The Constitutional Court said on Friday that President Jacob Zuma's decision to extend outgoing Chief Justice Sandile Ngcobo's term was unconstitutional. The judgment was unanimous. The court declared Section 8a of the Judges Remuneration and Conditions of Employment Act -- in terms of which Zuma extended Ngcobo's term -- unconstitutional.
The court found that the section allowed the president to "usurp" the power of Parliament and held that Parliament alone had the power to extend a Constitutional Court judge's term of office. Zuma and the justice minister were ordered to pay the costs. Earlier in July, the court, without Ngcobo at the helm, heard a mass application against the way Zuma had offered Ngcobo an extended term.
Ngcobo's integrity was not in question, but the Council for the Advancement of the South African Constitution, Freedom Under Law, the Justice Alliance of South Africa and the Centre for Applied Legal Studies (Cals) at the University of the Witwatersrand said that according to the Constitution, Zuma needed to first consult with the Judicial Service Commission (JSC) and political parties before granting an extension.
Ngcobo's integrity was not in question, but the Council for the Advancement of the SA Constitution, Freedom Under Law, the Justice Alliance of SA and the Centre for Applied Legal Studies at the University of the Witwatersrand said that according to the Constitution, Zuma needed to first consult with the Judicial Service Commission (JSC) and political parties before granting an extension. Zuma did it the other way around -- he granted the extension and then informed political parties and the JSC.
They further argued that the section of the Judges Remuneration and Conditions of Employment Act that allowed Zuma to extend Ngcobo's term was unconstitutional because, according to the Constitution, a Constitutional Court judge's term of office could only be extended by an act of Parliament.
Professor Ralene Keightley, Cals director, told the Mail & Guardian on Friday she felt "vindicated" by the decision and was extremely pleased with the unanimous verdict. She said the president had been poorly advised. Keightley said Zuma's legal advisors should have known the Act "was unconstitutional and would be challenged". She said the advisors had known when Ngcobo was appointed that he only had 18 months still to serve.
ANC chief whip Mathole Motshekga denied that Zuma should "feel embarrassed about his decision" and that the president could not be blamed for the unconstitutional nature of 10-year-old law. He said the "only regret the ruling party has is the loss of the chief justice".
Zuma must now appoint a new chief justice by August 15th.
Source: Mail & Guardian
Friday, July 29, 2011
Thursday, July 28, 2011
Ngcobo case: What were Zuma and Radebe thinking?
The section of the Judges' Remuneration and Conditions of Employment Act, on which President Jacob Zuma relied to extend Chief Justice Sandile Ngcobo's term of office, was "almost certainly unconstitutional", constitutional expert Pierre de Vos said on Thursday. De Vos said on his blog site Constitutionally Speaking that Ngcobo had "unwisely" accepted Zuma's offer to extend his term of office.
Zuma recently extended Ngcobo's term for five years after being told it would expire at midnight on August 14. De Vos said Zuma had merely informed political parties and the Judicial Service Commission (JSC) about this decision. This was followed by a Constitutional Court challenge brought by the Justice Alliance of SA (Jasa), Freedom Under Law (FUL), the Centre for Applied Legal Studies (Cals), and Council for the Advancement of the SA Constitution (Casac). Despite an urgent remedying Bill having been tabled in Parliament, the case was heard on July 18 but the court had yet to pronounce on the matter. The applicants contended that Section 8(a) of the Act was inconsistent with the Constitution because Section 176(1) of the Constitution provided for an Act of Parliament -- and only an Act of Parliament -- to extend the terms of office of any Constitutional Court judge.
The second reason was that the delegation of power by Parliament to the president was too wide and provided no guidelines for the exercise of the power. It was also submitted that Section 176(1) precluded the extension of the term of office of a particular Constitutional Court judge, including the chief justice, as distinct from extending the terms of all Constitutional Court judges. The fourth argument was that, even if the president had the power to extend the term of office of the chief justice, the Constitution placed an obligation on that office to consult with the JSC and political parties before making any extension.
De Vos said the inevitable controversy that resulted threatened the integrity of both the office of the chief justice and the incumbent.
Playing party politics
"The government made things worse by refusing to admit that the section on which the president had relied might be constitutionally problematic, and by then trying to play party politics with the extension by suggesting that those who were challenging the constitutionality of Section 8(a) were motivated by a hatred for the chief justice."
