South Africa P.I.G.: CONSTITUTION

Showing posts with label CONSTITUTION. Show all posts

Uproar over new Zapiro cartoon

The latest Zapiro cartoon in the Mail & Guardian has incensed the National Union of Metalworkers of South Africa (Numsa), who blasted it as "distasteful" and "deplorable". The cartoon depicts President Jacob Zuma undoing his pants as Eugene De Kock and Schabir Shaik hold down lady justice. The infamous showerhead sketched above Zuma's head is etched closer to the president's head. A speech bubble has Zuma saying: "Begging your pardon." The cartoon relates to applications for a presidential pardon from both De Kock and Shaik. <img alt="" border="0" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5427009270764924562" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh0jE3_AqWfJjiQM0xqT8wVry2AndgHsS4yAQVBHluO4pOulzX-Kl6kZ3Iboni3uRZDNZt0rc4VuDhpMI-J3ASAqQoUTRGaq0M1OpCPhYHeWZl1b4ggQLg6MKGUj5KIUl1kfdFFVlfaeeHO/s400/zumaxzapiro.gif" style="DISPLAY: block; MARGIN: 0px auto 10px; WIDTH: 400px; CURSOR: hand; HEIGHT: 295px; TEXT-ALIGN: center" />Numsa said the caricature "implants in the minds of the public" that Zuma is a rapist despite being cleared of rape charges by a court of law. "This venomous and personal hatred of President Zuma camouflaged as an artistic skill by Zapiro is a sign of disrespect not only to President Zuma, but to the office and the position he occupies in society as the fourth democratically elected head of state," the union said in a statement. "Whilst we respect and uphold the Constitution and freedom of expression, it does not give cartoonists licence to undermine the fundamental rights to dignity as guaranteed in the Constitution." It also described the cartoon as "reckless" through depicting a woman about to be raped in a country wracked by violence and abuse against women. Numsa demanded that the newspaper and Zapiro apologise to Zuma and that the South African Human Rights Commission take action against the cartoonist.

Uproar over new Zapiro cartoon

The latest Zapiro cartoon in the Mail & Guardian has incensed the National Union of Metalworkers of South Africa (Numsa), who blasted it...

