ANC secretary-general Gwede Mantashe recently entered the fray in the battle
between the Constitutional Court and Cape Judge President John Hlophe.
He was quoted as saying that Constitutional Court judges were part of
"counter-revolutionary forces" preparing to "pounce on Zuma". Did Mantashe have
a right to make those statements? What is their deeper significance, if any? Is
the ANC preparing for a an all-out attack on the judiciary? Who are the real
counter-revolutionaries?
KHEHLA
Mantashe has the perfect right to criticise judges just as he wishes: a cat may
look at a king and any citizen may criticise a judge. Of course the problem is
that Mantashe is a major political figure and he clearly doesn't believe in
judicial independence he would like judges to be "good revolutionaries" (and
thus agree with him). But judges should not be shrinking violets and have to
stand up firmly against this sort of thing. I do not believe there is a
majority, either in the country or in a future Jacob Zuma government, which will
want to abrogate the constitution.
Mantashe merely diminished himself by his statement. It is
idiotic, in the first place, to talk as if we've had a revolution. We haven't.
The old white ruling class voluntarily and peacefully handed power to their
successors and there was an agreed settlement. We all won by working together
for democracy.
In any case, it is quite clear Africans never wanted a revolution they wanted
to be incorporated into the capitalist white democracy they saw before them and
envied. And this is just what has happened. There was no revolution and
thus there can be no counter-revolution.
If one wishes to be kind one could say Mantashe is confused. To me he seems,
like so many, simply full of hot air.
Yours, Bill
BILL
Mantashe's right to criticise anyone is constitutionally guaranteed. The problem
though is his criticism of the judiciary follows a pattern by the ANC to impugn
the integrity of the judiciary. Once this succeeds, the basis of an independent
judiciary will be destroyed as integrity is its key asset.
The ANC is convinced there is a conspiracy against Zuma and appears to hold the
view that anyone who does not show support for Zuma not to be prosecuted is part
of that conspiracy. Not one ANC leader has, however,
explained this conspiracy. Mantashe would be helpful if he explained the
conspiracy and who the counter- revolutionaries are.
Further, the ANC shows little appreciation of the notion of three branches of
government which are autonomous from one another. The judiciary is not a
subsidiary of, or in any way subservient to, the ruling party. When the ANC
threatens regulating the judiciary this implies it wants to control it. If such
control is ever established the autonomy of a branch of the government would be
dead and with it would perish a critical check on the government's power.
Regards, Khehla
KHEHLA
There certainly has been a conspiracy against Zuma. When you think of the
hundreds of thousands of manhours the state has devoted to trying to convict
Zuma, it is obvious that this could not have happened without extreme pressure
from the very top. Just think of how on the eve of Polokwane the Scorpions
suddenly leaked to the media a greatly extended list of charges against Zuma
while not informing Zuma himself of them. This was a quite transparent attempt
to influence opinion against Zuma. You couldn't possibly go after its deputy
president in such a fashion unless you had a green light from the party's
president.
So the original mischief is Thabo Mbeki's corruption of
all the chapter nine bodies.
And let's not pretend that judges have been above this. The appeal court
leaked its verdict against Zuma to the media before it was publicly announced.
And they parroted the phrase about a "fundamentally corrupt relationship"
between Schabir Shaik and Zuma, betraying that they hadn't even read the
original transcript of the Shaik trial.
But you are of course right that we need an independent judiciary. The key will
lie in the Constitutional Court showing some real guts now.
Yours, Bill
BILL
The correct forum to inquire into why so much time elapsed before the Zuma
matter went to court is the court itself. Mbeki's alleged breach of the law
should also be a matter for the court to adjudicate. The argument that the
president of the ANC is consulted on everything planned in the organisation is
demonstrably incorrect; Mbeki was not informed that he was not going to be given
the majority to continue as ANC president, something he clearly wanted.
Reference to the impartiality of judges on a matter still to come before them
might be intended to block the Zuma case ever going to court. If this succeeds
it will pave the way for a legion of scoundrels in SA to use this same tactic to
wiggle themselves out of court appearances. If the powerful in society can get
their way out of tricky legal situations it should come as no surprise if
society ends up with a thoroughly compromised court system. The result of the
assault on the integrity of judges by people at the helm of our society
undermines democracy.
Regards, Khehla
KHEHLA
The fact that Mbeki surrounded himself with yes-men who told him what he
wanted to hear about the result at Polokwane doesn't absolve him from
responsibility for the persecution of Zuma. The problem is that
almost everyone above a certain level in the ANC is
corrupt so that if you set the Scorpions onto them you'd find something.
I'm afraid it's not a matter of "paving the way for a legion of scoundrels".
That legion is already here and it's the new ruling elite.
You are, of course, right that we need an impartial, independent judiciary
staffed by men of integrity. But we've never wholly had such a thing. There have
always been corrupt judges and executive-minded judges and we still have too
many of these. The interesting thing is that the system has survived this.
Really what one would like Zuma to say is that he knows better than anyone what
it's like to have state institutions abused for partisan ends and that he
promises that he will not stand for such a thing during his presidency.
Yours, Bill
BILL
The case that Mbeki abused state institutions is not self-evident; it needs to
be proven something those who allege it have not done. It is hardly clear Zuma
believes this; otherwise he would not have supported the dissolution of the
Scorpions after Mbeki's loss of the ANC's presidency. His loss clearly means
Mbeki can no longer abuse at least the Scorpions. Forging ahead with dissolving
the Scorpions points more to factional strife within the ANC than abuse.
Membership of the ANC does not ineluctably predispose those who are members to
corruption.
Regards, Khehla
With acknowledgements to RW Johnson, Khehla Shabane and
Business Day.