On the eve of Jacob Zuma’s inauguration as South African President, the judge whose decision was key to dropping corruption charges against the ANC president has said that the country’s chief prosecutor made a mistake in law.
Mpshe
Acting head of the National Prosecuting Authority Mokotedi Mpshe last month controversially dropped a corruption prosecution against Zuma, saying the investigation had been tainted by an apparent conspiracy by former Scorpions head Leonard McCarthy and ex-NPA head Bulelani Ngcuka. He used a case in Hong Kong as one of this key reasons for dropping the charges.
But the former Hong Kong judge behind that important decision, Justice Conrad Seagroatt, who earlier commented to Grubstreet on Mpshe’s plagiarism of his judgment, has now told me that Mpshe was wrong to use his judgment to justify dropping the charges against Zuma, due to be inaugurated as president of South Africa at the Union Buildings in Pretoria tomorrow.
He said, echoing the sentiments of other top SA prosecutors and widely reported in the local press, that he should have allowed the case to go to trial.
It is very strongly arguable that he should have let the trial process begin before a judge, leaving the aspect which seems to have dominated his proper role as the prosecutor (the old adage being a ‘prosecutors’ job is to prosecute) to be determined by the judge with [Mpshe] being entirely candid (as he should be) as to the conduct of the investigative and prosecuting agencies. It is easy from my position in the U.K. (or Hong Kong) to be critical of Mpshe’s statement but being as objective as I can, he really did not get to grips with the situation and seems to have made selective use of my judgement to try and put some beef into a statement which is rather short on substance.
Jacob Zuma
Shortly before South Africa’s general election last month, Mpshe sensationally revealed secretly recorded intelligence telephone intercepts which suggested that Ngcuka and McCarthy and other prominent political figures had been part of conspiracy to derail Zuma’s political ambitions by carefully timing key events in the process of the prosecution.
But at the heart of Mpshe’s decision, in a lengthy statement read to South Africa on live television, was a 2002 judgment by Seagroatt in 2002 that he said justified his decision to drop charges. Seagroatt’s decision was not acknowledged by the Mpshe – the apparent plagiarism was revealed by James Myburgh of Politicsweb – and he faced accusations of plagiarism, which were brushed aside by his spokesman.
Further, Seagroatt told Grubstreet, his decision was later over-ruled by the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal and that Mpshe should have explained why he had relied on Seagroatt’s original decision rather than the comments by the Appeal Court. But the now-retired judge after reading Mpshe’s statement and after earlier criticising Mpshe for his lack of professionalism in his lack of citation has now gone further, telling Grubstreet exclusively that Mpshe’s was wrong to rely on his original decision at all.“There was certainly room for him to do so”.
What Mpshe seems to have taken as the justification for his decision was not a material aspect of the trial procedure but a decision made by some branch of the investigative process as to when and where Jacob Zuma should be charged on the basis of political considerations. That is an entirely different scenario. Many might argue that motivation in relation to timing of a charge is very different from manipulation of the evidence available. His own statement is so limited and sketchy that I find it impossible to identify why he was relying on my judgement. In the Hong Kong case the behaviour of the prosecution which I criticised was its failure to disclose material evidence in relation to an expert witness upon whom it relied as pivotal to its case. The first “whiff” of such evidence did not emerge until the jury were considering their verdicts and I had to stop the trial at that stage – a very rare event.
NPA spokesman Tlali Tlali said the NPA did not wish to comment on the matter as it is going to the high court. The Democratic Alliance filed papers last month with the North Gauteng High Court for a judicial review of the decision by the NPA to withdraw all charges against Jacob Zuma. Read the court papers here.
Click here to read Seagroatt’s full comments.
The story so far: click here for a set of definitive links to news stories and documents.
Popularity: 9% [?]
Loading...
May 8th, 2009 at 8:53 am
Just to let all know, I have asked the NPA for comment this morning and will let you know as soon as they do so.
May 8th, 2009 at 9:00 am
I have just spoken to NPA spokesman Tlali Tlali and he said the NPA does not wish to comment on the matter as it is before the high court.
May 8th, 2009 at 9:56 am
Hot story Gill! I’m blogging it on 24/7 with lotsa links. – Jan
May 8th, 2009 at 10:09 am
It is very unfortunate that there are still people who undermine the progress made in the liberation of our country. They do this by conducting courts activities on media and other platforms when they are well informed about processes that should take place.
