ONLY IN SOUTH AFRICA
Crime is Crime Corruption is Corruption Murder is Murder Rape is Rape Facts are Facts
Sunday, September 18, 2011
The sinister heart of the secrecy bill laid bare
18 September, 2011
Let no one side in the conflicts of the past lay claim to moral or legal superiority when it comes to the keeping of secrets.
From the National Party governments of old we inherited, and live to this day under, the Protection of Information Act of 1982. The act allows for a presumption (unless you prove the contrary) that the purpose of publication or disclosure of a secret is a purpose prejudicial to the security or interests of the republic.
From the Mandela cabinet we inherited the MISS - the Minimum Information Security Standards. This classification policy allows inconvenient truths to be classified.
The quest for classification law that would comply with our enshrined information rights began many ministries ago; the simultaneous challenge was to create a declassification regime.
Neither the system, which burned records in the Iscor furnaces on the eve of the transition, nor the struggle find declassification a comfortable prospect.
We know very little about the struggle in exile other than the ANC's own commission reports into human rights violations in the camps, but there are official secrets relating to internal activities which remain as inflammatory as the Iscor furnaces.
By the time Ronnie Kasrils became intelligence minister, government departments were, as a result of the sheer scope of the MISS, straining under the burden of massive amounts of classified documentation.
The ministry set itself the task of writing a law- the Protection of Information Bill - which would answer these questions:
They have now been answered. So, what may be classified? Only sensitive information likely to cause demonstrable harm to the national security at three thresholds of damage.
How is "the national security" defined? It is, as it should be, largely about keeping us safe against various forms of force. It excludes lawful political activity, advocacy, protest or dissent.
Whereas the 2008 version asserted that secrecy exists to protect the national interest, the provision now reads, on our formulation following the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, that secrecy is justifiable only when necessary to protect national security.
Who may classify? Only the security services, as we argued (as against all 1001 organs of state) with the minister allowing other departments on good cause shown to opt in after gazetting that fact (and yes, there are other departments who should classify).
When does declassification occur? After 20 years, unless prolonged on the criteria that now govern classification; on review against the new criteria, at any time, by the head of a department or institution, but at least every decade; upon a request under the Promotion of Access Information Act for access to information, with full merit-based appeals under that act to the courts. An audit of all classified information has to be performed by each head of an organ of state.
We were ready to adopt Dr Verne Harris of the Nelson Mandela Foundation's recommendation for self-executing declassification.
But do not underestimate the effects of the declassification provisions adopted against the new, strict criteria. And let us say that the reporting and reviewing requirements cannot be faulted. The creation of the Independent Review Panel is the ANC's idea, with the opposition invited to draft.
The panel is independent and it can review, set aside and instruct reclassification.
Why, despite all this, are we voting against this bill? Because we think the offences, particularly of possession and disclosure, and especially in respect of the intelligence services, offend against the right to receive and impart information.
How ironic is it that the one thing on which Kasrils had to concede, given the weakness of his criteria and the width of the application of his bill - the public interest defence - is not included in this redrafted bill?
The point of a public interest defence that states upfront that a bona fide disclosure in furtherance of the public interest shall not constitute an offence is that the dozen or so real investigative journalists in South Africa would not then be prosecuted in the first place.
The ANC would not even consider a compromise draft that constructed a defence on the basis of considerations expressly outlawed in the rewritten bill's conditions for classification - the concealment of unlawful acts, omissions, incompetence and so forth.
Why?
For the same reason, we suspect, that a separate offence of possession and disclosure appears in the bill in respect of the intelligence services, at twice the maximum time in prison.
Is it because the intelligence services are once again embarking on political spying as they did before Polokwane and, in fact, ever since the Mbeki cabinet issued a directive to spy on (among others) competition between and within political parties in 2003?
The intelligence services may no longer classify their work except against the intentional undermining of the constitutional order of the Republic.
The undermining of the constitutional order of the Republic is no longer a matter for the political judgment of the intelligence services because amendments to the definition of national security exclude lawful political activity, advocacy, protest or dissent.
But they will try. And that is why we want a public interest defence.
Let no one side in the conflicts of the past lay claim to moral or legal superiority when it comes to the keeping of secrets.
From the National Party governments of old we inherited, and live to this day under, the Protection of Information Act of 1982. The act allows for a presumption (unless you prove the contrary) that the purpose of publication or disclosure of a secret is a purpose prejudicial to the security or interests of the republic.
From the Mandela cabinet we inherited the MISS - the Minimum Information Security Standards. This classification policy allows inconvenient truths to be classified.
The quest for classification law that would comply with our enshrined information rights began many ministries ago; the simultaneous challenge was to create a declassification regime.
Neither the system, which burned records in the Iscor furnaces on the eve of the transition, nor the struggle find declassification a comfortable prospect.
We know very little about the struggle in exile other than the ANC's own commission reports into human rights violations in the camps, but there are official secrets relating to internal activities which remain as inflammatory as the Iscor furnaces.
By the time Ronnie Kasrils became intelligence minister, government departments were, as a result of the sheer scope of the MISS, straining under the burden of massive amounts of classified documentation.
The ministry set itself the task of writing a law- the Protection of Information Bill - which would answer these questions:
- What may be classified?
- By whom?
- When should declassification occur; who should do it? and
- What procedures, what systems for review, what reports, what requests should be provided for?
