WARNING: This is Version 1 of my old archive, so Photos will NOT work and many links will NOT work. But you can find articles by searching on the Titles. There is a lot of information in this archive. Use the SEARCH BAR at the top right. Prior to December 2012; I was a pro-Christian type of Conservative. I was unaware of the mass of Jewish lies in history, especially the lies regarding WW2 and Hitler. So in here you will find pro-Jewish and pro-Israel material. I was definitely WRONG about the Boeremag and Janusz Walus. They were for real.
Original Post Date: 2008-12-14 Time: 14:00:07 Posted By: Jan
Mohamed Enver Surty, the minister of justice and constitutional development, is a sensitive man. He is sensible and reassuring and I would have no qualms about buying a second-hand car from him.
A fast talker, he is also thorough. This does not mean that he says too much; he reveals early in our interview in his Pretoria office that the line is drawn around what he will and will not say.
But he is insistent that he will not be silent in the midst of the controversial firing of Vusi Pikoli, the former national director of public prosecutions, by President Kgalema Motlanthe.
He is aware that the country is awaiting his response.
“I have not had one adversarial comment. If you keep quiet, you allow people to draw inferences on your behalf, then you can’t say, I have been treated unfairly.
My advice to politicians would be that if they are going to confront an issue, there is only one truth, as it were.”
Less than three months into the hot job, he has crossed the land talking to people on the ground and on the Bench in an attempt to make known his faith in the justice system and the independence of the judiciary: “We must always be guarded; we are entitled to make informed and rational criticisms of a judgment, but we have no right to impugn the integrity of judicial officers of the judiciary,” he says.
He stresses his commitment to the ongoing reform of the criminal justice system and to the fair play of due process. He speaks enthusiastically about the Criminal Procedure Amendment Bill on forensics.
The bill introduces new legislation about DNA and will allow the creation of a large database of fingerprints, accessible to both police and home affairs.
Surty spoke in Orange Farm, outside Johannesburg, about the Access to Justice and Promotion of Constitutional Rights Programme.
The principles enshrined in the Bill of Rights have always been an inspiration to Surty, who like many others he endured apartheid’s indignities.
From 1977 until 1994, he worked as a general practitioner and a human rights attorney in Rustenburg.
A fan of cricket, he recalls the legal fraternity’s slowness to respond to racism then. With Surty, an Indian man, as its captain, the legal cricket team, Die Ou Manne, were refused entry to the municipal grounds.
“I said, ‘Listen, I am captaining the side. Are going to continue playing or are you going to abandon the game in protest?'”
He talks about the success he achieved with his “powers of persuasion” and about having “strengthened my resolve”.
He is not among the coalition of the wounded, who say they were ostracised by Thabo Mbeki for being outspoken. He says that, on the contrary, he has been “affirmed”.
“In 1994, I was in the Senate, I was a provincial whip. I was the longest serving chief whip with the ANC for five years, from 1999 to 2004. I was involved in constitutional negotiations for the Bill of Rights.
I was the deputy minister of education, [from April 2004] and now I am minister of justice. I am grateful to both the president and past president for having appointed me.”
His experience will surely come in useful in the handling of the fallout from Pikoli’s sacking.
To recap:
Pikoli was suspended in September in 2007, just a few days before the arrest of Jackie Selebi, the national police commissioner.
Two years before Selebi’s arrest, Pikoli had stumbled on information about Selebi’s alleged connections to an underground mafia.
Mbeki, then president, ordered a commission, headed by Frene Ginwala, the former speaker of the National Assembly, to inquire into Pikoli’s fitness for office.
Pikoli told the commission that his suspension was a direct attempt to put a spoke in wheels of the Selebi investigation.
Ginwala’s report, released this week, declared that Pikoli was, indeed, fit for office but found that he had compromised national security.
In September, Judge Chris Nicholson ruled that the corruption case against Jacob Zuma, the ANC president, should be scrapped.
He based his judgment partially on the perception that Mbeki had interfered in the work of the NPA. He did this in spite of the fact that Pikoli has insisted that Mbeki did not interfere in the prosecution.
In an interview in November, Pikoli told me: “I told Zuma myself of my decision to investigate him.” Pikoli had done this “on the strength of the evidence of the investigation team and lead prosecutor”.
Mbeki claimed that the chief reason for his suspension was a breakdown in Pikoli’s working relationship with Brigitte Mabandla, the then justice minister. But Ginwala says that this was not the case.
The plot thickens with her warning of a possible breach of the law by Mabandla and Menzi Simelane, the justice ministry’s director-general.