It is amazing that these people are trying to question Mpshe’s authority, provide by the constitution, to make such decision after consulting with his directors. It is very clear that these people stand against all principles uttered in our constitution for a number of reasons. I am not surprised that no one speaks of the section of the constitution that guides Mpshe in making his decision which means that they want to act as if that section of the constitution does not exist.
I am also not surprised that most of these people come from the minority group that still thinks that the running of SA by the use of minority rules was perfect because it made these minorities to benefit from the economic kickbacks. Some of these are evidently racist and they still can’t comprehend the fact that SA is moving forward and is running a succesful government.
May 8th, 2009 at 10:25 am
Sihle… what on earth are you babbling on about.? Your reference to race is insulting only to your own intelligence and has no bearing on the facts being reported in this story. This story suggests that Mpshe’s argument in dropping Zuma’s charges was built on sand…that’s what it’s about, geddit?
May 8th, 2009 at 10:39 am
I think there is a need that records are set straight:
1. The NPA lauched an investigation into arms deal through the Diroctorate of Public Posecutions (DSO). The investigation was completed in 2003.
2. In 2003, the then NAtional Director of Public Prosecution, Bulelani Ngcuka, stated that there was no winnable case against Zuma so they could not proceed with the case.
3. Jacob Zuma’s financial advisor became the victim and was convicted in 2005
4. Surprisingly Zuma was released from his parliamentary duties as a result of Shaiks conviction.
5. Shortly after Shaik’s conviction, Zuma was then charged with similar charges as Shaik.
6. In September 2006, the judge struck Zuma’s case of the roll because the state was not prepared to proceed with the case.
7. In 2007, Zuma wrote to the Prosecuting Authority requesting that he is afforded with the opportunity to make representations as required by section 179 of the constitution.
8. Mpshe responded to Zuma stating that his case was not going to be reviewed. But later Zuma was recharged once again.
9. Zuma contended the fact that the NPA had broken the law by not affording him an opportunity to make representations as required by the constitution.
10. The NPA afforded him an opportunity to make representations and it surfaced from these representation that Zuma had damning evidence of the NPA prosecutor, having fabricated charges aginst Zuma to prevent him from becoming the president of SA.
11. The Head of the NPA had no choice but to drop these charges on basis that even if they went to court the judge will rule against them when dealing with the policy and procedures.
12. The NPA advised the public about the decision but also advised the public that Zuma’s case could be prosecuted via the private prosecution route. The DA intended to proceed with private prosecution but did not have money to pay for it.
May 8th, 2009 at 10:42 am
comeon on May 8th, 2009 10:25 am. No it means that those who still refuse to accept and respect the principles of democracy and the institutions that affirm that democracy do that because of racist motives. The good example of that is the opposition leader Helen Zille who has so far championed her ideologies of racism in SA.
May 8th, 2009 at 10:48 am
Sihle…get over yourself dude. How long will we (black people) keep on playing the race card everytime our government is criticised? Mpshe may have authority given to him by our Constitution, but that does not mean we cannot question his decisions. Especially when they are in the interest of the entire country. No one questioned his authority, however his argument in dropping the case against Zuma does not hold. You seem to have the current ANC mentality of being intolerant and not being open to criticism. Get over it!
May 8th, 2009 at 11:01 am
All decisions that have been made so far, relating to the Zuma matter, were made within the ambit of the law. So far, there is not a single decision that has be contested, using legal processes, which would indeed prove that somebody had made an unconstitutional decision.
The unfortunate part is that there are individuals who are part of the democratic government, who from time to time act in a way that is very unprofessional in pursuit of personal gains. These individuals attempt to hijack all constitutional processes, they also undermine the rule of law and they disrespect the institutions that affirm our constitution. They do this by echoing untruths via media and other channels that are not part of any process. They want to act as if these decisions made cannot be challenged through legal processes when if fact they can. We know that they are attempting to discredit the the government of national unity because it has made it impossible to have interests of minority protected above those of the majorities.
These people are liars in nature and don’t deserve to assume any role in our society that puts them in the leadership capacity because they are conniving.
May 8th, 2009 at 11:06 am
Hlumelo – you don’t understand. My point is that there is no benefit of challenging Mpshes decision via blogs and media. That is a tactic used to discredit him instead of dealing with the real issue. This is why the DA is now making a call for him to step down. What benefit is there in him stepping down before the matter is delt with via proper and legal cahnnels?
If you are of the view that Mpshe’s decision must be challenged of which I don’t despute that, why has it not been challenged via proper channels?