They have now been answered. So, what may be classified? Only sensitive information likely to cause demonstrable harm to the national security at three thresholds of damage.
How is "the national security" defined? It is, as it should be, largely about keeping us safe against various forms of force. It excludes lawful political activity, advocacy, protest or dissent.
Whereas the 2008 version asserted that secrecy exists to protect the national interest, the provision now reads, on our formulation following the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, that secrecy is justifiable only when necessary to protect national security.
Who may classify? Only the security services, as we argued (as against all 1001 organs of state) with the minister allowing other departments on good cause shown to opt in after gazetting that fact (and yes, there are other departments who should classify).
When does declassification occur? After 20 years, unless prolonged on the criteria that now govern classification; on review against the new criteria, at any time, by the head of a department or institution, but at least every decade; upon a request under the Promotion of Access Information Act for access to information, with full merit-based appeals under that act to the courts. An audit of all classified information has to be performed by each head of an organ of state.
We were ready to adopt Dr Verne Harris of the Nelson Mandela Foundation's recommendation for self-executing declassification.
But do not underestimate the effects of the declassification provisions adopted against the new, strict criteria. And let us say that the reporting and reviewing requirements cannot be faulted. The creation of the Independent Review Panel is the ANC's idea, with the opposition invited to draft.
The panel is independent and it can review, set aside and instruct reclassification.
Why, despite all this, are we voting against this bill? Because we think the offences, particularly of possession and disclosure, and especially in respect of the intelligence services, offend against the right to receive and impart information.
How ironic is it that the one thing on which Kasrils had to concede, given the weakness of his criteria and the width of the application of his bill - the public interest defence - is not included in this redrafted bill?
The point of a public interest defence that states upfront that a bona fide disclosure in furtherance of the public interest shall not constitute an offence is that the dozen or so real investigative journalists in South Africa would not then be prosecuted in the first place.
The ANC would not even consider a compromise draft that constructed a defence on the basis of considerations expressly outlawed in the rewritten bill's conditions for classification - the concealment of unlawful acts, omissions, incompetence and so forth.
Why?
For the same reason, we suspect, that a separate offence of possession and disclosure appears in the bill in respect of the intelligence services, at twice the maximum time in prison.
Is it because the intelligence services are once again embarking on political spying as they did before Polokwane and, in fact, ever since the Mbeki cabinet issued a directive to spy on (among others) competition between and within political parties in 2003?
The intelligence services may no longer classify their work except against the intentional undermining of the constitutional order of the Republic.
The undermining of the constitutional order of the Republic is no longer a matter for the political judgment of the intelligence services because amendments to the definition of national security exclude lawful political activity, advocacy, protest or dissent.
But they will try. And that is why we want a public interest defence.
- Smuts is Democratic Alliance shadow minister of justice and constitutional development
Friday, September 16, 2011
SO TAXIS IN THE SKY???
Fri 16 Sep 2011
By Shane
By Shane
So the taxi association has joined the world of air travel and has today undertaken its first flight. All I can think about saying is God help us!! This is for sure the beginning of the end, can you imagine the chaos that will surely follow?
These people can not keep a mini bus taxi road worthy, why would they bother to keep their planes flight worthy? And please don't tell me the authorities will ensure that all is well because they have proved more than once in the past that they are afraid of the taxis?
These people took over the taxi industry by force, and if anybody else tries to get in on the action they just shoot them, yup that's right, they shoot them! So next time you are flying SAA or kahlula beware that you are not approached by a multi-colored airplane with a roof rack and fired upon.
And another thing, does the fuel subsidy that the taxis receive extend to their airplanes? Because that is going to cost the tax payers a pretty penny!! Can you imagine - "please stow your drugs and guns and live chickens in the over head compartment, put your head between your knees and inform the ancestors that you are on the way!!"
Just think - there will be hawkers all along the runway selling pap and sheba, and little R1 vetkoeks, and loose draws, and cheap ass chips in little packets?
While waiting for your flight you could have your hair cut by some dirty dude with a rusty clipper?
Or have your shoes resoled with a continental tyre?
The music in the airplanes will be so loud it will probably affect the migratory patterns of all our local bird species! It will certainly affect my migratory pattern as I will never be leaving the ground again as long as these people are in any way involved with air travel!!
But then this is probably a scam by our politicians who have been getting in trouble for the extravagant amount of money they spend on air travel, so now they will be able to stand up in parliament and say - "eish - but I took a taxi"
And remember a taxi stops where ever it wants to to unload passengers close to their destinations, so keep an eye on your rear view mirror when you are driving and remember objects(like big ass airplanes) are closer than they seem??
In all honesty, our government has proved that they can not regulate themselves let alone allow the taxi association into the sky???
Thursday, September 15, 2011
ANC's view of judiciary a threat to our Constitution
15 September, 2011
The Times Editorial: Is the ANC genuinely committed to upholding South Africa's cherished Constitution, the rule of law and the independence of the judiciary?
Seventeen years ago, the party of Nelson Mandela played a leading role in forging a constitutional order that made the new South Africa the envy of the world.
Our Constitution is intact today, but in recent years the ruling party, under pressure from an electorate disenchanted with corruption and the slow pace of service delivery, has been chipping away at the independent state institutions and a critical media.