With the issue having been politicised and personalised, Ngcobo was placed in an almost impossible situation, De Vos said.
On Wednesday, Justice and Constitutional Development Minister Jeff Radebe announced that Ngcobo had withdrawn his decision to accept the extension of his term of office, and Zuma had accepted this. Ngcobo had taken the decision to protect the integrity of the office of the chief justice and the esteem of the judiciary. "Chief Justice Ngcobo said he found it undesirable for a chief justice to be a party in litigation involving the question of whether or not he or she should continue to hold office, as this detracts from the integrity of the office of the chief justice and the esteem with which it is held," Radebe said.
De Vos said government's original intransigent stance had threatened to destroy the integrity of a judge who had served South Africa with distinction. "By then -- belatedly -- proposing an amendment to the Act that would only extend the term of office of the chief justice and the president of the Supreme Court of Appeal (SCA) ... Radebe further complicated matters as it was far from clear that this new proposal would pass constitutional muster."
Vos questioned why the justice minister and the president had not thought -- a year or two ago -- whether Section 8(a) was constitutional, and what other legal mechanism could be used to extend the term of the chief justice. "How can one govern a country when one does things at the last minute in the hope that one can bluster one's way through by denigrating those who insist on upholding the Constitution? By resigning, Chief Justice Ngcobo is displaying the kind of integrity and respect for his office and for that of the Constitutional Court that those of us who have always admired him, came to expect from him."
Vos said the big question now was who Zuma would appoint to the position. Also on Thursday, Casac said Ngcobo had served the Constitutional Court, the judiciary, and the people of South Africa with great skill, ability, and dignity. "We are aware that this would have been a very difficult decision for the chief justice to take."
It was unfortunate that government's failure to deal with the proposed extension in a constitutionally compliant manner had created the conditions for Ngcobo to take this decision. In the legal challenge, Casac had made it clear it was not taking issue with the person of the chief justice. It was the use of Section 8(a) that was the focus of the challenge. The court's decision would provide clarity on the process to be followed in any extension of a term of office of a chief justice in future. "We trust that the president will now follow the provisions of the Constitution in properly consulting with the JSC and the political parties represented in the National Assembly before appointing a new chief justice," Casac said.
Source: Mail & Guardian
Zuma recently extended Ngcobo's term for five years after being told it would expire at midnight on August 14. De Vos said Zuma had merely informed political parties and the Judicial Service Commission (JSC) about this decision. This was followed by a Constitutional Court challenge brought by the Justice Alliance of SA (Jasa), Freedom Under Law (FUL), the Centre for Applied Legal Studies (Cals), and Council for the Advancement of the SA Constitution (Casac). Despite an urgent remedying Bill having been tabled in Parliament, the case was heard on July 18 but the court had yet to pronounce on the matter. The applicants contended that Section 8(a) of the Act was inconsistent with the Constitution because Section 176(1) of the Constitution provided for an Act of Parliament -- and only an Act of Parliament -- to extend the terms of office of any Constitutional Court judge.
The second reason was that the delegation of power by Parliament to the president was too wide and provided no guidelines for the exercise of the power. It was also submitted that Section 176(1) precluded the extension of the term of office of a particular Constitutional Court judge, including the chief justice, as distinct from extending the terms of all Constitutional Court judges. The fourth argument was that, even if the president had the power to extend the term of office of the chief justice, the Constitution placed an obligation on that office to consult with the JSC and political parties before making any extension.
De Vos said the inevitable controversy that resulted threatened the integrity of both the office of the chief justice and the incumbent.
Playing party politics
"The government made things worse by refusing to admit that the section on which the president had relied might be constitutionally problematic, and by then trying to play party politics with the extension by suggesting that those who were challenging the constitutionality of Section 8(a) were motivated by a hatred for the chief justice."
With the issue having been politicised and personalised, Ngcobo was placed in an almost impossible situation, De Vos said.
On Wednesday, Justice and Constitutional Development Minister Jeff Radebe announced that Ngcobo had withdrawn his decision to accept the extension of his term of office, and Zuma had accepted this. Ngcobo had taken the decision to protect the integrity of the office of the chief justice and the esteem of the judiciary. "Chief Justice Ngcobo said he found it undesirable for a chief justice to be a party in litigation involving the question of whether or not he or she should continue to hold office, as this detracts from the integrity of the office of the chief justice and the esteem with which it is held," Radebe said.