May 8th, 2009 at 11:14 am
Damn! This racist can not stop with their distored ,ill mannerd Brains.Zuma fought via the right channels.I am said to still see a retired useless judge prononce a jugdment .Get refreshed .Join the crowd
May 8th, 2009 at 11:19 am
THIS CASE TOOK 2 LONG MAN AY…& THEIR RIGHT TIME WAS DURING THE ELECTION CAMPAIGNS?? BESIDES DAT EVEN IF HE WENT 2 COURT HOW MANY YEARS DO U THINK IT WOULD HAVE TAKEN AGAIN 2 COMPLETE THE WHOLE CASE?? I THINK ANOTHER 8YEARS…..SO THIS CASE REALY WAS NEVER GOING 2 END REALLY,,,,&IF HE WAS 2 BE FOUND GUILTY WHAT DO U THINK WUD HEV HAPPENED DAT DAY IN S.A??? JUST LUK DURING HIS RAPE TRIAL….JO’BURG CAME 2 A STAND STILL..NOW DID WE REALLY WANT THE WHOLE S.A 2 COME 2 A STANT STILL JUS COS OF 1MAN?
INTEREST OF PPL YA RIGHT…BUT COUNT DA DAMAGES 2 PROPERTY DAT WUD HEV TUK PLACE AND MAYBE LIVES LOST DUE 2 DA OUTCOMES. JUST COUNT MILLIONS SPENT…AND COUNT ANOTHER MILLIONS DAT WUD HEV BEEN SPENT AGAIN DURING THE TRIAL…AY AY I THINK @THAT SIDE THEY MADE A GUD CHOICE BY END IT.
May 8th, 2009 at 11:25 am
mmm … racist that, racist this. please stop. everyone is a racist, even you zulu’s and xhosa’s – your tiwns right ? yet you fought like cats and dogs and still do …
i can just see the advancement of zuma’s friends, look at yengeni (that’s what people call a smart car in the townships right) .. just look at shabir (asshole got off scott free) and now look at zuma (charges dropped)
i talked to a guy from Zim the other day, I say, what do you think… he says SA is going the same way … time will tell hey
must be terrible to be an honest hard working black person in SA today .. I mean, you know you aint gonne get shit from your ANC government, unless you are in government
who do you vote for now, once your brother’s and sisters in government steel all the money, don’t build schools, you can just how stupid people in government spoil it for the rest of us … anyway, I’m so over this, if Zuma is your hero, you probably have nothing, right ?
May 8th, 2009 at 11:27 am
….and what J-Zee did was not illegal….in trying to stop the case going to court. Feeling guilyt or not but if you are given a constitutional chance 2 end something that u feel is going to take all Day u would 2 grab it with your both hands
May 8th, 2009 at 11:35 am
fuck racism it got shit to do with J.
May 8th, 2009 at 11:45 am
Themba on May 8th, 2009 10:39 am Said
12. The NPA advised the public about the decision but also advised the public that Zuma’s case could be prosecuted via the private prosecution route.
They never advised, they just told the public. The ANC government up to now never advised any of us South Africans they just inform us what they are and has done. They the ANC don’t govern they just rule.
May 8th, 2009 at 12:18 pm
Lous – do you mean that the NPA should have written a letter to the DA advising them to pursue private prosecution? Look, the NPA spokesperson Ntlali Ntlali did state it on the media that the decision by the NPA does not override the option of private prosecution. Even if they didn’t state that, my point is that the DA threatened to follow the private prosecution route which proves that they know of this option.
Secondly, if there is anyone out there who has evidence of any wrong doing in Zuma, why won’t those people lodge it with our courts instead of spreading lies via blogs and media? This proves that there are people who were hopeful that Zuma would not become SA president. We must also understand that their wish disregard whether Zuma is guilty or innocent. They have fears about Zuma that they are ashamed to discuss in public because it will reveal how racist they are!
May 8th, 2009 at 12:43 pm
Wooooooo hooooooooo… Kicking up a stink on an international level! Not even a gang of angry Chelsea supporters could kick up a riot like this.
May 8th, 2009 at 12:51 pm
Guys, I know this a blog for adults but let’s hold off on the swearing.