The scrapping of the Scorpions, the reshaping of the National Prosecuting Authority, President Jacob Zuma's recent appointment of a chief justice not renowned for enlightened judgments, and the Protection of State Information Bill are manifestations of this.
Yesterday, ANC Youth League president Julius Malema, in criticising Judge Colin Lamont's ruling in his hate-speech case, said it showed that the courts and the judiciary were "not transformed" and "if not being transformed means racist, so be it".
Malema's views could be glibly dismissed if they were not broadly shared by other senior leaders of the ruling party.
Secretary-general Gwede Mantashe warned in a recent interview that the Constitutional Court was being used as an opposition to the ANC-led government. Responding to criticism of Zuma's nomination of Mogoeng Mogoeng as chief justice, Mantashe said: "My view is that there is a great deal of hostility that comes through from the judiciary towards the executive and parliament, towards the positions taken by the latter two institutions. Unless this issue is addressed deliberately, it's going to cause instability."
Last week, senior ANC member Ngoako Ramathlodi claimed that opposition parties and civil society bodies were frustrating the government's transformation agenda by using the "mainly untransformed judiciary".
http://www.timeslive.co.za/opinion/editorials/2011/09/15/anc-s-view-of-judiciary-a-threat-to-our-constitution
The Times Editorial: Is the ANC genuinely committed to upholding South Africa's cherished Constitution, the rule of law and the independence of the judiciary?
Seventeen years ago, the party of Nelson Mandela played a leading role in forging a constitutional order that made the new South Africa the envy of the world.
Our Constitution is intact today, but in recent years the ruling party, under pressure from an electorate disenchanted with corruption and the slow pace of service delivery, has been chipping away at the independent state institutions and a critical media.
The scrapping of the Scorpions, the reshaping of the National Prosecuting Authority, President Jacob Zuma's recent appointment of a chief justice not renowned for enlightened judgments, and the Protection of State Information Bill are manifestations of this.
Yesterday, ANC Youth League president Julius Malema, in criticising Judge Colin Lamont's ruling in his hate-speech case, said it showed that the courts and the judiciary were "not transformed" and "if not being transformed means racist, so be it".
Malema's views could be glibly dismissed if they were not broadly shared by other senior leaders of the ruling party.
Secretary-general Gwede Mantashe warned in a recent interview that the Constitutional Court was being used as an opposition to the ANC-led government. Responding to criticism of Zuma's nomination of Mogoeng Mogoeng as chief justice, Mantashe said: "My view is that there is a great deal of hostility that comes through from the judiciary towards the executive and parliament, towards the positions taken by the latter two institutions. Unless this issue is addressed deliberately, it's going to cause instability."
Last week, senior ANC member Ngoako Ramathlodi claimed that opposition parties and civil society bodies were frustrating the government's transformation agenda by using the "mainly untransformed judiciary".
http://www.timeslive.co.za/opinion/editorials/2011/09/15/anc-s-view-of-judiciary-a-threat-to-our-constitution
Shoot the Boer hullabaloo
Comedian Riaad Moosa thinks the country suffers from a condition similar to "family dysfunction" or "birth order theory", and only Dr Phil can help us recover from the Shoot the Boer hullabaloo.
In a YouTube video that has resurfaced, after first appearing on Loyiso Gola's Late Night News show on e.tv, Moosa - who is producing musical scores for his upcoming movie Material - agreed with Judge Colin Lamont that ANC Youth League leader Julius Malema should refrain from singing the struggle song.
Lamont, of the Johannesburg Equality Court, on Monday ruled that the song constituted hate speech.
"For songs the context is much more important than the words. Like Ring a Ring o' Rosie - that's about the black death. Also Rock-a-bye Baby. Do we ever concentrate on the words of that song? It's hectic," Moosa says in the video.
Moosa cautioned that if songs such as Shoot the Boer were allowed, parents could end up turning the struggle song into a nursery rhyme, which could result in violent youths.
Ultimately, the only way the country could move forward was if we embraced each other's differences, he said.
Moosa said Afrikaans singer Steve Hofmeyr exhibited "middle child" symptoms, and wanted attention, while Malema was the "classic last-born" as he was noisy and caused "a lot of crap [which] others have to clean up after him".
But Malema wasn't all bad, said Moosa, because in singing Shoot the Boer he wasn't referring to "Old MacDonald" somewhere in the country, but was focusing on the apartheid regime.
"In fact he even tried to say we should try to kiss the boer. But they were not impressed."
http://www.timeslive.co.za/entertainment/2011/09/15/sa-in-dire-need-of-dr-phil
In a YouTube video that has resurfaced, after first appearing on Loyiso Gola's Late Night News show on e.tv, Moosa - who is producing musical scores for his upcoming movie Material - agreed with Judge Colin Lamont that ANC Youth League leader Julius Malema should refrain from singing the struggle song.
Lamont, of the Johannesburg Equality Court, on Monday ruled that the song constituted hate speech.
"For songs the context is much more important than the words. Like Ring a Ring o' Rosie - that's about the black death. Also Rock-a-bye Baby. Do we ever concentrate on the words of that song? It's hectic," Moosa says in the video.
Moosa cautioned that if songs such as Shoot the Boer were allowed, parents could end up turning the struggle song into a nursery rhyme, which could result in violent youths.
Ultimately, the only way the country could move forward was if we embraced each other's differences, he said.