8:41 AM

Deployment: The ANC can't have its cake and eat it

<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj7OxW6aHrLszGyN9vIOZEN9GfxSjgQbV9Vx47vzbsDBnergqSLE1CgkUxGBuz9ALwDZj-y57TdDMvjXG4X4tvBpBgEG2H8PYFjPPm7QcsUGI2hLiSI0a_ngph6giou2SpCUfp6YHc_AbI/s1600-h/ANC-Govern.bmp"><img alt="" border="0" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5397573392442658482" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj7OxW6aHrLszGyN9vIOZEN9GfxSjgQbV9Vx47vzbsDBnergqSLE1CgkUxGBuz9ALwDZj-y57TdDMvjXG4X4tvBpBgEG2H8PYFjPPm7QcsUGI2hLiSI0a_ngph6giou2SpCUfp6YHc_AbI/s400/ANC-Govern.bmp" style="FLOAT: left; MARGIN: 0px 10px 10px 0px; WIDTH: 272px; CURSOR: hand; HEIGHT: 400px" /></a>Paul Trewhela responds to Malusi Gigaba's analysis of the state of local govt THE SUBSTITUTIONISM OF THE ANC Earlier this week, in 'The Professor and the Police Minister', I developed a grim argument that despotism is an old tradition in South Africa, and that the current administration appeared to be moving in that direction (see <a href="http://www.politicsweb.co.za/politicsweb/view/politicsweb/en/page71619?oid=148248&sn=Detail">here</a>).. I neglected to add a rider to that proposition. The rider says: True, but South Africa is a very difficult country to govern despotically, without the consent of the governed. Let the governors take a warning from the history of their predecessors. Few countries in the world have such a rich tradition of resistance against unjust and arbitrary rule. In few countries is there such a deep and grounded assumption, with such a powerful lived experience among the present generations, that 'these truths we take to be self-evident': that government exists to serve the governed, and not the other way round. It is not wise in South Africa for government to believe that it has a God-appointed, or History-appointed, right to rule. Unfortunately for government, the people have a very long experience of being instructed in the nonsense of that fable, which they learned the hard way not to believe, through many sacrifices. Their greatest heroes refused that argument, and stated instead: 'It's right to rebel.' At the age of 91, born in 1918, Nelson Rolihlahla Mandela is living proof of that grand refusal. The fact that he stepped down voluntarily from the seat of power, after only one term in office, is also proof of it. It is not wise for the governors in South Africa to exempt themselves from that model, provided so richly over so many years by a Mandela, a Biko, a Luthuli, a Sobukwe...the names go on and on. Each and any despotic action by the government of South Africa will be held up for inspection in the mirror of that history, which is not dead: it is not even past (as the novelist William Faulkner liked to say about the past). Few countries live so much in the present of such a history. If a people are instructed constantly in a historical tradition of defiance of unjust rule, as in South Africa, it would be unwise to assume that they will not continue to honour that teaching. If the first article in the most honoured document of that tradition were to state that 'The people shall govern', and that 'All people are entitled to take part in the administration of the country', then it would be wise to expect that the people would in the course of time come to know if they were not, in fact, being permitted to govern themselves, or if some other agency had arrogated to itself the right to act as surrogate, or substitute, in their proper place. No, ruling by fooling has only a limited chance of succeeding in a country with this kind of history. It can succeed for a while. But then, bit by bit, people catch on. About political dispossession, South Africans are a learned people. Their government should beware that kind of knowledge becoming widely established. In this sense, the people are wiser than their government, and they live much longer - above all in their historical memory. It is so easy to see who acts as Baas in this country. This is the significance of the extraordinary statement by Malusi Gigaba, Deputy Minister of Housing and member of the National Executive Committee of the ANC, which appeared last week on the weekly online newsletter of the governing party, ANC Today 23 October (see <a href="http://www.politicsweb.co.za/politicsweb/view/politicsweb/en/page71619?oid=148245&sn=Detail">here</a>). Gigaba's document is revelatory for two reasons. Firstly, he provides an astonishing insider's accountancy of cronyism and corruption by the governing party, and how it eviscerates local government across a huge area of the country. Secondly, despite all he shows of maladministration and corruption, he reveals an unshaken faith in the sacred right of his political party to continue to act as a substitute source of authority, in place of the voters. Gigaba begins in his first sentence with an acknowledgement of a primary contemporary reality: "It is quite easy to hear such swiping statements as that - 'All Councillors are useless and corrupt'". The problem arises, he states, "when nothing is done about those that are corrupt, or arrogant, and/or lazy". Some of the current service delivery protests, Gigaba continues, have been not so much about service delivery itself, but, rather, "service delivery issues have been raised to highlight a much deeper challenge in our municipalities which relates to the political leadership of the Councils." The recent Lekwa municipal protests had little to do with the issues of service delivery, he states. They were directed rather at "the arrogance of certain comrades deployed to positions of responsibility...." What the community is complaining about was basically that "their leadership had turned their backs on their mandate and had forgotten their leadership responsibility". Councillors at the level of municipality, he goes on, sometimes "become big-headed and undermine and disrespect" ANC branches, so that "the only structure they interact with is their caucus". In addition, there are "constant divisions between the ANC and its allies. There are many opportunists on the ground masquerading as SACP members, sowing divisions in the name of the SACP and even orchestrating violent riots against Councillors. In many instances, it is an open secret that these so-called SACP activists want to become Councillors themselves in 2011, and just use the SACP for that purpose. This is not helped by the ANC's own ample opportunists sowing divisions of their own between the ANC and SACP." ANC branches, Gigaba continues, "regard themselves as representatives of the leadership in the community rather than as representatives of communities..." Branches feel that this "precludes the ANC from engaging in what are regarded as civic issues", thus "[refraining] from civic engagement about roads, electricity, water and housing, indeed about issues of municipal governance...". In a situation in which the "ordinary masses on the ground had enormous grievances and discontent about local issues", in Lekwa the recent protests had in fact been "led by ANC members in good standing". ANC branches in Lekwa had previously "raised these issues to senior organisational structures, but with no positive response." The result is "Social distance - a leadership disconnect[ed] with communities": a "yawning political, organisational and leadership hiatus on the ground", in which for years it had been "evident that the masses felt estranged and disengaged from the ANC and regarded its leadership as aloof." This was "Deployment gone berserk". In Lekwa, Dipaleseng and other areas, the political leaders of the municipalities "disrespect the masses and have tended to regard themselves...as untouchable. What often compounds this is the fact that these comrades often have connections with senior leaders in the regions and provinces and belong to powerful factions that protect them and shield them from any criticism." Mayors, Speakers and Chief Whips are often "clearly incompetent to occupy these positions. Yet they have been deployed to hold them...to serve factional ends. When they buckle and fail to perform, and when they become arrogant and big-headed, it is because they know they will be shielded by those that had deployed them". There, without even having to read between the lines, and from the hand of the Deputy Housing Minister (who is also a former President of the ANC Youth League, and therefore knows the score backwards), is the rarest glimpse of truth from within the ruling apparatus. Gigaba describes a pervasive system in which councillors (though not all) are "corrupt, or arrogant, and/or lazy", who "turn their backs" on the people they are supposed to serve, who are "big-headed" and interact only with their caucus, among whom there are "ample opportunists" and in which there are "constant divisions" of a purely factional, self-serving nature. What an indictment, and what a betrayal of the ANC's promise that 'The people shall govern'! It is an exposition of the systemic nature of South Africa's failure of governance. Gigaba goes even further. In a dazzling illumination of the real nature of modern South Africa which deserves to be re-enacted in municipalities across the country as a form of political theatre, for the enlightenment and entertainment of the people, he displays the systemic machinery of corruption in government. The "greatest injustice", he states, is committed "when patently incompetent and unqualified people are deployed into the administration as Municipal Managers, Chief Financial Officers, and Heads of certain services such as local economic development, technical services and others." Then comes the clincher. "It is generally known that Section 57 Employees are political deployees. The reasons for this are never explained except that this is so. This is so helplessly abused and perverted that it could seem that what is at fault here is the very notion of deployment. Anyone who is connected with the powerful blocs can end up occupying any of these positions. "Often, RECs deploy people to these positions despite the fact that they have no deployment committees and have no power to deploy. And when they do so, they often deploy 'javelin throwers' who will ensure that all contracts are thrown in the right direction and then they run hard to receive the javelin on the other hand and share the spoils with those who 'deployed' them." "Javelin throwers"! What a wonderful phrase! What is at fault here, Gigaba affirms, "is the very notion of deployment". He concludes by stating that "atrocities are committed in the name of deployment and municipalities undermined and decapitated!" He could not be more damning. Yet, contrary to Malusi Gigaba, "deployment" is the heart and soul of ANC government, its principle of life, its fundamental principle of rule. It is built into the very fabric of government by the Electoral Law enshrined in the Constitution of 1994, by which a party list system of unmediated proportional representation places a cabal of party managers in Luthuli House supreme over Parliament, the provinces, the municipalities, the civil service - and even the Presidency itself - with as little difference as if it were the Central Committee of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union. The "javellin throwers" are the living truth of South African despotism, built into the Constitution by the ANC in its Electoral Law under the benign aegis of Nelson Mandela, in a last-minute secret compact with the outgoing party of despotism, the National Party of FW de Klerk (and before him, of PW Botha, BJ Vorster, etc etc), in the early months of 1994. It is the continuation of apartheid tyranny by other means, to the advantage of the ANC, as successor to the apartheid state. Even a cursory reading of Gigaba's historic document makes it clear, however, that he sees no remedy to this systemic miscarriage of democracy in South Africa, apart from an appeal to the nobler sentiments of the party for whom this system was constructed as sole beneficiary. Gigaba is a prisoner too of the ANC's folie de grandeur, or arrogance (or foolishness) of power. It is the besetting sin of substitutionism. This term, current within British leftwing groups in previous decades, was invented to describe those deluded groups or sects that believed that they could substitute their own energies (or arrogance) for the self-activity of the working class. It applies perfectly to the arrogant delusion of the ANC, of whatever faction (and no less to the direct inheritor of the Stalinist tradition of the Soviet Union, the SACP, burrowed away within the ANC), that it is the God-created fount of the political right to rule in South Africa, and not the voters organised in constituencies, with the power to pull down any incumbent. In this sense, the Constitution of 1994 through its Electoral Law established a tyranny dressed up as democracy, and this system urgently needs revision. Discussion of this subject should be brought to every municipality in the country.

Deployment: The ANC can't have its cake and eat it

Paul Trewhela responds to Malusi Gigaba's analysis of the state of local govt THE SUBSTITUTIONISM OF THE ANC Earlier this week, in '...