May 8th, 2009 at 1:45 pm
Oh dear boys and girls. We have such a beautiful country, filled with interesting people of all shapes, sizes, colours etc. Why do you think it is that we can’t get along? I am not going to let on what colour I am for fear of being called a racist, but you may guess if you wish (its your democratic right). Surely if I was born in South Africa, I am a South African according to the constitution. There are no apartheid affiliated people under the age of 32 in this country (you had to be 18 to vote for the NATS).
OK, now that we have that sorted out, about that JZ thing. I agree that the “rule” of law has been followed in dropping charges against “my machine-gun” man. Many thieves, rapists and murders have escaped prosecution due to prosecutorial misconduct, losing evidence etc. so why not our president to be. The problem is the perception this creates amongst hordes of potential investors that would like to blow some of there substantial mountain of cash in SA. Now if we didn’t care about the upliftment of the poor and the general growth of our country, this wouldn’t matter. I reckon that there are more than a few poor people who would be bitterly disappointed if there lives got worse due to a lack of investment in our economy. Of course they would need a good education to understand the finer points of politics and economics (Naledi?) so they could see where our politics is going, and vote differently.
For those of you who think of JZ as a god and Hellen Zilla as the devil, I would like to suggest that you research HZ’s struggle credentials before calling her a racist!
May 8th, 2009 at 2:51 pm
Hey guys. Over at Pierre de Vos’s blog, Constitutionally Speaking, I asked him for his expert legal opinion on what ramifications — if any — Seagroatt’s comments would have for the DA’s court challenge. This is what he said.
“Gill, the legal issue in any review of Mpshe’s decision will probably centre around two questions: (1) When the NPA drops charges is this decision “administrative action” in terms of PAJA (administrative law) and if so, was the decision of Mphse justified in terms of PAJA. (2) Regardless of whether PAJA apply, did Mpshe follow the prosecution policy when he dropped the charges or did he act ultra vires (outside the law) by not following the policy to which he is constitutionally and legally bound.
Neither question will be answered definitively with reference to the Hong Kong case as SA law will apply. But the reasons given by Mphse will be the starting point for either enquiry and could help to show that he did not act legally when he dropped charges, either because he misconstrued the legal rules or failed to follow the legal rules to which he was bound. So although these revelations are highly embarrassing to Mpshe and the NPA I am not sure it will have direct legal application although it might help to show that Mpshe did not act in accordance with the law when he made the decision and could be of some persuasive value in any case brought.”
It’s well worth checking out his blog, guys. It really is very interesting and he knows his stuff. Go to:
http://www.constitutionallyspeaking.co.za
May 8th, 2009 at 3:52 pm
Gillm – I really don’t understand why anybody must worship the Hong Kong person who does not fit anywhere in our justice system when we have so many judges within our justice system whose decisions we are failing to respect.
Your comments are really misleading more especially to those people who don’t understand legal processes. In fact what you are doing is provide comfort to people who are refusing to accept Jacob Zuma as the president of our republic. Instead you are giving them hopes on things that will not take place.
People need to accept that all those who were involved in the process of Zuma prosecution acted accordingly and in cases where they failed, the law also provided platform for them to lodge complaints in time. The said thing is that these views are echoed mostly from white South African and one really fails to understand why is it them alone, who are having difficulties accepting Jacob Zuma as the president. It leave one with lots of suspicions more especially because we are coming from a regime of white minority rule that was grounded on pure racism. This could in fact be the repeatation of that regime.
May 8th, 2009 at 5:01 pm
This kind of investigative effort is so rare. Thanks for a great post. Sad, but great.
May 8th, 2009 at 5:03 pm
Funny funny staff!
Have you asked yourself why you always think that Zuma should proved his inocence? The answer is simple; you are not happy because he didnot. So now here is your medicine.
Ask yourself why (if Zuma was involved in the arm deal) didn’t the former president, minister of defence, finance, intelligence, home affairs or even the whole parlament, didn’t know about such a case. This is partly because whether he bought them for himself or his country, they should have known. The reason is that, if he bought the for himself, intelligence would know about it simply because he was going to be a threat to the country and all of the above people would have been informed. And if he bought them for the country, all would have known because he would be using the state’s money. But since you are traped in you little coner of seeing him guilty you think he should have gone to court to prove himself. Why don’t you say the above people should prove that for this country’s sake. You are funny like all the so called professors what share the same thoght with you.
May 8th, 2009 at 5:14 pm
I think South Africans deserve to know that there are people who create polls (like this one) with intentions to destroy the image of SA in the world. They do this so that the credibility of SA can be lost more especially because it is one of the first countries in the world to peacefully achieve democracy.