Moosa said Afrikaans singer Steve Hofmeyr exhibited "middle child" symptoms, and wanted attention, while Malema was the "classic last-born" as he was noisy and caused "a lot of crap [which] others have to clean up after him".
But Malema wasn't all bad, said Moosa, because in singing Shoot the Boer he wasn't referring to "Old MacDonald" somewhere in the country, but was focusing on the apartheid regime.
"In fact he even tried to say we should try to kiss the boer. But they were not impressed."
http://www.timeslive.co.za/entertainment/2011/09/15/sa-in-dire-need-of-dr-phil
Wednesday, September 14, 2011
Wikileaks proves Mike Smith was right about the FF+ in 2009
Monday, September 12, 2011
Wikileaks proves Mike Smith was right about the FF+ in 2009
By Mike Smith
12th of September 2011
In 2009 I said on the SA Sucks blog that I was not going to vote in the General election. I was of the opinion that there were no parties that catered for white people. Every single one in its manifesto proudly proclaimed how they were non-racial, etc.
What a load of nonsense. How can anybody ignore the elephant in the room or pretend it is not there? Politics in SA has always been, and will always be nothing but racial.
Anybody pretending anything else is dreaming and living a delusional lie and is removed from reality...therefore cannot be taken seriously.
There are some more realities about SA politics that people choose to ignore. One is demographics. Whites are outnumbered 10:1 and politically disarmed in a “one-man-one-vote” tyranny of the majority, aka a “Democrazy”.
Therefore another elephant is being ignored. For whites to have any political impact in SA they have one of three options:
1. Breed more and become the majority
2. Reduce the numbers of the black opponents
3. Concentrate in one geographical area where they are the majority.
Now which one do you think is the best option? Which one will bring the quickest results and which one will be the most humane?
Nevertheless, back in 2009, the last party I was going to vote for would have been the Freedom Front Plus. They did not even support a Volkstaat at the time.
At the time the FF+ members and voters all slagged me off about how my vote will be wasted, etc. I did not care what others said about me or my convictions the next day. I knew I was right and they were all wrong. I also knew that I was not alone, because there were others who are good friends of mine who felt exactly the same.
Then came the vote and two days after the results, Dr. Pieter Mulder, the leader of the FF+, accepted a post in Jacob Zuma’s ANC government as Deputy Minister of Agriculture, Forestries and Fisheries.
Sorry, but one does not accept such a position on the spur of the moment within two days. It must have been discussed and negotiated beforehand, but Dr. Mulder kept it all quiet, because he knew that if his voters and followers knew about him negotiating with the ANC, they would not have voted for him.
At the time I wrote an article called And this one goes out to all the fucktards who voted for the Freedom Front Plus
Now it has surfaced in Die Burger that a Wikileaks cable between an American diplomat (CIA spy) and Mrs. Hillary Clinton (minister of Foreign Affairs) stated that Dr. Mulder wanted to form a coalition with the ANC as far back as April 2009. Jacob Zuma at the time was courting the Afrikaners. His tactic was that if the ANC did not achieve a two thirds majority, they could then use the Afrikaners and the FF+ coalition to achieve that two thirds majority and basically do what they want, even change the constitution to get rid of all Afrikaners and their language.
See where your vote for the FF+ would have ended up? It would have been a vote for the ANC...Exactly like the NP votes in 2004 ended up being votes for the ANC and Martinus van Schalkwyk joined the ANC for a minister’s post in tourism.
Mulder’s best friend, Prof Dirk Kotzé of Unisa was the one who told the diplomat that “Mulder would immediately join such a coalition if he knew he could get away with it...”
Not only were the FF+ voters kept in the dark and taken for a ride before and during the 2009 elections, but also all the volunteers who assisted them for hours at the voting stations were suckered by Pieter Mulder. His father who was a decent man and almost became prime minister after John Voster is probably spinning in his grave today..
Do you think the FF+ leader Pieter Mulder cares or bats a single eyelid today? No he sleeps well after a hard day’s driving around in his Q-Class Audi, sponsored by the ANC.
See, it works like this...
40-50 years ago we still had “Politicians” in South Africa that one could respect. These were educated men of outstanding character to the left and to the right who stood firm on their convictions. It does not matter if you agreed with them or not, but there were men like Dr. D.F. Malan, J.G. Strijdom, Sir de Villiers Graaff, Jan Smuts, H.F. Verwoerd, etc...These were men who would go onto a stage and they would convey their beliefs and convictions to the world with passion and honesty...and most importantly...bugger-off with what the newspapers had to say about them the next day, because in their hearts they believed in their convictions and believed they were right.
But look at these political clowns we have today. They all have agents, personal hairdressers, fashion consultants, image consultants, speech writers, etc...What you end up with on the stage and television is not a politician’s arse...it is a Kasper the Puppet who cares nothing for his people and only looks after his own pocket. Sorry, but these political whores make me simply want to vomit...and the people who vote for them even more so.
Nevertheless, read the “Die Burger” report here, If you can understand Afrikaans Mulder ‘wou alliansie met ANC vorm voor verkiesing’
Day one: Justice Mogoeng
14 September, 2011
It was an uneventful first day in the hot seat for South Africa's new Chief Justice Mogoeng Mogoeng at the Constitutional Court yesterday.
After leading the procession of green-robed judges, Justice Mogoeng appeared to have one eye on the clock most of the time.