De Vos said government's original intransigent stance had threatened to destroy the integrity of a judge who had served South Africa with distinction. "By then -- belatedly -- proposing an amendment to the Act that would only extend the term of office of the chief justice and the president of the Supreme Court of Appeal (SCA) ... Radebe further complicated matters as it was far from clear that this new proposal would pass constitutional muster."
Vos questioned why the justice minister and the president had not thought -- a year or two ago -- whether Section 8(a) was constitutional, and what other legal mechanism could be used to extend the term of the chief justice. "How can one govern a country when one does things at the last minute in the hope that one can bluster one's way through by denigrating those who insist on upholding the Constitution? By resigning, Chief Justice Ngcobo is displaying the kind of integrity and respect for his office and for that of the Constitutional Court that those of us who have always admired him, came to expect from him."
Vos said the big question now was who Zuma would appoint to the position. Also on Thursday, Casac said Ngcobo had served the Constitutional Court, the judiciary, and the people of South Africa with great skill, ability, and dignity. "We are aware that this would have been a very difficult decision for the chief justice to take."
It was unfortunate that government's failure to deal with the proposed extension in a constitutionally compliant manner had created the conditions for Ngcobo to take this decision. In the legal challenge, Casac had made it clear it was not taking issue with the person of the chief justice. It was the use of Section 8(a) that was the focus of the challenge. The court's decision would provide clarity on the process to be followed in any extension of a term of office of a chief justice in future. "We trust that the president will now follow the provisions of the Constitution in properly consulting with the JSC and the political parties represented in the National Assembly before appointing a new chief justice," Casac said.
Source: Mail & Guardian
Wednesday, July 27, 2011
South Africa: Survey on Schools Details Corruption and Worries
A major survey of teachers, students and principals in South Africa’s public schools by Transparency International found that a third of principals believed the highest corruption risk was embezzlement at the provincial level, in textbook procurement and school construction. The report also found that a quarter of students said schools were unsafe, with rape and violence major problems, while half the students said they did not always have a desk.
Source: New York Times
Source: New York Times
Friday, July 22, 2011
Foreclosure Fraud Victims Lose Their Shirt and Their Homes
He was their last hope—about 250 Southern California homeowners facing foreclosure and eviction believed him when he said he could save their homes. But in reality, he was their worst nightmare—he ended up fleecing the homeowners for approximately $1 million…and not a single home was saved in the process.
Last week, Jeff McGrue, owner of a Los Angeles-area foreclosure relief business, was sentenced to 25 years in prison for defrauding people who were at the end of their rope. Even the federal judge who sentenced him called him “heartless.”
It all started in late 2007, when McGrue—and several other conspirators who have pled guilty—orchestrated the scheme primarily through his company Gateway International. He paid unwitting real estate agents and others to serve as “consultants” to recruit customers who were facing foreclosure or were “upside-down” on their mortgages—meaning they owed more than their homes were worth. Many of the customers didn’t understand English or the contracts they were signing.
How the scam worked. McGrue and associates told the homeowners that “bonded promissory notes” drawn on a U.S. Treasury Department account would be sent to lenders to pay off mortgage loans and stop foreclosure proceedings; that lenders were required by law to accept the notes; and that homeowners could buy their homes back from Gateway and receive $25,000, regardless of whether they decided to re-purchase.
The payback for McGrue? The homeowners had to fork over an upfront fee ranging from $1,500 to $2,000…sign over the titles of their homes to Gateway…and pay Gateway half of their previous mortgage amount as rent for as long as they lived in the house.
Of course, nothing that McGrue told his victims was true: he didn’t own any bonds or have a U.S. Treasury account, plus the Treasury doesn’t even maintain accounts that can be used to make third-party payments. Lenders weren’t legally obligated to accept bonded promissory notes, which were worthless anyway. And Gateway International had no intention of selling back the properties to the homeowners. Evidence shown at McGrue’s trial revealed that it was his intent to re-sell the homes, once they were titled in Gateway’s name, to unsuspecting buyers.