There is absolutely nothing wrong when these kinds of blogs are set up in. The problem is when they distribute information that is not true and attack those institutions that are supposed to support our democracy. The worse thing is that it is know for a fact that these people are paid and they become agents of those countries that see SA as a threat.
I am working with a number of groups to mobilize so that this kind of a thing can be legislated so that these blogs can be called to account if they distributed information that is incorrect more especially if they attack democratic institutions.
May 8th, 2009 at 5:19 pm
Hi Sihle. Thank you for your comment. I don’t think anyone “worships” the British judge. His views are especially relevant in this case as his judgment was used in Mokotedi Mpshe’s decision to drop the charges against Jacob Zuma. It was Mpshe who opened the door on this one — not myself.
I have been open about my political views on this blog: I was a proud ANC voter until the end of Mbeki’s second term. I believe his increasingly autocratic and paranoid leadership hampered delivery and undermined good governance.
I do, in fact, accept Jacob Zuma as my president. I think and hope that he will make a better president than Thabo Mbeki.
However, as a journalist I approach all in authority with an independent and questioning mind. That is what journalists do, no matter what their race, as that is what our readers and users demand of us.
As for your comments about white people, I don’t presume to speak for white South Africans nor do I wish too. Their political views are as various and textured as the political views of any other race group in this country.
May 8th, 2009 at 5:29 pm
Hi Sphiwe. Pray tell, on what basis do you make the accusation that what I have written is not true? Accusing people of making things up is borderline defamation so let’s try raise the quality of the comments and thinking behind them.
The fact that IOL, The Times and Politicsweb linked to my blog today form there front pages shows that I have a reputation as a journalist of 15 years experience who strives to be ethical, accurate and fair.
May 8th, 2009 at 7:22 pm
I find this topic very interesting,but i am still very confused as to how a first world country like the United States can hold a President (Bill Clinton) accountable for
his sexual acts with a collegue but yet because we want justice and some people don’t like what we have to say,we are called racist’s??? I support the ANC in there actions to correct the wrong doings of the old regime,but not the expence of damaging the good reputation of our beloved country by electing JZ as a leader…PRO SOUTH AFRICAN!!!
May 8th, 2009 at 8:02 pm
Hi Gill,
First let me congragulate you for taking blogging to new levels. That said, my understanding of Justicew Seagrotts response to you, differs substantiaally with your interpretation, which has unfortunately been rubberstamped as “fact” by other news sources. As a student journalist, I wisjh that you would correct me where neccessary if I’m wrong.
1) Justice Seagroatt: “…Mpshe should not only have given proper attribution to the passages in my judgement upon which he obviously relied…”
For me this is the first fallacy is Justice Seagrott’s response. He submits that it is “obvious” that Mpshe relied on his judgment to come to the decision he took. But according to Mpshe’s statement, he relied on the following judgements: “Ormrod LJ’s judgment in R v Derby Crown Court, ex Parte Brooks is cited, then Mason CJ in Jago v District Court of New South Wales, then Lord Lowry in Connelly v DPP 1964; then Lord Steyn in Regina v Latif , then Lord Clyde in R v Martin, and finally Lord Hope in R v Hui Chi-Ming.” The fact that Mpshe played puzzles with Justice Seagrott’s wording as per his Hong Kong judgment, does not necessarily follow that Mpshe “obviosly” relied on Seagrott’s judgment. This might also explain why Mpshe never attributed anything to the Hong Kong judgment, because all he took from it was “WORDS AND PHRASES”.
2) Subsequently, Seagrott’s entire post is premised on this “arguable” fallacy. He rightly contests that for Mpshe’s decision to align with his, then it must have been a judge who looked into these matters. In other words, HE IS NOT SAYING THAT MPSHE SHOULD NOT HAVE DROPPED THE CHARGES, BUT THAT “IF HE RELIED ON HIS JUDGMENT TO DO SO, THEN IT SHOULD HAVE BEEN A COURT THAT TOOK THAT DECISION.
I’ll continue tomorrow…
May 9th, 2009 at 8:47 pm
Yes..I’m back..excuse the typos on the previous post…was in a hurry…*coughs* FRIDAY…
Following on the previous post, I submit that it is entirely wrong and that it borders on distortion for Justice Seagrott’s comments to be publicized as a rebuke towards Mpshe, without properly contextualizing his “fallible” and “untested” premise.