Simelane has admitted to having drafted a letter to Pikoli. The letter, signed by Mabandla, says that until she has satisfied herself “that sufficient information and evidence does exist for the arrest of and preference of charges against the national commissioner of police you shall not pursue the route you have taken steps to pursue”.
Ginwala warns that “a literal reading” of Mabandla’s letter would point to a violation of the National Prosecuting Authority (NPA) Act, which carries harsh fines and even a prison sentence.
Motlanthe has requested that Surty investigate Simelane’s conduct. The issue of Pikoli’s dismissal will be brought before Parliament in January.
The formal request has already been sent to the chairperson of the public service commission (PSC). It comprises the complete report from the Ginwala commission.
We have also requested transcripts. All the information is available and we hope they can deal with their work as quickly as possible. We could have had an internal inquiry, but I wanted the investigation to be done at arm’s length.
He is. The Ginwala commission’s investigation was made in relation to Vusi Pikoli to see whether he was fit and proper for office.
In the course of the evidence that is being led, certain findings that are made in relation to the conduct of Simelane are certainly a matter of grave concern to me.
In terms of the finding, it is important that a process be initiated swiftly. I don’t want to conflate the two. We must allow for due process. I am not defending Simelane.
I am simply saying, let the PSC investigate each and every adverse finding about him and report to me.
I have no doubts or reservations about Pikoli’s integrity. The decision of the president is based on a finding that was made with regard to a range of issues, including security. That is the prerogative of the president. He looked at the matter holistically and came to a conclusion.
That does not suggest in any way that Pikoli was not doing his job with passion, that he was not committed or that he was irresponsible. He might have done things with the best of intentions and had possibly paid attention to other details that were necessary.
I might find my DG [Simelane] in much the same position. He is hardworking, he is diligent, he seems to have a passion, he does add value, he is available when I need him.
But what if he has transgressed [the rules of] certain courts? I can’t say now because he is so hard-working and diligent and industrious.
Yes, we are in new territory. The inquiry itself is neither inquisitorial nor is it adversarial; it is a combination of the two. Ginwala says that the commission developed rules to deal with the matter.
Court proceedings would have a different rank; it is an inquiry of a unique kind and all these aspects must be taken into account. These findings are certainly of a serious nature and I don’t take them lightly at all.
At the very outset, before the findings were released, I set out my expectations with regard to Simelane and also conveyed my sentiments to my deputy minister [Johnny de Lange]. But I am not going to interfere with judicial functions. I had this conversation with them because I felt that there was a level of discomfort among some members of the judiciary that integrity and independence might well be at stake.
Pikoli could be in the same position as anybody who holds public office. How do you manage the tensions that are inevitable as a result of your job? If I were to act in a certain way you might say that, because I have not suspended my DG, does this mean I am partial? Am I receiving an instruction from elsewhere? Am I respecting due process? Am I trying to delay it – is my action dilatory?
There are many perspectives and I believe that you cannot shape opinion. I think opinion is gauged by objective fact.
I would want to be assessed as I would want Pikoli to be assessed: in terms of the complete picture.
Ginwala was asked to look at whether Pikoli was fit and proper for office based on reasons that were not related to security.
Although she declared him fit for office, she pointed to a perceived problem with national security and the president used this as a reason not to reinstate him. Have the goal posts shifted?
It is a question of interpretation.
I serve on the Judicial Services Commission. We have to look at the complaints and deal with them impartially. The Judicial Services Amendment Bill provides for three things: a code of conduct to regulate the disclosure of benefits and assets of all judges and a code of conduct between all judges. It also makes provision to deal with issues of process. We now have a mechanism to deal with these things.
Yes, I am passionate about this matter. You might have nine judges president of the courts who are black or who are African but you will have a problem if none of them is a woman. I cannot displace them and say, it is okay: you are men and you are judges.
I was with the judge president in the CBD [in Pretoria] and he raised concern about the air conditioning. The people at the Johannesburg court will tell you that the air conditioning is being worked on. There is an improvement on the surface.
I think it is about conversations that take place. How we communicate becomes critical in terms of how we achieve social cohesion.
I imagine we will. Whatever might be said, people still regard our courts as the final arbiter of disputes.
There is an immaturity about our democracy and, while we may express our anger and anxiety, people realise their utterances have to be responsible.
One cannot be timid and not raise your voice. People are going to be angry and we must accept that as part of the democratic process.
There is no turbulence within the judiciary in terms of that insecurity; the anxiety has passed. There is a sense that we do not want to erode the integrity of the judiciary.
The ANC president has said on at least two occasions in public that the rule of law must be observed.