The FBI began its investigation in 2008, after receiving a complaint from one of the victims.
During these uncertain economic times, there are many unscrupulous people looking to line their pockets at the expense of others’ misfortunes. One of the most effective ways to defend yourself against foreclosure fraud is awareness. According to the Federal Trade Commission, if you or someone you know is looking for a loan modification or other help to save a home, avoid any business that:
Contact your local authorities or your state’s attorney general if you think you’ve been a victim of foreclosure fraud.
Source: FBI
Last week, Jeff McGrue, owner of a Los Angeles-area foreclosure relief business, was sentenced to 25 years in prison for defrauding people who were at the end of their rope. Even the federal judge who sentenced him called him “heartless.”
It all started in late 2007, when McGrue—and several other conspirators who have pled guilty—orchestrated the scheme primarily through his company Gateway International. He paid unwitting real estate agents and others to serve as “consultants” to recruit customers who were facing foreclosure or were “upside-down” on their mortgages—meaning they owed more than their homes were worth. Many of the customers didn’t understand English or the contracts they were signing.
How the scam worked. McGrue and associates told the homeowners that “bonded promissory notes” drawn on a U.S. Treasury Department account would be sent to lenders to pay off mortgage loans and stop foreclosure proceedings; that lenders were required by law to accept the notes; and that homeowners could buy their homes back from Gateway and receive $25,000, regardless of whether they decided to re-purchase.
The payback for McGrue? The homeowners had to fork over an upfront fee ranging from $1,500 to $2,000…sign over the titles of their homes to Gateway…and pay Gateway half of their previous mortgage amount as rent for as long as they lived in the house.
Of course, nothing that McGrue told his victims was true: he didn’t own any bonds or have a U.S. Treasury account, plus the Treasury doesn’t even maintain accounts that can be used to make third-party payments. Lenders weren’t legally obligated to accept bonded promissory notes, which were worthless anyway. And Gateway International had no intention of selling back the properties to the homeowners. Evidence shown at McGrue’s trial revealed that it was his intent to re-sell the homes, once they were titled in Gateway’s name, to unsuspecting buyers.
The FBI began its investigation in 2008, after receiving a complaint from one of the victims.
During these uncertain economic times, there are many unscrupulous people looking to line their pockets at the expense of others’ misfortunes. One of the most effective ways to defend yourself against foreclosure fraud is awareness. According to the Federal Trade Commission, if you or someone you know is looking for a loan modification or other help to save a home, avoid any business that:
- Offers a guarantee to get you a loan modification or stop the foreclosure process;
- Tells you not to contact your lender, lawyer, or a housing counselor;
- Requests upfront fees before providing you with any services;
- Encourages you to transfer your property deed to title to them;
- Accepts payment only by cashier’s check or wire transfer; or
- Pressures you to sign papers you haven’t had the chance to read thoroughly or that you don’t understand.
Contact your local authorities or your state’s attorney general if you think you’ve been a victim of foreclosure fraud.
Source: FBI
Wednesday, July 20, 2011
Cellphone companies still selling hot air
The cellphone networks, which do rather well out of our collective obsession with staying connected via our ever-more-clever handsets, have been disappointingly slow to embrace aspects of the Consumer Protection Act which don’t suit them. Chief among these is the stipulation that all pre-paid vouchers must be honoured for up to three years. That means that any goods or services you pay for in advance – from a bus coupon to a facial to cellphone airtime – must be redeemed within three years of the date of purchase, and companies no longer have the right to tell you one or three months down the line “sorry, it’s expired, you forfeit”.
The cellphone companies appear to be carrying on regardless, in this and other respects, while promising the National Consumer Commission that they’ll get their act together within three months. Jerry Buirski told Consumer watch as he approached the Cape by sea last week that he noticed he had Vodacom’s 3G signal, so he powered up his laptop and prepared to send a month’s worth of e-mails. “However, I found I’d lost all my unused data on June 30. This does not seem right at all.”
National Consumer Commissioner Mamodupi Mohlala has recently publicly repeated the commission’s stance that all pre-paid airtime and data must be redeemable for up to three years in terms of the CPA. Asked to respond to Buirski’s experience, Vodacom’s chief officer of corporate affairs, Portia Maurice, said: “The commissioner has requested us to investigate this aspect of the act and present further submissions in support of our current business practices. We are currently reviewing this and will provide a response to the commissioner.”