In fact, he seemed to want to hasten along the proceedings with questions like: "Are you winding up?" or "How long are you going to take?"
He also reminded advocates to stick to their allocated time for arguments.
The judge, who described himself in church on Sunday as South Africa's third-most powerful man, spent much of the day swinging around in his chair, scratching his hair, holding his chin, looking up at the ceiling and putting his hands in front of his face as if he was engaging in silent prayer.
The court yesterday heard arguments in an application for leave to appeal against two Pretoria High Court judgments where 350 illegal occupiers of Farm Mooiplaats and Skurweplaas 353 are challenging their eviction.
The illegal occupants contend that it would not be just and equitable to evict them and want the City of Tshwane to provide alternative accommodation.
Judge Zak Yacoob seemed to have been in control of the proceedings during the first hour, firing one question after another.
Other judges Johann van der Westhuizen, Thembile Skweyiya, Bess Nkabinde and Johan Froneman spent the day throwing a volley of questions to counsel.
And while most commentators would have expected some sign of hostility between Judge Mogoeng and his deputy, justice Dikgang Moseneke, they seemed comfortable with each other.
At some stage during the morning, Justice Mogoeng rolled his chair towards his deputy and had a quick chat.
It took 40 minutes for Justice Moseneke to break the ice when he seemed to lose his patience with Advocate Rudolph Jansen, representing the illegal occupants, for not having put forward fundamental issues for his case.
Jansen argued that it appeared that the City of Tshwane did not have enough land for urbanisation and that it was the duty of the municipality to prevent homelessness and provide his clients with alternative accommodation.
"A lack of available land cannot serve as some form of influx control.
"The best way to ensure the protection of property rights in an urban area is to ensure that everyone has some property rights," argued Jansen.
Perhaps Judge Mogoeng's most significant moment, although not entirely a glorious one, came when he seemed unable to intervene in the questioning of advocate Johan Botha, for the City of Tshwane. The proceedings ran into the lunch break by 30 minutes.
Apparently, this was one of the longest overruns ever in the history of the Constitutional Court.
With that, Judge Mogoeng ended his first day as the highest judge in the land, saying they were reserving judgment.
http://www.timeslive.co.za/local/2011/09/14/day-one-justice-mogoeng-seemed-listless-restless-and-bored
It was an uneventful first day in the hot seat for South Africa's new Chief Justice Mogoeng Mogoeng at the Constitutional Court yesterday.
After leading the procession of green-robed judges, Justice Mogoeng appeared to have one eye on the clock most of the time.
In fact, he seemed to want to hasten along the proceedings with questions like: "Are you winding up?" or "How long are you going to take?"
He also reminded advocates to stick to their allocated time for arguments.
The judge, who described himself in church on Sunday as South Africa's third-most powerful man, spent much of the day swinging around in his chair, scratching his hair, holding his chin, looking up at the ceiling and putting his hands in front of his face as if he was engaging in silent prayer.
The court yesterday heard arguments in an application for leave to appeal against two Pretoria High Court judgments where 350 illegal occupiers of Farm Mooiplaats and Skurweplaas 353 are challenging their eviction.
The illegal occupants contend that it would not be just and equitable to evict them and want the City of Tshwane to provide alternative accommodation.
Judge Zak Yacoob seemed to have been in control of the proceedings during the first hour, firing one question after another.
Other judges Johann van der Westhuizen, Thembile Skweyiya, Bess Nkabinde and Johan Froneman spent the day throwing a volley of questions to counsel.
And while most commentators would have expected some sign of hostility between Judge Mogoeng and his deputy, justice Dikgang Moseneke, they seemed comfortable with each other.
At some stage during the morning, Justice Mogoeng rolled his chair towards his deputy and had a quick chat.
It took 40 minutes for Justice Moseneke to break the ice when he seemed to lose his patience with Advocate Rudolph Jansen, representing the illegal occupants, for not having put forward fundamental issues for his case.
Jansen argued that it appeared that the City of Tshwane did not have enough land for urbanisation and that it was the duty of the municipality to prevent homelessness and provide his clients with alternative accommodation.
"A lack of available land cannot serve as some form of influx control.
"The best way to ensure the protection of property rights in an urban area is to ensure that everyone has some property rights," argued Jansen.
Perhaps Judge Mogoeng's most significant moment, although not entirely a glorious one, came when he seemed unable to intervene in the questioning of advocate Johan Botha, for the City of Tshwane. The proceedings ran into the lunch break by 30 minutes.
Apparently, this was one of the longest overruns ever in the history of the Constitutional Court.
With that, Judge Mogoeng ended his first day as the highest judge in the land, saying they were reserving judgment.
http://www.timeslive.co.za/local/2011/09/14/day-one-justice-mogoeng-seemed-listless-restless-and-bored
Saturday, September 10, 2011
JUDGE TELLS POLICE CHIEF: NO MORE THREATS
Sunday Times Online JULY 12 — 07/12/2007
If anyone of you co-operates with the police or gives any statements which directly incriminate me in any criminal activities I will rape your wives before I kill them, kill your children, and thereafter kill everything that moves at your homes, including your cats and dogs’.
A South African court was told this week that the police chief of Ekhuruleni Metro (East Witwatersrand), Robert McBride, made this threat to police officers who were investigating allegations that he rolled his car while under the influence of liquor.