1:45 AM

Zuma's first 100 days

<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgn1PiVSZV5JU9mWJglkwGio3VQNsTPIgHhNvRkPS3dRNoEaOOmM_3ogYnQ3nPrrQ2o781FwMHrOK6UFCpiw9ZW_sfDAxoyp_Eot4AdpmEGF64HborUIORk4OYUlubPYWBVM1Vnn41L-4U/s1600-h/zuma-vote-justice.bmp"><img alt="" border="0" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5369880482733624002" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgn1PiVSZV5JU9mWJglkwGio3VQNsTPIgHhNvRkPS3dRNoEaOOmM_3ogYnQ3nPrrQ2o781FwMHrOK6UFCpiw9ZW_sfDAxoyp_Eot4AdpmEGF64HborUIORk4OYUlubPYWBVM1Vnn41L-4U/s320/zuma-vote-justice.bmp" style="FLOAT: left; MARGIN: 0px 10px 10px 0px; WIDTH: 225px; CURSOR: hand; HEIGHT: 320px" /></a>Looking at the first 100 days of Zuma's presidency THE GOOD On the positive side, he is affable, humble and approachable. The personal tone of the presidency is open and friendly. We give credit to President Zuma in his first State of the Nation Address for being honest about the enormous problems facing South Africa, such as crime, unemployment, failing education and AIDS. We welcome his blunt instruction to those teachers who abuse the system: "Teachers should be in school, in class, on time, teaching, with no neglect of duty and no abuse of pupils!" We also welcome his surprise visits to schools to check on them. He has made some good appointments, such as Trevor Manuel in the Presidency, Pravin Gordhan in the Treasury, Tokyo Sexwale in Housing, and Gill Marcus in the Reserve Bank. On the matter of expensive new cars for politicians, the DA has lead by example, using existing pool cars wherever possible. Nonetheless we applaud President Zuma's announcement (after the public outcry on the luxury cars bought by ANC Ministers) about cutting down on such luxuries. These are the good points. THE BAD His political performance as President is less certain, and indeed gives grounds for grave concern at times. By far the biggest minus about his performance as President arises out of his uneasy relationship with the Constitution and his political leadership. Public memory is short. Nevertheless, it remains important to consider the circumstances under which Jacob Zuma became President, because these raise serious constitutional questions. A few months back, Jacob Zuma had several hundred counts of corruption hanging over him - until the case against him was withdrawn in highly questionable circumstances, including the leaking of NIA surveillance recordings to his defence team.A review application against the decision of the acting National Director of Public Prosecutions to withdraw the charges is currently before the courts. This review application could go all the way to the Constitutional Court for final determination. Yet, in his capacity as President, Jacob Zuma will appoint the Chief Justice who will preside over his case.This creates a clear conflict of interest and raises profound questions about why the charges were withdrawn in the first place. Just this week we were reminded of the circumstances surrounding the early release from prison of fraudster Schabir Shaik who spent hardly any of his 15 year sentence actually behind bars. His corruption conviction arose out of his relationship with Jacob Zuma. Given the fact that he is now well enough to drive around and eat in restaurants, it is quite clear that Shaik's release was politically rather than medically motivated. The irresistible conclusion is that Shaik was released early because he was not prepared to be the scapegoat in the broader corruption case, and that he threatened to reveal what he knew if he was not released. It is for the ANC and President Zuma himself to show this conclusion is unfounded. So far all indications are in the opposite direction. The Shaik saga goes to the heart of the Constitution, undermining the principle of equality before the law, and demonstrating selective justice depending on political connections. President Zuma's surprise nomination of Sandile Ngcobo as Chief Justice also cocked a snook at the Constitution, which requires the President to consult with leaders of other parties first. The reason is that the Chief Justice is not an ANC appointment but must ensure justice for all the people of the country. The nomination also highlights the reasons for the sidelining of Judge Dikgang Moseneke, the current Deputy Judge President. Moseneke attracted heavy ANC criticism when he made the obvious point that his role as a judge was to serve all the people of South Africa and not merely the ANC. Again, the irresistible conclusion is that Moseneke was sidelined for refusing to act like a deployed party cadre. The DA is not objecting to Ngcobo as a candidate of merit in his own right, as we believe he could make a good Chief Justice, but to the manner of his nomination, where President Zuma seemed to feel he could brush aside the Constitution. Adding to our concern is the suspicion that Ngcobo, who may probably only serve two more years in the Constitutional Court, is being used as a stand-in to prepare the way for John Hlophe to become Chief Justice. Hlophe is accused by Constitutional Court judges of allegedly inappropriately approaching two of them about a judgment on Zuma before he became president. This is cause for the greatest unease. Another key assault on the Constitution during Jacob Zuma's Presidency has been the emergence of the 17th Amendment Bill which will curtail the powers of the provinces and municipalities (some of which are not controlled by the ANC), and give more power to the central state (which is controlled by the ANC). When the DA questioned the ANC about this bill during the election, the ANC denied its existence. Now it is pushing forward with this very bill, and President Zuma is saying nothing about it. President Zuma often gives the very dangerous impression that he thinks the Constitution carries less weight than the priorities of the ANC or the clauses of the Freedom Charter. As the political leader of our country, President Zuma has shown little direction. Although he acknowledges our country's problems, President Zuma shows no inclination to give a clear lead on what should be done about many of them. He gives a sense of drifting on the strongest current of the day. He often acts more like a deployee than a leader. Power has undoubtedly shifted from the Presidency of South Africa to the Secretary-General of the ANC, Gwede Mantashe, and to the headquarters of the Communist Party and the Congress of South African Trade Unions. Perhaps the defining moment of Jacob Zuma's presidency came almost immediately when he announced his huge cabinet of 62 ministers - at enormous public expense. This was not done to promote efficient government, quite the opposite. It was done to reward and reconcile a large number of varied interest groups who had helped to bring him to power. Patronage not patriotism was the reason for having 62 ministers. The excessive thank you parties were for the same reason. Already in his presidency a number of critically important matters have arisen, and President Zuma has taken no decisive stand on any of them. The proposed National Health Insurance is a recipe for disaster for our health system. It would seriously undermine the functional components of the system, without improving the dysfunctional aspects. President Zuma is silent on it. The suggested nationalisation of our mines, enthusiastically encouraged by Julius Malema, the ANC Youth Leader, and Blade Nzimande, the Communist Party Leader, is a recipe for disaster for our entire economy. Beyond a few playful remarks, Zuma has never repudiated them. Again he seems to have given in to Gwede Mantashe, who decided that nationalisation should be considered. Zuma's appointment of Bheki Cele as National Police Commissioner raised all manner of doubts. Cele has no professional police experience but is on the ANC's National Executive Committee. In the past he has urged police officers "to shoot to kill", a reckless, theatrical outburst rather than a serious commitment to dealing with violent crime, and in violation of the principle that force must be used in proportion to the perceived. This month Julius Malema criticised President Zuma for appointing "members of minority groups" to key economic ministries. He named Rob Davies in Trade and Industry, Ebrahim Patel in Economic Development, Barbara Hogan in Public Enterprises and Gill Marcus in the Reserve Bank. This disgraceful racist attack should have been immediately, loudly and publicly repudiated by the President. Instead he said little, and what he did say skirted rather than confronted the issue. Is President Zuma giving a free rein to ANC attack dogs, such as Malema, or are they dragging him where they want to go? Neither answer gives confidence in his leadership. The issue that will most come back to haunt Jacob Zuma from the ANC's own support base is the promises he has made and the expectations he has raised. His promise of 500,000 extra jobs by the end of the year cannot be kept, as every serious commentator knew at the time. The fact that he made it at all suggests more devotion to show business than to practical politics. Indeed, Zuma with his melodious voice and dancing flair has been called the "Karaoke King". He mouths the words while others make the music and sing the song. President Zuma has an excellent PR team and he has enjoyed a honeymoon from heaven. So far, though, his Presidency has been a matter of style before substance. As the clouds gather over South Africa, we should like to see clear leadership, brave policies and unyielding allegiance to the Constitution. In short, South Africa needs a President who is prepared to make some enemies to do the right thing. This article by Helen Zille first appeared in SA Today, the weekly online newsletter of the leader of the <a href="http://www.da.org.za/">Democratic Alliance</a>, August 14 2009