Last month, when questioned on the premature expiry of pre-paid data, Vodacom told Consumer Watch: “When customers purchase data bundles, funds are deducted from their airtime in return for access to data bundles. So they are deemed to have exchanged the value of their prepaid airtime for access to data bundles. “There’s a difference between a voucher and a product bought by that voucher. The three-year expiry rule refers to vouchers and not to products purchased by vouchers.”
But Mohlala doesn’t agree with this interpretation, insisting that pre-paid data may not “expire” within three years of purchase. “We’ve had long discussions with the industry and I’ve made it clear that if they are not willing to come to the party on this and other issues of compliance with the act, we have the power to issue a compliance notice,” Mohlala said.
The ultimate sanction, in terms of the CPA, is a fine of R1 million or 10 percent of annual turnover. But subscribers continue to be deprived of cell products they’ve paid for a few months previously. Gary Cousins told Consumer Watch that he bought R300 of airtime for his teenage son in early March which was loaded on to his (son’s) number. But by early June, three months later, despite having used only about half that amount, his son was unable to send SMSes. “I suspected that the remaining airtime had been ‘removed’, so I sent him another R50 on July 10, and his phone immediately started sending SMSes,” Cousins said. “A balance enquiry showed R50 airtime remaining.”
So I asked Cell C: “Is it true that by early June the unused portion of that R300 airtime ‘expired’? “If so, how is this justified?” This was the response I got: “Icasa (the Independent Communications Authority of SA) is in the process of applying to the National Consumer Commission for an exemption with regards to this aspect of the act. Until the process is complete, Cell C cannot comment on the matter.”
Interestingly, Icasa’s concern about the CPA’s provision that pre-paid vouchers be redeemable by consumers for up to three years has to do with the recycling of numbers. But Icasa is not in favour of consumers losing out on pre-paid airtime and data. Icasa councillor Fungai Sibanda told Consumer Watch: “Icasa is of the view that consumers must be protected with respect to unused credit, whilst at the same time allowing inactive numbers to be recycled.” But right now pre-paid cellphone users are continuing to be “robbed” of their unused airtime and data – almost four months after the CPA came into effect.
Source: IoL
The cellphone companies appear to be carrying on regardless, in this and other respects, while promising the National Consumer Commission that they’ll get their act together within three months. Jerry Buirski told Consumer watch as he approached the Cape by sea last week that he noticed he had Vodacom’s 3G signal, so he powered up his laptop and prepared to send a month’s worth of e-mails. “However, I found I’d lost all my unused data on June 30. This does not seem right at all.”
National Consumer Commissioner Mamodupi Mohlala has recently publicly repeated the commission’s stance that all pre-paid airtime and data must be redeemable for up to three years in terms of the CPA. Asked to respond to Buirski’s experience, Vodacom’s chief officer of corporate affairs, Portia Maurice, said: “The commissioner has requested us to investigate this aspect of the act and present further submissions in support of our current business practices. We are currently reviewing this and will provide a response to the commissioner.”
Last month, when questioned on the premature expiry of pre-paid data, Vodacom told Consumer Watch: “When customers purchase data bundles, funds are deducted from their airtime in return for access to data bundles. So they are deemed to have exchanged the value of their prepaid airtime for access to data bundles. “There’s a difference between a voucher and a product bought by that voucher. The three-year expiry rule refers to vouchers and not to products purchased by vouchers.”
But Mohlala doesn’t agree with this interpretation, insisting that pre-paid data may not “expire” within three years of purchase. “We’ve had long discussions with the industry and I’ve made it clear that if they are not willing to come to the party on this and other issues of compliance with the act, we have the power to issue a compliance notice,” Mohlala said.
The ultimate sanction, in terms of the CPA, is a fine of R1 million or 10 percent of annual turnover. But subscribers continue to be deprived of cell products they’ve paid for a few months previously. Gary Cousins told Consumer Watch that he bought R300 of airtime for his teenage son in early March which was loaded on to his (son’s) number. But by early June, three months later, despite having used only about half that amount, his son was unable to send SMSes. “I suspected that the remaining airtime had been ‘removed’, so I sent him another R50 on July 10, and his phone immediately started sending SMSes,” Cousins said. “A balance enquiry showed R50 airtime remaining.”