I have no doubt that Gill Moodie prides himself with being a veteran in the business of journalism, thus I anticipate that in the event that he appreciates my line of argument, then he would make an effort to clarify the particular distortion, lest he gets accused of harboring hidden agendas.
May 9th, 2009 at 8:55 pm
continued…
If indeed what Justice Seagrott was saying is that Mpshe should NOT have dropped the charges IF he relied on his Hong Kong Judgment, then I find it difficult to understand how the headline: “Zuma should have gone to trial, says Hong Kong judge” comes even close to representing Justice Seagrott’s argument. It’s a distortion of the worst kind. It not only misrepresents Justice Seagrott, but if gives cosmetic hope to those who suffer from Zumaphobia, at the expense of the truth.
May 10th, 2009 at 10:43 am
Hi Setsumo. Are you really a journalism student? If you are, you need to distance yourself from stories in order to evaluate them logically and in a balanced fashion. You need to get out more. Have a little fun. Get down tonight!
Just two comments on your reading of the story:
1. The issue is that Seagroatt’s 2002 judgment was used — but without attribution. The NPA has itself admitted this when they said the lack of citation was an “innocent oversight”. After this admission, it probably would have strengthened Mpshe’s statement if he’d issued a new one pointing out exactly where he used Seagreatt’s judgement in his reasoning. But, because he hasn’t done this, we all have to work it our for selves and this most likely weaken the NPA case when the matter goes to court. (And the Democratic Alliance has challenged the decision in the High Court so it will.)
2. Seagroatt didn’t say that the NPA should NOT have dropped the charges. He said they should be tested in court.
I think those points are clear if you read these stories and Seagroatt’s comments in a dispassionate manner. Remember, if you want to be a journalist, you need to be attentive, independently minded, curious and questioning otherwise I do advise you choose a new career option. And I’m a gal — not a guy. I think that’s clear from my name and the picture of me on the front page of the website.
May 10th, 2009 at 11:39 am
Thank you Setumo for revealing some truth around this matter. I have suspected for a long time that Gill seems to have hidden agenda about her programme. I would not be surprised because many people is SA are driven by careerism and they even undermine whatever gains we have achieve through our struggle for liberation and freedom.
Yesterday we had a big event in that marked and affirm the success of our democracy right i Africa. We have managed for four terms now, to have very smooth transition from one government to another. Many countries in the world still struggle to get this one right. I bet you will not see a single article from Gill that intends painting that picture and selling the idea of a prosperous SA. Gill knows very well that the day SA will achieve political stability that will be the end of her/his career and many others. So his/her resistance to accept that SA is in good state and shape is well understood but it must not be condoned.
SA is full people who mostly come from minority groups, who claim to be the custodians of our democracy. Their blindspot informs them that it is correct and okey to undermine all achievements that appear to be attributed to any group other than theirs. They reject the idea of unity because their spirit is bedeviled by the idea that success can never be achieved unless there is competion. They refuse to subscribe to the idea of ubuntu because of fears, hatred and guilt they harbour in theirs hearts. They have opted in their heart while sleeping, that they will never allow anyone excpet themselves to be the one to whom the glory of better life for all is assigned.
These people don’t realise that they are driven by greed which stems from the philosophy that in the middle of the struggle for freedom, there must be those who continuous derive financial benefits even if the struggle has costed others life. Theirs is the knowledge that money is key to survival even if getting it man destroy prosepects for a better tomorrow hence global warming. They generate myths and sound horns from the corners of the earth so that the human race can leave with fears on the unknown, they build humangous corporates formed on the foundations of deception and lies even if they know that it will collapse tomorrow hence the recession. They have clinged for their dear lives to the wrong idea that any work done cannot be of benefit if it guarantees a better future for the coming generations. They stubborn mind fails to acknowledge that humanity is about benefits for others even if there might not be direct benefits for those struggling today. Such have no place on the face of the earth if our world has to be a better place!
May 10th, 2009 at 12:39 pm
Has it ever occurred to you guys how weird you are? I bet you believe there was a second shooter on the grassy knoll.
May 10th, 2009 at 5:45 pm
Hey Gill, no need to start attacking individuals who speak that truth that you are not familiar with. They have stated that they suspect that you have a hidden agenda. The wise thing to do, as a journalist, would be to defend those claims and provide proof that you don’t have any hidden agenda.
For instance there were claims made that you did not or will not post anything positive about the inauguration of your president yesterday. Is it very hard to prove them wrong Gill?
