The unhappy fact that it is journalists, investigating organs of state and officialdom and the political class and their involvement in corrupt practices to loot the State’s resources, who, by so doing, attract the attention of powerful and influential persons who are capable of suborning the apparatus of the State to smell out their adversaries, cannot be ignored. The examples of abuse of the system have been addressed elsewhere in this judgment. Moreover, the respondents’ perspectives assume that the designated judge is not lied to and is diligent… In my view, in the absence of a rebuttal, this example illustrates a grave vulnerability in RJCA that such an apparent abuse could occur. The common cause examples of blatant lies being told to the designated judge further exacerbates the vulnerability of the system.
Glenister issues R100 000 anti-corruption challenge to Southern African youth
Urgent call to all Southern African universities and youth under 30 to propose an independent anti-corruption framework
Johannesburg businessman and anti-corruption campaigner, Bob Glenister today posed a R100 000 challenge to all Southern African youth and universities in a bid to rally civil society in the fight against corruption.
Earlier last year, Glenister won the Constitutional Court judgment which found the Hawks – the corruption-busting unit of the SA Police Service – unconstitutional on the grounds that they lacked sufficient independence, both operationally and structurally, to enable them to properly fight corruption.
Glenister has invited Southern Africans below the age of 30 to devise a ‘best practice’ implementation of the judgment in the Glenister case. The competition is open to all university faculties and students, as well as to all private entrants, south of the equator (including Indian Ocean Islands).
Glenister believes that the only way to fight corruption is to involve as diverse a range of responses as possible in the public participation process leading up to the Constitutional Court’s judgment being finally implemented by Parliament in September this year.
Glenister believes that the only way to conquer corruption is for all levels of society to participate.
“Corruption is a disease that affects every single one of us, no matter your age, profession, location or economic dispensation. Most of all, it affects young adults, because they are the ones that will be left to fix the mess that we have allowed to happen,” says Glenister.
The objective of the challenge is to engage young people in this issue, which is vital to the success of South Africa’s constitutional democracy, and to encourage them to produce ideas that can help to strengthen the integrity of the country’s corruption-fighting entity.
Competing teams and individuals are invited to submit their proposed draft legislation and accompanying explanatory memorandums of not more than 5000 words by no later than 31 July 2012.
Submissions will be evaluated by a panel of retired judges in South Africa, who will decide which team or individual most deserves the prize.
The R100 000 will be split into two prize categories: If a faculty submission is selected, half of the prize money will be awarded to the winning participating faculty, while the remaining half will be divided amongst the students deemed most deserving by their faculty. In the event that an independent (non-university) winner is chosen, they will receive R10 000 and the remaining R90 000 will go to the best university submission. In this case, the faculty will get R45 000 and the students will receive an equal share of the remaining R45 000. Glenister has also included 6 Galaxy Tablets as part of the prize.
Only one entry per team or faculty, submitted in English, is allowed.
Entry forms are available from email@example.com. Completed entries must be submitted to this email address as well as in hard copy to PO Box 33, Noordhoek, 7979, RSA, by 31 July, 2012.
The panel’s decision will be made public on 30 September 2012.
The judgment in the Glenister case can be found at www.ifaisa.org.
Notes to editors:
Timeline on Hawks ruling
|2001||The Scorpions unit is established to supplement the efforts of existing law enforcement agencies in tackling corruption and organised crime.|
|April 2005||After concerns are raised in the criminal justice system and the intelligence community over the Scorpions’ role and function, former president Thabo Mbeki appoints Judge Sisi Khampepe to chair a commission of inquiry into the rationale for the unit’s establishment.|
|February 2006||The Khampepe Commission recommends that the Scorpions remain in the National Prosecuting Authority, but that the unit’s law enforcement responsibilities be subject to political oversight by the safety and security minister.|
|December 2007||The African National Congress adopts a resolution at Polokwane calling for a single police service and the dissolution of the Scorpions.|
|February 2008||Safety and Security Minister Charles Nqakula , speaking in the National Assembly, proposes the dissolution of the Scorpions and the creation of a new unit under the SAPS to deal with priority crimes.|
|April 2008||The Presidency issues a statement saying the Cabinet had approved two bills which proposed to dissolve the Scorpions and replace the unit with the Directorate for Priority Crime Investigation (Hawks).|
|June 2008||Businessman Hugh Glenister launches a court application in the North Gauteng High Court challenging the decision to initiate the bills. The high court rules it has no jurisdiction over the matter.|
|October 2008||The Constitutional Court rules that it would be appropriate not to intervene in the affairs of Parliament at that stage.|
|October 2008||The National Prosecuting Authority Amendment Act and the South African Police Service Amendment Act are passed by Parliament and signed into law by former president Kgalema Motlanthe in January 2009.|
|April 2009||Glenister challenges the constitutional validity of the laws in the Western Cape High Court.|
|February 2010||The Western Cape High Court dismisses Glenister’s challenge and holds that the establishment of the Directorate for Priority Crime Investigation was manifestly designed to enhance the capacity of the SAPS to prevent, combat and investigate national priority crimes and other crimes.|
|September 2010||Glenister launches an appeal to the Constitutional Court arguing that the two acts that disbanded the Scorpions and established the Directorate of Priority Crime Investigation were unconstitutional.|
|March 2011||Constitutional Court rules that the Hawks’ lack of independence is unconstitutional. It gives Parliament until September 2012 to remedy this.|
Prepared by: FTI Consulting Strategic Communications
Courtney Chennells Courtney.firstname.lastname@example.org / 011 2142404 / 082 734 5536
Sandra Sowray Sandra.email@example.com / 011 2142422 / 079 167 6863
For further information:
Hugh Glenister – 083 463 3339
Paul Hoffman SC, Ifaisa (Institute for Accountability in Southern Africa) – 082 888 0821
BACK TO TOP