failing to disclose material meetings and then obfuscating the reasons for them and the reasons why they had not been previously disclosed, and generally failing to provide the court with a frank and candid account of her conduct in preparing the report. The punitive aspect of the costs order therefore stands.

KHAMPEPE J and THERON J
Public Protector v South African Reserve Bank (CCT107/18) [2019] ZACC 29 (22 July 2019)
25 June 2007

Kebble got value for donation says ANC

How brazen can you get? Now the ANC is arguing in court papers that it does not have to pay back the 3.5 million Rand that Brett Kebble donated to it. Kebble’s estate is trying to get back the money which they claimed were paid when he was insolvent. Business Day reports:

In his affidavit, Msimang said “donors receive value for the funds donated” through the “indirect benefit” that their companies operated in a political climate “which was borne through the gallant effort and contribution of the ANC”.

Msimang said that by donating to the ANC, Kebble was “maintaining an institution of democracy which (enabled) him to acquire his wealth, which in (turn), enabled him to operate his business in a democratic state free of racism, economic sanctions and free of all the negativity brought by (apartheid)”.

This argument is so preposterous, it could have been made up by The Onion. It is as if the ANC people are mocking themselves. It also seems to reflect – more darkly – the view that only the ANC can run South Africa and keep the peace and thus, by implication, that onmly the ANC has a right to rule the country.

I cannot imagine that the court would agree with this argument and then the ANC will have to pay back the money in any case. Why make such a fool of yourself if you know the chances of winning is very slim? The most obvious answer is that one makes such answers if one is exctremely arrogant and does not really care what people think. Or maybe more correctly, one does not care what the chattering classes think who actually read newspapers.

SHARE:     
BACK TO TOP
2015 Constitutionally Speaking | website created by Idea in a Forest