Zuma's first 100 days

Looking at the first 100 days of Zuma's presidency THE GOOD On the positive side, he is affable, humble and approachable. The personal t...

10:16 AM

ANC amends the constitution to eliminate the opposition

<img alt="" border="0" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5352027407777762754" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhuhZDbggWBGQRLReYNXfYZVw5wtGKDzILhR7YXHQR-kJfjuDG710MlU6ITCa9ceSFcBcUofMi1dxadbH9rUw-MghaWhJ-sE1gaQsoTyVeNLzYo8jV40OP2AT13hTL-rWvn8rrwSvQl2zE/s320/ancwilllosewesterncape.jpg" style="FLOAT: left; MARGIN: 0px 10px 10px 0px; WIDTH: 320px; CURSOR: hand; HEIGHT: 242px" />***SIGN THE PETITION*** <a class="Ktext_bold" href="http://www.mypetition.co.za/index.php?page=my_pet_details&petition_id=365&user_id=654">YOU CAN HELP STOP THE 17TH AMENDMENT BILL 2009 </a><a href="http://www.therightperspective.org/2009/06/23/south-africa-may-erase-provinces/" rel="bookmark" rev="post-4692" title="Permanent link to South Africa May Erase Provinces">ANC to SCRAP SA's nine Provinces</a> South Africa’s ruling <a href="http://www.therightperspective.org/tag/anc/" target="_blank">ANC</a> party is looking into <a href="http://www.businessday.co.za/articles/Content.aspx?id=73876" onclick="javascript:pageTracker._trackPageview('/outbound/article/www.businessday.co.za');" target="_blank">changing</a> the country’s provincial and local government structures and may scrap its province system all together, a move some say is being done to eliminate political opposition. Co-operative Governance Minister Sicelo Shiceka says the scrapping of <a href="http://www.therightperspective.org/tag/south-africa/" target="_blank">South Africa</a>’s nine provinces would be in an effort to structure local government more efficiently.However, some provinces have become strongholds for opposition parties. This is most notably seen in the Western Cape, where the <a href="http://www.therightperspective.org/tag/Democratic-Alliance/" target="_blank">Democratic Alliance</a> has removed ANC rule from the province. DA leader <a href="http://www.therightperspective.org/tag/helen-zille/" target="_blank">Helen Zille</a> has shown up ANC incompetence by curtailing violent crime, lowering unemployment, and improving government services in the Western Cape.Shiceka has been seen by some as fascist, who also came out strongly in support in the Constitution 17th Amendment Bill (which can be downloaded <a href="http://www.pmg.org.za/files/bills/constitution17amendmentbill.pdf" onclick="javascript:pageTracker._trackPageview('/outbound/article/www.pmg.org.za');" target="_blank">here</a>), which will give the government increased powers of intervention in both provincial and local government. He adopted a strongly unitary position, saying that South Africa was one country with one President and “nobody is expected to be out of tune.”The intentions of the 17th Amendment have been strongly questioned and opposed, particularly in Cape Town and the Western Cape. The amendment has been characterized as a means for the ANC to maintain control in areas it has lost at the ballot box.Shiceka says a decision would be made by March next year. Legal challenges are almost certain to follow.Click on the link below to SIGN THE PETITION - PET#00365<a class="Ktext_bold" href="http://www.mypetition.co.za/index.php?page=my_pet_details&petition_id=365&user_id=654">YOU CAN HELP STOP THE 17TH AMENDMENT BILL 2009 </a>

ANC amends the constitution to eliminate the opposition

***SIGN THE PETITION*** YOU CAN HELP STOP THE 17TH AMENDMENT BILL 2009 ANC to SCRAP SA's nine Provinces South Africa’s ruling ANC pa...

10:13 AM

The Constitution: Just a piece of paper?