May 11th, 2009 at 6:38 am
Why do most black people associate criticism with white people. The past elections have shown that we have moved back to pre ’94 in our attitudes and perceptions.
Sihle, there are many black people who subscribe to Gill’s views and approach. Its not a preserve of white people. Have you read Ngugi’s ‘Decolonisation of the mind’? You rationalise the way apartheid designed you. You naturally associate certain things with race, ant that mindset has cost us dearly as black people.
You know, we dont want to criticize in case we offend someone. For an example we have 240 manucipalities at local government level and 136 of them are dysfunctional. Cabinet took the unprecedented decision to seek a constitutional amendment that national government can intervene directly(managemnt control), unwisely so, but signs of frustrations of poor performance.
Almost all thes manucipalities are run and managed by black people and anc cdes for that matter. The government has failed our people and they have much to their credit acknowledged same , by setting up ‘project consolidate’ which can read more about http://www.dplg.gov.za.
For an example JZ appointed so many deputy ministers that it will take time for his proposed structure to take root or fail. In the meantime the casualty will be service delivey which if not adequately addressed might lead to civil strife.
Stop fighting ‘minorities’ or ‘minority’ views, they have a right to exist and actually enrich the debate. That is why a single companies like Panasoni have a range of products(like JVC) and wooltru in the SA context has a diversified portfolio with sectoral branding. Like there is Nandos, Chicken Licking and KFC for choice!
May 11th, 2009 at 8:59 am
Thanks for the intelligent comment, Dembula. The conspiracy theorists sure do haunt the Web on the weekends.
May 11th, 2009 at 9:33 am
Dembula – Why do you suggest that municipalities have failed because they are run by black people and ANC cde?
There are so many studies that have been conducted by academic institutions in SA that have managed to at least identify the real cause of bad performance by municipalities. People like you, choose to reject such findings and stick to the silly idea that these municipalities faile because they are run by black people or the ANC. I really can’t understand why?
Again, I don’t know how deep your understand goes as far as service delivery in concerned. Firstly you must understand what service delivery is all about and may be go deeper to get to knowledge of whether we have models to assist the SA government to do that. You are quick to suggest that government could perform better in this area but you are not even looking the capacity issue.
I am also sure that it is difficult for you to understand that this government must service millions of people who were not in the equation before for various reasons including pure apartheid. All these millions of people must now fit into the equation when we know for a fact that our infrastructure was built to accommodate only 30% of that. I am sure you are not suggesting that this infrastructure should be able to hold 70% percent added to 30% it used to support. You and me know it is impossible but you are trying to act as if you don’t know that.
May 11th, 2009 at 9:34 pm
Seems that the result of bad education policies is much worse than we thought **shakes head in disbelief**
Fortunately comments like Dembula’s switch on a little light in an otherwise very dark tunnel.
PS – I see Gus Silber follows your blog – oooh wow!
May 12th, 2009 at 8:38 am
Hey Chris. I see you were also a Style reader. Man, that was a hot magazine in the 80s and early 90s.
May 18th, 2009 at 3:20 pm
SIHLE- dude, the stuff you’ve written has given me the giggles on this boring monday afternoon LOL!
Not to be rude or anything; but it is because of people like you that our government is never accountable. How can you shoot down people who have valid questions and concerns; if the government is so perfect and great as you make it out to seem, why not let it speak for itself?? Surely the proof is in the pudding??
Forget academia and knowledge of ‘service delivery’ blah blah. Fact is the people have been waiting and believeing and they have gotten nothing. You speak of 30%/70%…. then atleast by now, after so many years, can we not have 3%?? You mentioned SA academic institutions having made studies and given answers as to the reason behind bad performance of municipalities– why not cite them and let us ALL share in this knowledge??
I think its very interesting that some people are content with accepting that lack of performance by the government is okay, because, well, its not their fault, its the boer’s fault right? Who should we look to then? if the government is not accountable, then who?? Sometimes i think that these people who make these statements on capacity and money and policy blah blah bllllah; i think they should try live a week in people who dont have the basics of clean water, safe shelter, education for their children… mayb only then will they realise that time is really of the essence.
there are so many people who ‘fought the struggle’ and havnt had buildings named after them or books written about them, who felt that democracy would bring them the rewards of their suffering; and many of them died with nothing. they fought so much and got nothing. this is a sad situation, because it is on the backs of these people that we came to where we are now, and if we can be content with a government who doesnt acknowledge what it owes to them; how can we, who have done relatively much less be safe in our own beds??