So I asked Cell C: “Is it true that by early June the unused portion of that R300 airtime ‘expired’? “If so, how is this justified?” This was the response I got: “Icasa (the Independent Communications Authority of SA) is in the process of applying to the National Consumer Commission for an exemption with regards to this aspect of the act. Until the process is complete, Cell C cannot comment on the matter.”
Interestingly, Icasa’s concern about the CPA’s provision that pre-paid vouchers be redeemable by consumers for up to three years has to do with the recycling of numbers. But Icasa is not in favour of consumers losing out on pre-paid airtime and data. Icasa councillor Fungai Sibanda told Consumer Watch: “Icasa is of the view that consumers must be protected with respect to unused credit, whilst at the same time allowing inactive numbers to be recycled.” But right now pre-paid cellphone users are continuing to be “robbed” of their unused airtime and data – almost four months after the CPA came into effect.
Source: IoL
Monday, July 18, 2011
Cellphone operators told to amend contracts
South Africa's four primary cellular network operators and two fixed-line providers will have new customer contracts that are compliant with the Consumer Protection Act in place within the next three months.This came as national consumer commissioner Mamodupi Mohlala prepared to sign consent order agreements this week with each of the companies, Business Report reported on Monday. These agreements were legally binding and a fine of R1 million or 10 percent of annual turnover could be imposed if they were breached.
Mohlala said that over the past two weeks the commission had reviewed all contracts provided by the individual companies and none of the contracts were compliant with the act. This, despite the fact that it had been in the pipeline for the past five years and its implementation was postponed from September last year to April this year. She said that in most cases about 75 percent of the cellphone contract terms and conditions would have to change.
Companies would have to change their billing systems, marketing approach and their staff would have to be educated and more skilled, which would require more spending on human resources, she said. "There is nothing untoward… we are aligning South Africa with international best practice."
Mohlala said Cell C, Telkom and 8.ta would have their contracts amended by the end of September, Neotel by next month and MTN and Vodacom both expected to have amended their contracts by the end of October.
Source: Times Live
Mohlala said that over the past two weeks the commission had reviewed all contracts provided by the individual companies and none of the contracts were compliant with the act. This, despite the fact that it had been in the pipeline for the past five years and its implementation was postponed from September last year to April this year. She said that in most cases about 75 percent of the cellphone contract terms and conditions would have to change.
Companies would have to change their billing systems, marketing approach and their staff would have to be educated and more skilled, which would require more spending on human resources, she said. "There is nothing untoward… we are aligning South Africa with international best practice."
Mohlala said Cell C, Telkom and 8.ta would have their contracts amended by the end of September, Neotel by next month and MTN and Vodacom both expected to have amended their contracts by the end of October.
Source: Times Live
Why ANC's eThekwini secretary Sibusiso Sibiya was killed
TENDERPRENEURS are suspected of being behind the murder of top and respected ANC leader Sbusiso Sibiya, who was a champion of anti-corruption.
Speaking on condition of anonymity, senior party officials on Saturday said Sibiya's strong views on the renewal of the multi-million rand Durban transport bus service contract could have led to his death. "There is a lot happening in the city and Sibiya as secretary had to put his foot down on many issues to give direction to save the ANC from the previous embarrassing tender issues," an insider said. "He had to ensure that the needs of commuters came before those who will get the bus service contract."
Sibiya's funeral service was held at KwaMashu's Princess Magogo Stadium on Saturday. He was buried in the hero's acre at Wiggins Road Cemetery. He was shot four times in his driveway at Congo informal settlement in Inanda, north of Durban. His close friend and ANC official, Wiseman Mshibe, was gunned down in March this year. Mshibe's killers are still at large. "The two officials were seen as an obstruction to those plundering and looting taxpayer's money by acquiring illegal tenders," said a source.
Divisions within the party in the region have been pronounced since it became obvious that Sibiya was going to be re-elected. "Some people were unhappy because he had stopped them from getting tenders while striking out corruption," another official said.
Some senior leaders at the funeral were also concerned that more people would be killed if police did not arrest those behind these murders. Others hope Sibiya's killers are not members of the ANC. Sibiya was also a bishop of the Jerusalem Apostolic Church of Zion in South Africa. "As regional leadership, we planned everything around him and never once did he agree on something he believed to be wrong," another official said.