<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgzysYRRXgUzb-D_nJo7yRhygT73lScE_i37DScmss6NKdBz25PnzE80nLsS9rJWhCNMSDmOUkFE1Jq_wO18V74WYa71J0DCYxL9kPkgjPOCYUWHn-1CJgfUu-Qcxdq0QxY-9sTXgcFHqA/s1600-h/Bill%2520of%2520Rights.jpg"><img alt="" border="0" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5349178077929866178" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgzysYRRXgUzb-D_nJo7yRhygT73lScE_i37DScmss6NKdBz25PnzE80nLsS9rJWhCNMSDmOUkFE1Jq_wO18V74WYa71J0DCYxL9kPkgjPOCYUWHn-1CJgfUu-Qcxdq0QxY-9sTXgcFHqA/s400/Bill%2520of%2520Rights.jpg" style="FLOAT: left; MARGIN: 0px 10px 10px 0px; WIDTH: 289px; CURSOR: hand; HEIGHT: 339px" /></a>An uproar is brewing in legal and civil society circles who accuse the department of justice of challenging the supremacy of the Constitution. They say a draft Bill the department has quietly introduced aims to change the Constitution in a way that will make Parliament's decisions on one particular Act immune to the scrutiny of the Constitution. The public has until July 1 to comment on the Bill. It's in the Government Gazette, but no one's really picked it up. The call for public comments is also published on the department of justice's <a href="http://www.doj.gov.za/legislation/invitations/20090601_GGNo32289.pdf">website</a>. . Jonathan Berger, senior researcher at the Aids Law Project, says the Bill "sends all the wrong signals. We want confidence in our judiciary, and we don't want people to see us as a country where the government changes the Constitution if it doesn't like the rule of law." The proposed legislation comes following a seven-year saga centred on enforcing debts that the government owes to the public as compensation. In 2002, Dingaan Nyathi suffered a stroke due to negligence at two Gauteng state hospitals. Although the state admitted negligence, it did not pay him damages until much later, and then not the full amount. Because of this, Nyathi could not pay for the medical care he needed, and died five years later. Nyathi had little power to enforce payment from the government because of the State Liability Act of 1957, which prohibits people owed money by the state from "executing debts against the government by attaching government property", according to the Aids Law Project. Following Nyathi's death, the Constitutional Court ruled last year that this Act was unconstitutional, and gave the justice department a year in which to amend it. But by this month, it had not done so and requested an extension, which will last till the end of August. In what De Vos calls a "quick-fix" attempt to get around making the amendment, the department has published the draft Constitution Eighteenth Amendment Bill which, if passed, will insert a new section into the Constitution, making Parliament the supreme decision-maker when it comes to the state owing money to the South African public. The department has once again requested more time. If the extension is refused, it means the unconstitutional section of the Act will fall away, and people will be able to attach state property. But if the extension is granted, the department will go ahead with its attempt to amend the Constitution. Berger says the department's attempt gives the impression that the Constitution is a "barrier to getting things done" and that "it's a very dangerous route to embark on if it is so easy to amend the Constitution when it gets in the way". But Zolile Nqayi, spokesperson for the minister of justice, says, "A Constitutional amendment appears to be necessary to mandate a new State Liability Bill. It was never and will never be our intention to undermine the supremacy of the Constitution. This has repeatedly been stated by government." Pierre de Vos, professor of constitutional law at the University of the Western Cape, says that this amendment may not necessarily be malicious towards the Constitution. "One doesn't know whether this is being done out of disrespect for the Constitution or a lack of understanding of what the [amendment] actually entails. Sometimes people's stupidity has no boundaries." He says that the amendment shows that the "government doesn't take seriously the challenges that poor litigants face", and if this amendment is passed, and the disallowing of attachment of state property remains in the State Liability Act, then "unless you have someone with money to help you, you're not going to get your money". Nqayi said "public participation is a very important part of the legislative process and ... this process is guided and informed by the Constitution ... Comments received on the two Bills will be considered and the Bills will, if necessary, be adapted in line with the comments before they are resubmitted to Cabinet for approval." De Vos says that the majority of the previous amendments bills were passed, but those were requesting technical changes. This one, however, "is a direct response to a Constitutional Court judgement, which will effectively overturn the judgment if passed, and prevents testing against the Bill of Rights". "This is a time to remember that the Constitution is just a piece of paper," says De Vos, "and if civil society is not prepared to stand up for it, no matter who is in government, it will be easy for them to make changes whenever they want."

The Constitution: Just a piece of paper?

An uproar is brewing in legal and civil society circles who accuse the department of justice of challenging the supremacy of the Constitutio...

11:50 AM

Something is rotten in the state of South Africa

<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEicnPfODmF9UBaBLzIYskCjMUHt8nO5fhT8LzzGZKK_3SPJC9CSkr8ProFmz2VrRAeYmnYUrKSodS5W0dThGmBU5ypcZJsGoWt9Sm1j0iYbJNYxlTjRx7Ib3KgSvFxMyCgOPGxKo9RgeiEc/s1600-h/necklacing-sa.jpg"><img alt="" border="0" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5340523088734617890" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEicnPfODmF9UBaBLzIYskCjMUHt8nO5fhT8LzzGZKK_3SPJC9CSkr8ProFmz2VrRAeYmnYUrKSodS5W0dThGmBU5ypcZJsGoWt9Sm1j0iYbJNYxlTjRx7Ib3KgSvFxMyCgOPGxKo9RgeiEc/s400/necklacing-sa.jpg" style="FLOAT: left; MARGIN: 0px 10px 10px 0px; WIDTH: 300px; CURSOR: hand; HEIGHT: 200px" /></a>We claim to be a democracy. We claim to cherish, above all else, the rights enshrined in our Constitution. But, when push comes to shove, no one, it would seem, is willing to stand up for those rights. On 8 January 1985, Oliver Tambo advocated mass civil disobedience as a means to topple the illegitimate apartheid government. "We must begin to use our accumulated strength to destroy the organs of government of the apartheid regime… we have now set out upon this path… towards rendering the country ungovernable." He, together with those to whom he was speaking, knew that this disobedience wouldn't always be peaceful; that the highest price would have to be paid; that lives would be lost. And, in the interests of justice and the freedom of the country, this sacrifice was made. But there is nothing illegitimate about the current government. It, including the government of the Western Cape, was democratically elected. The rules of engagement, therefore, are different. Ignoring the Constitution It is not acceptable to threaten violence if things are not going your way or if you happen to disagree with the decisions of the democratically-elected government. Not only is it not acceptable, it is unconstitutional. Section 16 (2) of the Constitution states that freedom of expression does not extend to: "(1) propaganda for war; (2) incitement of imminent violence; or (3) advocacy of hatred that is based on race, ethnicity, gender or religion and that constitutes incitement to cause harm." And yet, in the past fortnight, four different groups have done just that. The most disturbing was the press statement delivered by the MK veterans outside Luthuli House. "Should Helen Zille not refrain from this anti-African and racist behaviour, we are not going to hesitate, but craft and launch a political programme aimed at rendering the Western Cape ungovernable, " said MKMVA chairperson Kebby Maphatsoe. Another MK veteran, Ramatuku Maphutha, then declared that soldiers would be mobilised to march on Helen Zille's office: "They are always ready. It's either she vacates the office, or cooperates. We are prepared to sleep there if need be until we get an impressive response… We can render the Western Cape ungovernable within 24 hours." This is not empty rhetoric. Both the MK veterans and the South African public are aware of the role that the veterans played in rendering the country 'ungovernable' during the apartheid era. If the word 'ungovernable' comes in shades of grey, then the veterans have done very little to distinguish between their version of 'ungovernable' and that advocated by Oliver Tambo at the height of the fight against the apartheid government. Add to this the fact that the statement was delivered outside Luthuli House — thus creating an impression of endorsement from the ruling party — and the fact that the veterans have recently been awarded a higher profile in the Ministry of Defence, and the picture is a very worrying one indeed. The Ministry of Defence and Military Veterans has not, as yet, condemned the statement or distanced itself from it. Now imagine, if you will, that another paramilitary group — rightwing Afrikaners or a military wing of the IFP — threatened to make a province ungovernable. Would the silence be quite as deafening? Jumping on the bandwagon Slightly less concerning — but only because the frequency of their threats of violence has made them mundane — was the ANC Youth League's declaration of war. "If the fake racist girl Zille continues to speak hogwash like she has been doing during elections, we will take militant action against her, and demonstrate to her that she does not have monopoly over the Western Cape." Just in case there is any confusion, a definition of militant action: engaged in fighting or warfare. Jumping on the threat bandwagon, were ANCYL-wannabe groups the Young Communist League and the student organisation Cosas. The latter vowed to embark upon violent uncontrollable protest if Helen Zille didn't fire her Education MEC Donald Grant, while the YCL has threatened to make Unisa 'ungovernable' if Barney Pityana is not fired. The fact that the YCL and Cosas yield very little real power is of no consequence. South Africa is cultivating an environment in which threats of violence go unpunished. By failing to condemn such behaviour and bring the perpetrators to book, our democratically-elected government is failing the people of South Africa. There is a reason why our Constitutionally-enshrined right to freedom of expression excludes incitement of violence. Incitement of violence very often leads to violence. Now, if only someone had the guts to do something about it.