We owe ourselves and our country to question everything– what person follows blindly and expects to know where they are going. With no questions there can be no answers.
Setumo’s note is an example of the political games played out oin the SA arena; its all semantics and it assumes all South AFricans to be stupid and unable to think for themselves. And I quote,
“In other words, HE IS NOT SAYING THAT MPSHE SHOULD NOT HAVE DROPPED THE CHARGES, BUT THAT “IF HE RELIED ON HIS JUDGMENT TO DO SO, THEN IT SHOULD HAVE BEEN A COURT THAT TOOK THAT DECISION.”"
In your own words, you state if the judgment was to be relied on, a court was to take the decision on whether or not to drop the charges or not, ergo; whatever decision taken (in this case being to drop the charges) by Mpshe should not have been taken. Its all too confusing, and I think its terrible to confuse people like that. As a journo you should know this.
Peace.
May 22nd, 2009 at 5:38 pm
@ Gill,
Your opening line says:
“…the judge whose decision was key to dropping corruption charges against the ANC president has said that the country’s chief prosecutor made a mistake in law.”
A1 – You submit that Seagroatt’s judgments was “KEY” without providing your readers with evidence to that effect
A2 – or disproving that the other attributed judgments COULD NOT have been “KEY” to the decision to drop the charges.
Your only premise that the judgment was “KEY” is the fact that Mpshe “cut & pasted” phrases, words and sentences form Seagroatt’s argument.
B1 – it should have been clear to your readers that the “ASSUMPTION” that the judgment was “KEY” is NOT A FACT, but the end product of you “trying to work it out for yourself”. Your opening line is misleading and borders on intentional disinformation.
B2 – that you legitimized this assumption as though it was sanctioned by Seagroatt (the judge whose decision was key…has said…), exposes you to allegations of lies, dishonesty, distortion and a hidden agenda.
Secondly, I believe that the DA court application is dead in the water.
1. The PAJA argument is nonsensical.
2. The Prosecution Policy argument is valid, but in a a technical way. Whereas the Act prescribes that the NDPP must be guided by the Prosecution Policy, it is also silent around the circumstances that informed Mpshe’s decision. It can be argued that under these circumstances, Mpshe’s was justified to exercise his prerogative. There are sections within the Policy that support Mpshe’s decision, but it would have been folly to apply the policy partially, because it would have opened him up to legal criticism. I suppose that is the reason why he steered away from making any reference to the policy in his announcement. Over and above everything, Mpshe CANNOT be faulted for malicious intentions under the circumstances he was faced with.
We will wait and see.
May 22nd, 2009 at 11:29 pm
Gill, I used to love STYLE magazine. Think that’s where I read Aspasia Karras for the first time and Jenny Cryws-Williams.
I’ve had a quick look at the correspondence between you and Setumo. Setumo, Gill wrote you a very fair and clear message. She’s a journalist with 15 years of experience. Maybe try to be a little more fair-minded (open-minded).
If you’d researched this topic even a little bit you’d remember that the guy who said “we’re dropping the charges against Zuma” quoted another judge’s statements (plagiarised them) in rationalising why he was dropping the charges. He used this other judge’s statements in giving reasons why he was dropping the charges. That explains the ‘key’ bit.
Overall I find the debate around this issue kind’ve weird. Any person who breaks the law should go to court. Any lawyer or legal authority ought to practise the law appropropriately. Neither of these simple things have happened. So why argue over technicalities when the bottom line is whatever the technicalities, there hasn’t been an ethical or honest approach either on the side of the political leader in question (who should clear his name in court and face the charges brought against him) or even on the prosecutors prosecuting him. I question the motives of anyone who says that either the legal process here was right and good, or that Zuma deserves special attention and should be exempt from appearing in court.
In any case, the people and the ANC I’m sure will be watching Mr. Zuma during this extremely difficult period (economically, environmentally and politically). I don’t think any leader elected now will be popular for much longer because unemployment is about to reach chronic levels all around the world. And who will be to blame? Our leaders apparently. In this sense the expulsion of Mbeki before the end of his term sets a scary precedent for Mr. Zuma.
I guess the doubt and confusion felt by Setumo and others provides -apparently – a license to these guys in power to do what they will and attempt to get away with it, because citizens are left with the feeling that they have vindicated themselves. Really? Unfortunately too few citizens are objective on this, or even care about it. But I have a feeling this will change as more and more jobs disappear.
Nice job Gill.