Judge Moroa Tsoka ordered McBride to stop threatening, harassing and intimidating three senior colleagues who allegedly gave damning evidence against him. Judge Tsoka granted a temporary interdict against McBride. Chief Superintendent Stanley Sagathevan, Chief Superintendent Patrick Johnson and Superintendent Itumeleng Koko had applied for the order after claiming they had been harassed.
Police chief was anti-apartheid bomber
McBride, 44, was an African National Congress activist convicted of the 1986 bombing of Magoo's Bar in Durban, which killed 3 and injured 69. He is currently Chief of the Metropolitan Police for Ekhuruleni. There is speculation that he may take over as the country’s National Police Commissioner, replacing Jackie Selebi, who has been involved in alleged corruption.
In 1984, during the apartheid years, Umkhonto we Sizwe (MK), the ANC's military wing, attempted to sabotage the oil refinery near McBride’s home.
McBride was soon recruited into the ANC and became an active member. On April 26, 1986, he carried out a daring act and freed a wounded MK commander in a shootout with the police at Edendale Hospital.
He commanded the ANC cell responsible for the June 14, 1986, car-bombing of the "Why Not" Bar and Magoo's Bar in Durban. The bar was often frequented by police officers. The bombing turned McBride into an heroic figure among many ANC activists. Later, McBride was captured and convicted for the Durban bombing, but reprieved while on death row. In 1992, he was released, and later granted amnesty at the Truth and Reconciliation Commission (which provided for amnesty in return for disclosure of acts of politically-motivated violence).
“Cut out their lying tongues”
Chief Superintendent Sagathevan described in court papers how McBride told them: ‘‘The only way to deal with traitors was to cut out their lying tongues, but this was too good for us and that our families would be dealt with first so that we could see first-hand the wrongs of our ways”.
This was after they refused to corroborate McBride’s version of the car accident in which he was involved. Chief Superintendent Johnson and Sagathevan have apparently testified against McBride in the investigation into the December accident. They and Superintendent Koko reportedly at first removed the police chief from the accident scene.
McBride able to carry out threats
In court this week, the police officers recounted the threats (above) allegedly made by McBride. Advocate Marné Strydom, representing the applicants, said: “They [McBride and 13 other respondents] have the resources to make good on these threats.” Sagathevan described a meeting between McBride and the trio, at which the police chief allegedly said he would have no hesitation in killing them. Sagathevan said: “I anticipated, and I have no doubt that the first respondent [McBride] would assault me if he managed to get his hands on me, as I have on many occasions ... observed him assault suspects, bystanders and even fellow Ekhuruleni Metro Police department officers.”
Sagathevan said he was ‘redeployed’ in May. “I immediately considered my redeployment to be highly questionable in that I was deliberately being placed in a dangerous and volatile situation in that I was instructed to report to officers whom I have, on the first respondent’s instructions, investigated in the past.”
Sagathevan said McBride and the deputy chief of police security and loss control in Ekhuruleni, Ash Boodhoo, threatened to “silence” him and his two colleagues and make their lives a “living hell” if they gave statements that contradicted McBride’s version. Advocate Nazeer Cassim SC, acting for McBride, said the metro police officers were being selective with facts and were trying to prevent his client from putting his version forward.
As a schoolboy, McBride was beaten by a much older boy and his father taught him martial arts. When he was 13, he was arrested for questioning by the police regarding the beating of a youth. He developed political views at an early age. He was particularly influenced by two books: one described the efforts of coloured (mixed race) political activists, and the other was written by a founding member of the American Black Guerrilla Family.
Arrested in Mozambique
On March 9, 1998, (Four years after the ANC had taken over the government of the country), McBride, then a high-ranking official in the Department of Foreign Affairs, was arrested by the Mozambican police in Ressano Garcia, Mozambique, for allegedly smuggling weapons from Mozambique to South Africa. He maintained he was working with the South African National Intelligence Agency (NIA) and was later released by the Mozambican authorities. McBride was appointed Chief of the Metropolitan (metro) Police for Chief of Ekhuruleni Municipality in 2003. He defended the ANC's new gun laws in 2006 in a one-hour gun-politics documentary, “Live Fire”, commissioned by Gun Owners of South Africa.
On December 21, 2006, McBride rolled his vehicle at high speed on the R511 near Pretoria while returning from a metro police year-end function. According to witnesses, McBride was under the influence of alcohol, but metro police on the scene assaulted the witnesses and threatened to shoot them if they telephoned the South African Police (SAP). McBride was quickly removed from the scene by Ekhuruleni metro police, even though the scene was more than 40 km out of their jurisdiction. It is not known whether he received medical treatment on the night of the incident, and whether blood samples were taken by the metro police, or a medical facility, to determine his blood-alcohol level.
Investigators gave "damning evidence"
Following the accident, three of the metro police involved in removing McBride from the accident scene (Johnston, Segathevan and Koko) gave "damning statements" to the South African Police. On July 4, 2007, McBride and about 10 cars with metro police detained Johnston at a petrol station, on the pretext that he was driving a car with tinted windows, which is against South African traffic law. Segathewan joined Johnston, and members of a nearby SAPS Task Force arrived at the scene.