Something is rotten in the state of South Africa

We claim to be a democracy. We claim to cherish, above all else, the rights enshrined in our Constitution. But, when push comes to shove, no...

3:51 AM

Spooks haunt our democracy

<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjTyXj3JY4cRaMjkTJnmvoAepfK2LiBOYuZ4214lnk1mbhFqsYi40RSOJF-XxWmRXF65xLkltMtqtKBNjInwK9TjVB8qBSv3lclt7eFJPBN3hgVdmxUDdNQUotubqyz6mkZjpYaeryX-H3s/s1600-h/zuma-malema-me.jpg"><img alt="" border="0" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5338622424059461810" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjTyXj3JY4cRaMjkTJnmvoAepfK2LiBOYuZ4214lnk1mbhFqsYi40RSOJF-XxWmRXF65xLkltMtqtKBNjInwK9TjVB8qBSv3lclt7eFJPBN3hgVdmxUDdNQUotubqyz6mkZjpYaeryX-H3s/s400/zuma-malema-me.jpg" style="FLOAT: left; MARGIN: 0px 10px 10px 0px; WIDTH: 400px; CURSOR: hand; HEIGHT: 299px" /></a>Nothing demonstrates the power of secret information more starkly than the withdrawal of corruption charges against President Jacob Zuma. The leaking of intercepted communications of Scorpions boss Leonard McCarthy revealed how partisan to Thabo Mbeki’s cause he had become and gave the National Prosecuting Authority a reason to abandon the case against Zuma. But the revelation of the McCarthy intercepts, showing that the intelligence services effectively spied on their own president, are merely the most blatant manifestation of the pervasive influence of spies on our politics. The issue of who is more guilty of abusing the security services is still a matter of fierce contestation. That much is clear from our ground-breaking interviews with former intelligence minister Ronnie Kasrils and the man he sacked, former National Intelligence Agency (NIA) boss Billy Masetlha. They were two of the most important protagonists in the secret (and not so secret) war that had gripped the nation ever since then national director of public prosecutions Bulelani Ngcuka and his Scorpions became both a vehicle of and a target in the battle between the Mbeki and Zuma factions of the ruling African National Congress (ANC). The clouds had already gathered around the Hefer Commission in late 2003 -- a piece of political theatre supposed to vindicate Ngcuka and humiliate those accusing him of having been an apartheid spy -- Mac Maharaj and Moe Shaik. Instead the commission exposed the political impact of spies and spying as well as the way our security services might be abused despite their constitutional fig leaf. After the 2004 election Mbeki conducted a mini-purge of the security services. Out went intelligence minister Lindiwe Sisulu, in came Kasrils. Out went NIA director general Vusi Mavimbela, in came someone perceived as a reliable Mbeki loyalist: Masetlha — a remarkable error of judgement. By August 2005 Masetlha was deeply embroiled in the “hoax email” saga. The emails were a bizarre concoction of fact and fantastic misinformation for which Masetlha still disowns responsibility. They purported to be intercepts of communications among Mbeki’s most prominent backers -- businessman Saki Macozoma, Kasrils, then deputy president Phumzile Mlambo-Ngcuka and her husband Bulelani -- involving themselves with the Scorpions in an anti-Zuma plot. By October 19 2005 Masetlha had made an official report to Mbeki, providing the president with the “real” evidence about the anti-Zuma conspiracy. Masetlha was suspended the next day and later dismissed, after an investigation by the inspector general of intelligence accused him of misusing his powers to launch a politically motivated intelligence operation. The so-called Zuma tapes have been leaked and provide some backing for Masetlha’s version. Both Kasrils and Masetlha claim to have acted in the national interest. Each, in effect, accuses the other of serious misuse of the security architecture to promote narrow and illegitimate political and financial interests. Both men reveal events and attitudes that should cause concern. Kasrils’s admission that he vigorously engaged with McCarthy over the timing of the decision to recharge Zuma will add to perceptions of the political management of the whole case. Masetlha’s emphasis on the re-purification of the ANC as an antidote to the seductions of power appears naïve at best. Untangling the truth about the abuses of core state institutions is vital, because this saga has struck at the foundations of our constitutional order. We have allegations of the manufacture of evidence; the influencing of and the spying on judges; the suborning of the national interest by foreign intelligence services. Closer to home, it appears that journalists on this newspaper have been the targets of dirty tricks — simply because they were doing their jobs by investigating corruption and abuses of power. Getting to the truth is all the more important because the architecture of spying is more powerful than ever. Given the experience of the last few years one might expect policy-makers to be thinking about curbs on the intelligence agencies. Instead we now have a Ministry of State Security, we have a new Leonard McCarthy in the shape of Anwa Dramat — and key ANC strategists are saying that our national levels of lawlessness demand greater security encroachment, not less. The temptation will be for the victors in these spy wars to simply appropriate for their own ends the tools supposedly abused by their predecessors. One former senior intelligence official told the Mail & Guardian this week: “Intelligence is juicy to know; it’s addictive, it feeds the ego of the client. If that client has an addictive personality, then you’re doomed.” It seems clear that this is a national addiction, thriving as much in the Zuma camp as it did under Mbeki.

Spooks haunt our democracy

Nothing demonstrates the power of secret information more starkly than the withdrawal of corruption charges against President Jacob Zuma. Th...

