Publication: Business Day Issued: Date: 2008-02-26 Reporter: Chris van Gass

Manuel's Arms Deal Critic 'Over The Edge'

 

Publication 

Business Day

Date 2008-02-26
Reporter Chris van Gass
Web Link www.bday.co.za



Cape Town ­ Arms deal activist Terry Crawford-Browne had to fight fair *1 according to Queensberry rules, counsel for Finance Minister Trevor Manuel argued in the Cape High Court yesterday, when Manuel applied to stop Crawford-Browne from further defaming him.

Adv Brian Pincus, for Manuel, even quoted Mao Tse-Tung who said politics "is war without bloodshed".

But Crawford-Browne's comments about Manuel ­ that he should be charged with corruption over the arms deal ­ were "bloodshed with reason", said Pincus.

Pincus said Crawford-Browne had "gone over the edge" and his attack on Manuel, who is responsible for SA's financial wellbeing, was a "grave injustice", and had been "harmful and hurtful" to the finance minister .

Manuel, who did not attend court yesterday, sought an urgent interdict to stop Crawford-Browne from continuing to allege that Manuel should be charged with "corruption, fraud, money laundering, racketeering, tax evasion and the deliberate and systemic obstruction of justice".

Manuel will have to wait to see if his application is successful as Judge Andre le Grange reserved judgment yesterday, saying he would provide it "in due course".

Crawford-Browne's allegations contained in his book Eye on the Money, were published on his website and were subsequently featured in a series of articles published in newspapers and on news websites in December and last month.

Manuel said that he had only instituted proceedings when the last article, which appeared in the Citizen on January 18, had been brought to his attention.

Crawford-Browne had accused Manuel of signing the arms deal loan agreement which placed SA "in third world loan entrapment *2".

Pincus said that Crawford-Browne had not filed any "factual answers" in his responding court papers and had not sought to justify the remarks made.

He said that to suggest that Manuel be charged with corruption was "highly defamatory".

Pincus said that it was a "bizarre" case in which Crawford-Browne had provided no facts to support his "serious and degrading" remarks.

However Adv Peter Hathorn said Crawford-Browne's remarks were made under the defence of "truth and public interest *3".

He suggested that Manuel rather institute a claim for "nominal compensation", or an action to elicit an apology.

He said Manuel's approval of the loan which underpinned the arms deal was an exercise of power and Crawford-Browne was exercising his constitutional right to criticise that exercise in power.

Hathorn said the comments should be seen in the context of the public debate about the arms deal, "one of the most significant and important public issues relating to governance in the country at the moment *4".

He said Manuel was seeking prior restraint on publication, which was a "drastic interference of freedom of speech which could only be granted where there is substantial risk of grave injustice".

He said the effect of the order Manuel was seeking would be "precisely what he says is not his intention".

It would be to stifle debate and would have a chilling effect on Crawford-Browne, who is one of the most widely respected and known critics of the arms deal *5.

He said courts were loath to give order of prior restraint such as Manuel sought.

With acknowledgements to Chris van Gass and Business Day.

*1       While I 100% subscribe to all the rules of natural logic, including "two wrongs do not make a right", merely for the sake of emphasis and rhetoric, I ask whether MINCOM, including Trevor Manuel, has ever played fair regarding the Arms Deal?

On the subject of rules, is "sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander" a rule of natural logic?


*2      One does get institutions for the criminally insane, but does one get sanctions for the criminally stupid?


*3      This is certainly something that MINCOM, including Trevor Manuel, has certainly actively sought to deny to the country and to the world.


*4      One of the most significant and important public issues relating to governance in the country, ever.


*5      And now, unfortunately, one of the poorest.

At risk of pre-judging a matter that is truly sub-judice, this is my recommendation for a judgment :
1.      Mr Crawford-Browne, until you have prima facie evidence proving otherwise, please cease and desist from calling Mr Manuel a criminal or stating publicly that he should be charged with corruption.
 
2.      Mr Manuel, please ask your buddy Thabo Mbeki to constitute a full, open and independent judicial enquiry into the Arms Deal so that, inter alia :
the country can eventually and finally move on from this sorry saga;
determine whether you, Mr Manuel are responsible for any misconduct in the Arms Deal;
determine whether your friend, Mr Mbeki, is responsible for any misconduct in the Arms Deal;
determine whether your Government is responsible for any misconduct in the Arms Deal; and
determine whether your colleague, Mr Erwin, has ever told anything truthful regarding the Arms Deal.