McBride is alleged to have instructed his metro police officers "to shoot all the SAPS members (including members of the Task Force) in the head if they touched their firearms". He is also alleged to have called senior police officers present at the scene "baboons and pieces of shit". McBride later justified his instructions to shoot police officers by saying they were senior to his officers, and were being "stroppy". Johnston and Segathevan were arrested by the metro police, but Henk Strydom, a senior public prosecutor, declined to prosecute due to "insufficient evidence and a case totally without merit". Johnston and Segathevan then decided to seek a court interdict to protect them from McBride and the Ekhuruleni Metro Police Department, as they feared for their lives.
http://www.ever-fasternews.com/index.php?php_action=read_article&article_id=469
If anyone of you co-operates with the police or gives any statements which directly incriminate me in any criminal activities I will rape your wives before I kill them, kill your children, and thereafter kill everything that moves at your homes, including your cats and dogs’.
A South African court was told this week that the police chief of Ekhuruleni Metro (East Witwatersrand), Robert McBride, made this threat to police officers who were investigating allegations that he rolled his car while under the influence of liquor.
Judge Moroa Tsoka ordered McBride to stop threatening, harassing and intimidating three senior colleagues who allegedly gave damning evidence against him. Judge Tsoka granted a temporary interdict against McBride. Chief Superintendent Stanley Sagathevan, Chief Superintendent Patrick Johnson and Superintendent Itumeleng Koko had applied for the order after claiming they had been harassed.
Police chief was anti-apartheid bomber
McBride, 44, was an African National Congress activist convicted of the 1986 bombing of Magoo's Bar in Durban, which killed 3 and injured 69. He is currently Chief of the Metropolitan Police for Ekhuruleni. There is speculation that he may take over as the country’s National Police Commissioner, replacing Jackie Selebi, who has been involved in alleged corruption.
In 1984, during the apartheid years, Umkhonto we Sizwe (MK), the ANC's military wing, attempted to sabotage the oil refinery near McBride’s home.
McBride was soon recruited into the ANC and became an active member. On April 26, 1986, he carried out a daring act and freed a wounded MK commander in a shootout with the police at Edendale Hospital.
He commanded the ANC cell responsible for the June 14, 1986, car-bombing of the "Why Not" Bar and Magoo's Bar in Durban. The bar was often frequented by police officers. The bombing turned McBride into an heroic figure among many ANC activists. Later, McBride was captured and convicted for the Durban bombing, but reprieved while on death row. In 1992, he was released, and later granted amnesty at the Truth and Reconciliation Commission (which provided for amnesty in return for disclosure of acts of politically-motivated violence).
“Cut out their lying tongues”
Chief Superintendent Sagathevan described in court papers how McBride told them: ‘‘The only way to deal with traitors was to cut out their lying tongues, but this was too good for us and that our families would be dealt with first so that we could see first-hand the wrongs of our ways”.
This was after they refused to corroborate McBride’s version of the car accident in which he was involved. Chief Superintendent Johnson and Sagathevan have apparently testified against McBride in the investigation into the December accident. They and Superintendent Koko reportedly at first removed the police chief from the accident scene.
McBride able to carry out threats
In court this week, the police officers recounted the threats (above) allegedly made by McBride. Advocate Marné Strydom, representing the applicants, said: “They [McBride and 13 other respondents] have the resources to make good on these threats.” Sagathevan described a meeting between McBride and the trio, at which the police chief allegedly said he would have no hesitation in killing them. Sagathevan said: “I anticipated, and I have no doubt that the first respondent [McBride] would assault me if he managed to get his hands on me, as I have on many occasions ... observed him assault suspects, bystanders and even fellow Ekhuruleni Metro Police department officers.”
Sagathevan said he was ‘redeployed’ in May. “I immediately considered my redeployment to be highly questionable in that I was deliberately being placed in a dangerous and volatile situation in that I was instructed to report to officers whom I have, on the first respondent’s instructions, investigated in the past.”
Sagathevan said McBride and the deputy chief of police security and loss control in Ekhuruleni, Ash Boodhoo, threatened to “silence” him and his two colleagues and make their lives a “living hell” if they gave statements that contradicted McBride’s version. Advocate Nazeer Cassim SC, acting for McBride, said the metro police officers were being selective with facts and were trying to prevent his client from putting his version forward.
As a schoolboy, McBride was beaten by a much older boy and his father taught him martial arts. When he was 13, he was arrested for questioning by the police regarding the beating of a youth. He developed political views at an early age. He was particularly influenced by two books: one described the efforts of coloured (mixed race) political activists, and the other was written by a founding member of the American Black Guerrilla Family.
Arrested in Mozambique
On March 9, 1998, (Four years after the ANC had taken over the government of the country), McBride, then a high-ranking official in the Department of Foreign Affairs, was arrested by the Mozambican police in Ressano Garcia, Mozambique, for allegedly smuggling weapons from Mozambique to South Africa. He maintained he was working with the South African National Intelligence Agency (NIA) and was later released by the Mozambican authorities. McBride was appointed Chief of the Metropolitan (metro) Police for Chief of Ekhuruleni Municipality in 2003. He defended the ANC's new gun laws in 2006 in a one-hour gun-politics documentary, “Live Fire”, commissioned by Gun Owners of South Africa.