5:04 AM

Aluta Continua

<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjIBNRawZUrNXJjd1aANhVrwcFdap3UoG2XG9qj49JLeMJY7s87Oa2rr1CRXMO9nuSUS1QHyULb0iQgx6-K-zMK8J92kwKHpe9HhmkJphZZ-jWFx7hNAUcoHmvsnBXonshKEVl58NM3votf/s1600-h/Justice_Fucked_by_Zuma.jpg"><img alt="" border="0" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5330833929066361330" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjIBNRawZUrNXJjd1aANhVrwcFdap3UoG2XG9qj49JLeMJY7s87Oa2rr1CRXMO9nuSUS1QHyULb0iQgx6-K-zMK8J92kwKHpe9HhmkJphZZ-jWFx7hNAUcoHmvsnBXonshKEVl58NM3votf/s400/Justice_Fucked_by_Zuma.jpg" style="FLOAT: right; MARGIN: 0px 0px 10px 10px; WIDTH: 288px; CURSOR: hand; HEIGHT: 400px" /></a>Ken Owen When I was a journalist I used to say: “Always predict elections – if you are wrong nobody will remember, and if you are right, you can remind them.” But these days, I must confess, I am no longer close enough to daily politics to pretend that I can predict what, by the time you read this, might have happened in the elections. I make broad assumptions from what I read or hear, but I don’t really know. So I want to look at the elections from a different perspective. Let’s start with this observation: In South Africa today it takes just 2300 votes: <ul><li>to change the president and deputy president; </li><li>to change the cabinet; </li><li>to change the membership of parliament </li><li>to replace a provincial premier, so weakening an already weak federal feature of the constitution </li><li>to fire and replace the head of any government department, any chairman of a statutory commission, to shut down our equivalent of Scotland Yard or the FBI, to spring a notorious criminal from jail, or to condone or even reward criminal behaviour </li><li>and, with a few changes of personnel and a bit of legal sleight-of-hand, to stop a prosecution despite solid evidence of crime. </li></ul>All this has in fact happened since the Zuma faction of the ANC with its 2300 votes defeated the Mbeki faction of the ANC at the Polokwane party congress. The only word to describe what happened at Polokwane is the one I used at the time: it was a putsch. It gutted and made nonsense of our famed Constitution, and it gave us a democracy of a kind not generally known in the West. It usurped the rights of the electorate, made parliament a rubber stamp for party apparatchiks selected in smoke-filled rooms, and it shifted policy-making out of both the executive branch of government and the legislature. Power shifted decisively from the electorate to the party elite. As Mathews Phosa said, there is only one centre of power, and that is party HQ. Worst of all, there is nothing to prevent another Polokwane in a year or two, with another radical shift of power, another change of government and policy, another round of purges. All it takes is 2300 or so “disciplined cadres”. How did this come about? Obviously, part of the reason is that the Constitution is fatally flawed because proportional representation (as Van Zyl Slabbert tried to warn us) empowers politicians at the expense of the people. But Polokwane was something more than that: it was a deliberate, well organised and ruthlessly executed seizure of power that merely exploited the flaw in the Constitution. You can blame Jacob Zuma and his fanatics, or you can blame the criminals and shabby people who rallied around him, from Winnie Mandela to Baleka Mbete, and Mo Shaik. Or you can blame Mbeki’s vengeful victims and enemies, like Tokyo Sexwale or Mathews Phoza. But I can’t help thinking that this is the start of “the second stage of revolution” which has been planned for so long to install a “vanguard party” at the centre of the system. Our vaunted democracy is in the process of being gutted. However we vote, the party hierarchy will decide who governs and for how long, what policies will prevail, and who our foreign friends may be. Whatever the issue, the party will decide. In that sense, this has been a virtual election, not much different from Soviet elections that were regularly held under Stalin. People tend to forget that the Soviet constitution was much admired. It just didn’t apply to the nomenklatura. We are in much the same position: <ul></ul><li>The rule of law does not apply to Jacob Zuma, or to other apparatchiks in parliament and elsewhere, against whom solid evidence of criminal behaviour exists. The powerful consistently go free. </li><li>Equality before the law does not apply to Schabir Shaik. Thousands of sick people die in jail, Shaik is released in a cloud of lies and dissimulations. </li><li>Ordinary law does not apply to a judge who takes money from the people in whose favour he rules. It seems not to apply to drunken judges. </li><li>The ordinary laws on theft and fraud do not apply to thieving MPs. They get special deals, and special pardons. Even the Speaker of parliament can obtain a driver’s licence by fraud and go unpunished.</li>The nomenklatura are above the law. It is straight out of Soviet Moscow or, if you prefer, from Animal Farm. The nomenklatura are entrenching themselves. You can see it happening as they become steadily more corrupt, and more contemptuous of public opinion. The scum floats to the top. To call us either a democracy or a Rechtsstaat is fanciful and dishonest. It’s the latest form of SA denialism. Nor can we look to any “alternative government” to change proportional representation; each party’s elite will find reason to cling to the system in order to entrench the privilege of its own apparatchiks. Happily, not all is lost. The Constitution still commands great public respect, so that government and party feel obliged to observe its forms even while defying its spirit. The courts remain, in the main, defiantly independent and the press functions in its own haphazard and incompetent way. Most important for the moment is that the IEC still functions, and it has been possible, if not altogether likely, for the electorate to begin to remedy the situation – provided they did so in this election, or in the next. Let me try to sketch the situation: The ANC is in substantial disarray, riven by factionalism, with rival factions tapping each other’s phones, forging signatures on phoney documents, and hunting down dissidents. It uses patronage, bribery, intimidation, and occasionally assassination. Character assassination is routine. Both sides interfere in the objective functioning of the legal system. But political parties have immense inertia, and for the time being the ANC remains overwhelmingly the most powerful party. Can it be prevented from getting a two-thirds majority that would enable it to gut the Constitution? Can it, perhaps, be held to less than an absolute majority in this election, or the next? Cope has raised the hope that this just might happen. Of course, the DA is the official opposition, but I see no prospect that it can become an alternative government. The decision by Tony Leon and Ryan Coetzee to rebuild the party on a power base of whites was catastrophic. The party acquired its present status by exploiting the racial fears of whites to cannibalise the National Party, and it is now exploiting the racial fears of coloured people who think they are “not black enough” to cannibalise the Independent Democrats. That strategy is doomed, and not only because it has left the DA with a taint of racism. It is doomed because its support base is emigrating and dying off. The 2007 mini-census showed that we had fewer 20-year-old white males than 60-year-olds. Above the age of 60, whites make up 20% of the population; under the age of 10, they are less than 5%. In ten years’ time there will be no white power base. Demographic trends for coloured and Indian populations are much the same, with a small time lag. In short, the DA has no future unless it can outbid Cope for dissident black votes. And given its race-obsessed white and coloured support base, it has no hope of doing that. That leaves Cope, which is finding that to launch and establish a new party is the work of many years. If they manage to get 10% of the vote this time, I’ll view it as a magnificent triumph. If they get one MP, as the Progs once did, I’ll see it as success. So where does hope lie? It lies in the character of proportional representation systems. They naturally fragment political parties. They foster palace politics. They encourage a proliferation of minority parties. And in the end, they compel politicians to form shifting, unstable coalitions. In short, they compel compromise. Helen Zille has shown a talent for this kind of politics, and if she can restrain her party – and herself – from treating other opposition groups as mortal enemies, she might begin a process of coalition formation. But I notice that lately she has been venomous towards both De Lille and Cope, so I doubt that she has a clear coalition strategy in mind. The basic fact is this: to check the ANC we need Cope and the DA, and Inkatha and Bantu Holomisa, and the PAC and ACDP, and anybody else we can find. Instead of trying to eliminate and cannibalise small parties, we should make space for them and encourage them. In this diverse society, the essential political skill is the art of compromise. The challenge is not to get people to support the main parties as “an alternative government” but simply to get them to the polls – to vote against taxes, or for tribal law, for sharia if you must, for local grievances, for whatever reason. To contain the politicians, the people must vote against them. There lies the hope. If it is not realised, then we face a new freedom struggle. Indeed, it may be starting already: I discern some emergent similarities to the period in the fifties when Chief Justice Centlivres and the Black Sash and a few liberals began to demonstrate in support of the Constitution. We know what a long road lies beyond that point.