Home Affairs Minister Nkosazana Dlamini-Zuma said it saddened her that Sibiya was killed in a place that he had fought hard to develop. "In the past we knew the enemy that killed our comrades. It was the apartheid government. But today I do not know who the enemy is," Dlamini-Zuma said. Cosatu provincial secretary Zet Luzipho called for the party leadership to cooperate with the investigators in Sibiya's murder case. "The one who pulled the trigger is not the one who planned the act.
"We want to know who knew that comrade S'bu would be arriving home from the meeting at that time," said Luzipho.
Source: The Sowetan
Speaking on condition of anonymity, senior party officials on Saturday said Sibiya's strong views on the renewal of the multi-million rand Durban transport bus service contract could have led to his death. "There is a lot happening in the city and Sibiya as secretary had to put his foot down on many issues to give direction to save the ANC from the previous embarrassing tender issues," an insider said. "He had to ensure that the needs of commuters came before those who will get the bus service contract."
Sibiya's funeral service was held at KwaMashu's Princess Magogo Stadium on Saturday. He was buried in the hero's acre at Wiggins Road Cemetery. He was shot four times in his driveway at Congo informal settlement in Inanda, north of Durban. His close friend and ANC official, Wiseman Mshibe, was gunned down in March this year. Mshibe's killers are still at large. "The two officials were seen as an obstruction to those plundering and looting taxpayer's money by acquiring illegal tenders," said a source.
Divisions within the party in the region have been pronounced since it became obvious that Sibiya was going to be re-elected. "Some people were unhappy because he had stopped them from getting tenders while striking out corruption," another official said.
Some senior leaders at the funeral were also concerned that more people would be killed if police did not arrest those behind these murders. Others hope Sibiya's killers are not members of the ANC. Sibiya was also a bishop of the Jerusalem Apostolic Church of Zion in South Africa. "As regional leadership, we planned everything around him and never once did he agree on something he believed to be wrong," another official said.
Home Affairs Minister Nkosazana Dlamini-Zuma said it saddened her that Sibiya was killed in a place that he had fought hard to develop. "In the past we knew the enemy that killed our comrades. It was the apartheid government. But today I do not know who the enemy is," Dlamini-Zuma said. Cosatu provincial secretary Zet Luzipho called for the party leadership to cooperate with the investigators in Sibiya's murder case. "The one who pulled the trigger is not the one who planned the act.
"We want to know who knew that comrade S'bu would be arriving home from the meeting at that time," said Luzipho.
Source: The Sowetan
Telecoms firms told to amend contracts
 |
| Mamodupi Mohlala |
This came as national consumer commissioner Mamodupi Mohlala prepared to sign consent order agreements this week with each of the companies. These agreements were legally binding and a fine of R1m or 10% of annual turnover could be imposed if they were breached.
Mohlala said that over the past two weeks the commission had reviewed all contracts provided by the individual companies and none of the contracts were compliant with the act. This, despite the fact that it had been in the pipeline for the past five years and its implementation was postponed from September last year to April this year. She said that in most cases about 75% of the cellphone contract terms and conditions would have to change.
Companies would have to change their billing systems, marketing approach and their staff would have to be educated and more skilled, which would require more spending on human resources, she said. “There is nothing untoward. We are aligning SA with international best practice.”
Mohlala said Cell C, Telkom and 8ta would have their contracts amended by the end of September, Neotel by next month and MTN and Vodacom both expected to have amended their contracts by the end of October.
Source: Techcentral
Friday, July 15, 2011
Protector's challenge to the president
Thuli Madonsela has thrown down the gauntlet to President Jacob Zuma, demanding that he confront her awkward findings and recommendations on two police lease deals worth a total of R1.78-billion. On Thursday the public protector released the second of her devastating reports on the leases, calling on Zuma and his Cabinet to take action against Minister of Public Works Gwen Mahlangu-Nkabinde, national police commissioner Bheki Cele and senior officials.
Madonsela's latest report found that a lease agreement between the public works department and businessman Roux Shabangu, for a headquarters building for the provincial South African Police Service in Durban, is invalid. In her previous report, released in February, she made similar findings about another police lease in Pretoria, also between public works and Shabangu.