On December 21, 2006, McBride rolled his vehicle at high speed on the R511 near Pretoria while returning from a metro police year-end function. According to witnesses, McBride was under the influence of alcohol, but metro police on the scene assaulted the witnesses and threatened to shoot them if they telephoned the South African Police (SAP). McBride was quickly removed from the scene by Ekhuruleni metro police, even though the scene was more than 40 km out of their jurisdiction. It is not known whether he received medical treatment on the night of the incident, and whether blood samples were taken by the metro police, or a medical facility, to determine his blood-alcohol level.
Investigators gave "damning evidence"
Following the accident, three of the metro police involved in removing McBride from the accident scene (Johnston, Segathevan and Koko) gave "damning statements" to the South African Police. On July 4, 2007, McBride and about 10 cars with metro police detained Johnston at a petrol station, on the pretext that he was driving a car with tinted windows, which is against South African traffic law. Segathewan joined Johnston, and members of a nearby SAPS Task Force arrived at the scene.
McBride is alleged to have instructed his metro police officers "to shoot all the SAPS members (including members of the Task Force) in the head if they touched their firearms". He is also alleged to have called senior police officers present at the scene "baboons and pieces of shit". McBride later justified his instructions to shoot police officers by saying they were senior to his officers, and were being "stroppy". Johnston and Segathevan were arrested by the metro police, but Henk Strydom, a senior public prosecutor, declined to prosecute due to "insufficient evidence and a case totally without merit". Johnston and Segathevan then decided to seek a court interdict to protect them from McBride and the Ekhuruleni Metro Police Department, as they feared for their lives.
http://www.ever-fasternews.com/index.php?php_action=read_article&article_id=469
May 14, 1996 — Sapa
The investigation into the bombing of Magoo's Bar in Durban in 1986 will be reopened to obtain information about those who authorised the bomb attack, KwaZulu-Natal Attorney-General Tim McNally said on Tuesday.
The man convicted of planting the bomb, African National Congress member and Department of Foreign Affairs deputy director Robert McBride, would be approached for the information, McNally told reporters outside the Durban Supreme Court.
McBride served a jail term following his conviction and can no longer be charged in connection with the bombing, but investigators are interested in McBride's recent comments implicating unidentified ANC leaders in planning the attack.
McBride said last week he had planted the Magoo's bomb under the instruction of his political superiors.
Three people were killed and dozens injured in the blast.
McBride was sentenced to death three times for his part in the attack. His death sentence was later commuted to one of imprisonment, and after serving a number of years behind bars McBride was given a remission of sentence in 1992.
He recently gave up his seat in the Gauteng legislature to take up a post as deputy director in the Department of Foreign Affairs' Far East and Asian directorate.
"McBride is going to be approached. He's got a duty like any other member of the community to give evidence to police," McNally said.
McNally's comments follow renewed focus on the Magoo's bombing at last week's Truth and Reconciliation Commission hearing in Durban.
The body heard graphic descriptions of the aftermath of the bomb. Witnesses also expressed outrage that McBride had never shown remorse for murdering innocent people.
Testifying on the second day of the hearing, bar manager Helen Kearney said "all hell broke let loose shortly after 10pm, June 14 1986, when a normal Saturday night for regulars at Magoo's Bar came to an abrupt end.
"I remember flashing red, blue and green lights. There was a horrendous noise. Everything happened so fast. It was a massive bloodbath".
She said McBride should be removed from his government post.
"We don't wish him any harm. We just feel this post is wrong. He feels no remorse and has no conscience. I don't think he has ever spoken to one of the survivors," Kearney said.
McBride last week denied that he had never shown remorse for planting the bomb.
http://www.justice.gov.za/trc/media/1996/9605/s960514b.htm
MAGOO'S BOMB CASE TO BE REOPENED
The man convicted of planting the bomb, African National Congress member and Department of Foreign Affairs deputy director Robert McBride, would be approached for the information, McNally told reporters outside the Durban Supreme Court.
McBride served a jail term following his conviction and can no longer be charged in connection with the bombing, but investigators are interested in McBride's recent comments implicating unidentified ANC leaders in planning the attack.
McBride said last week he had planted the Magoo's bomb under the instruction of his political superiors.
Three people were killed and dozens injured in the blast.
McBride was sentenced to death three times for his part in the attack. His death sentence was later commuted to one of imprisonment, and after serving a number of years behind bars McBride was given a remission of sentence in 1992.
He recently gave up his seat in the Gauteng legislature to take up a post as deputy director in the Department of Foreign Affairs' Far East and Asian directorate.
"McBride is going to be approached. He's got a duty like any other member of the community to give evidence to police," McNally said.
McNally's comments follow renewed focus on the Magoo's bombing at last week's Truth and Reconciliation Commission hearing in Durban.
The body heard graphic descriptions of the aftermath of the bomb. Witnesses also expressed outrage that McBride had never shown remorse for murdering innocent people.
Testifying on the second day of the hearing, bar manager Helen Kearney said "all hell broke let loose shortly after 10pm, June 14 1986, when a normal Saturday night for regulars at Magoo's Bar came to an abrupt end.
"I remember flashing red, blue and green lights. There was a horrendous noise. Everything happened so fast. It was a massive bloodbath".
She said McBride should be removed from his government post.
"We don't wish him any harm. We just feel this post is wrong. He feels no remorse and has no conscience. I don't think he has ever spoken to one of the survivors," Kearney said.
McBride last week denied that he had never shown remorse for planting the bomb.
© South African Press Association, 1996
http://www.justice.gov.za/trc/media/1996/9605/s960514b.htm
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)