Aluta Continua

Ken Owen When I was a journalist I used to say: “Always predict elections – if you are wrong nobody will remember, and if you are right, you...

11:47 AM

Calling all South Africans to consider the importance of preserving our Constitution when casting your votes

<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj44VCflYhco0YM3lf2KSATj_06PVODGy5vrXs62vri00EjSYdnEejXwNI6D1z5PIjwRA5Ym3FPTRN-LTouJFI5KXDNsGow9bXCWuxbPBMoKnvNa9tVhVRWM1c4VtMXCP4DDTYEiCnwnzVm/s1600-h/constitution.jpg"><img alt="" border="0" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5326400776805712322" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj44VCflYhco0YM3lf2KSATj_06PVODGy5vrXs62vri00EjSYdnEejXwNI6D1z5PIjwRA5Ym3FPTRN-LTouJFI5KXDNsGow9bXCWuxbPBMoKnvNa9tVhVRWM1c4VtMXCP4DDTYEiCnwnzVm/s400/constitution.jpg" style="FLOAT: left; MARGIN: 0px 10px 10px 0px; WIDTH: 400px; CURSOR: hand; HEIGHT: 260px" /></a>A deep sense of unease is brewing in the legal fraternity and beyond after ANC president Jacob Zuma's comment last week that the Constitutional Court's authority needs to be "looked at" and that its judges "are almost like God". The Mail & Guardian understands that a letter was circulated among judges in the Constitutional Court -- the highest in the land -- urging them not to respond to Zuma's utterances, and that they unanimously agreed to this. Zuma had been quoted saying: "If I sit here and I look at the chief justice of the Constitutional Court, that is the ultimate authority. I think we need to look at it, because I don't think we should have people who are almost like God in a democracy. Why? Are they not human beings?" Also this week legal heavyweight Wim Trengove called on the legal fraternity to "be brave" and to speak out against the National Prosecuting Authority's (NPA) dropping of charges against Zuma, calling it "incomprehensible and indefensible". And former president FW de Klerk called on Zuma to "do nothing that will prejudice the independence and dignity of the judiciary". The M&G has learned that the Constitutional Court's judges were "deeply concerned and perturbed" about Zuma's remarks and agreed among themselves that they should make no public response, given what they see as the gravity of his attack on the court. Those familiar with discussions on Constitutional Hill say the judges are anxious not to get drawn into a potentially damaging public spat on such a crucial issue. "The judges felt that they are mature enough not to respond," said one insider. "The Constitutional Court ruled against [Schabir] Shaik when they refused him leave to appeal his conviction and sentence. Also remember that the court last year ruled against Zuma's objections that the search and seizure warrants were illegal and that client privilege was infringed when the Scorpions seized documents from [Zuma lawyer] Michael Hulley's office. "The judges are judges - not gods. Zuma is implying that the judges think they are gods. It's not worth replying to this idiotic lashing out against the Constitutional Court. The judges have to stand above this and not respond," the M&G was told. "Who does Zuma suggest should be the highest judicial authority in the land? Two judges have ruled in his favour; some 20-odd judges have ruled against him. He can't attack the entire system because he is angry. It's very dangerous," the sources said. A senior Cape Town advocate, asking to remain anonymous, said Zuma's utterances are "unforgivable". "He is clearly, constitutionally speaking, illiterate and it's dangerous because it's subversive. This is our future leader, who will have to appoint the judges of the Constitutional Court. Will he take us to the American model where judges are overt political appointments?" the advocate asked. Speaking at the University of Cape Town, Trengove -- who acted for the NPA against Zuma -- said the decision to drop charges was flawed and "indeed ominous" and "had undermined the entire judicial process". "I do believe that it is time for all of us -- and particularly for lawyers -- to stand up and speak out about abuses of this kind. Lawyers have a particular duty to do so and, if we don't, we might one day look back at this decision and realise that it was a tipping point leading to the slippery slope of erosion and ultimate destruction of the rule of law," Trengove told an audience of students and advocates. De Klerk has called on Zuma to "observe the spirit and letter of the Constitution. The NPA's decision last week not to proceed with the prosecution of Zuma may be identified by future historians as the point at which South Africa began to stray from the rule of law. "Recent developments affecting the NPA and his remarkable comments on the Constitutional Court raise serious questions ... An enormous amount is at stake: the Constitution is the foundation for our national unity. Without it we will disintegrate. It is the assurance of our rights and freedoms. Without it we will descend into the mire of 'Big Man' politics that has blighted so many other countries in Africa," De Klerk said. De Klerk urged Zuma to "do nothing that will prejudice the independence and dignity of the judiciary". He said: "I call on all South Africans to consider the critical importance of preserving our Constitution when they cast their votes next Wednesday. The Constitution provides the best assurance for the protection of our rights and freedoms and for the preservation of our national unity."

Calling all South Africans to consider the importance of preserving our Constitution when casting your votes

A deep sense of unease is brewing in the legal fraternity and beyond after ANC president Jacob Zuma's comment last week that the Constit...

6:47 AM

South Africa P.I.G.