Zuma has delayed acting on the Pretoria report, sending Justice Minister Jeff Radebe to negotiate for action to be taken only after the release of the latest report. Now it is time for the president to show to his backbone on the issue. Will he accept the findings and act decisively, or will he delay again?
The political ramifications of both options are significant. Madonsela's recommendations are stronger now, as they are bolstered by new evidence, and the political atmosphere has become charged by the furore that followed last week's media leak of the protector's "imminent arrest".
But if Zuma acts on her recommendations there could be unpleasant political consequences -- particularly if his role in the Shabangu leases was not benign. It is still not clear, for example, why Zuma sacked former public works minister Geoff Doidge, who was investigating the Shabangu deals.
And it is suspicious that Mahlangu-Nkabinde, Doidge's replacement, promptly suspended director general Siviwe Dongwana -- who was also investigating the deals -- and pushed the Pretoria lease through against senior legal opinion and despite her department's decision to suspend the lease.
Commenting on such suspicions, Madonsela said: "We could not find evidence of criminality. We could not explain why people behaved the way they did. The conduct of the police and the public works department was quite strange in trying to move regardless of the circumstances. But I can't make findings on the basis of a hunch. Their behaviour was strange." She said: "I am not prescribing what should be done, but I expect the president to do the right thing."
The biggest problem Madonsela has handed to Zuma is Mahlangu-Nkabinde, who refused to answer certain questions during the public protector's investigation. Madonsela said Mahlangu-Nkabinde's behaviour was improper and unlawful and the minister had "failed to meet the requisite of statesmanship expected from her". She urged Zuma to consider taking action against Mahlangu-Nkabinde. The minister should, within 60 days, "report to the Cabinet on her actions in relation to the procurement of the leases … and her failure to fully co-operate with the public protector".
Zuma will then have to deal with the Cele problem -- or publicly duck it. The commissioner once provided muscle for Zuma's rise to the presidency and is now rumoured to be part of a faction aiming to unseat him. Madonsela found Cele to be guilty of improper and unlawful conduct and maladministration. "The minister of police [Nathi Mthethwa] should, with the assistance of the national treasury, take urgent steps to ensure that the appropriate action is instituted against all the relevant officials of the SAPS," Madonsela said. These included Cele.
She also recommended that Mahlangu-Nkabinde take action against her errant officials, with the assistance of the treasury and the public service department. And while these steps were followed, Madonsela recommended that the police review their needs analysis for the accommodation of their provincial offices and the family violence, child protection and sexual offences units in Durban, which were to be housed in Shabangu's building.
The public works department should then follow proper procedures to help the police find suitable, cost-effective accommodation, as they are mandated to do. "The department of public works and the SAPS must ensure that appropriate measures are implemented to prevent a recurrence of contraventions of the relevant procurement legislation and prescripts," she said.
In both Durban and Pretoria Madonsela found that the lease agreements were invalid because their procurement had not complied with constitutional requirements and other regulations. In both cases she said the police -- Cele in particular, although he denies this -- had identified the buildings before involving the public works department, which is what they should have done. Public works then chose, irregularly, to deviate from open tender procedures, negotiating directly with Shabangu and settling on higher than market-value leases, which compromised the police's stretched operations budget. Shabangu contacted police and public works officials "and is alleged to have put pressure on them in regard to the finalisation of the procurement process".
Madonsela emphasised that there was no evidence of criminality in her investigation of Shabangu's role. "The argument presented by the department of finance was that since we could not conclude that Roux Property Fund [Shabangu's company] had got the leases because of fraud or through other illegal processes, we could not use the law to red-card him," she said. Little has changed in the protector's report compared with the draft that was leaked before she received the responses of those implicated. Looking at those responses -- now dealt with in the final report -- it is easy to understand why.
Commissioner Cele was at pains to point out that he did not invent the SAPS's need for a new lease. "On the contrary, there was a need to either relocate to a new building or construct one long before I came into this department in August 2009," he told the protector.
One of the main aspects of the provisional report disputed by Cele is that it was he who identified the Transnet building as alternative accommodation for police in Durban. But Madonsela says two of his subordinates -- Generals Hlela and Terblanche -- confirmed, independently of each other, that Cele had indeed instructed them to procure the lease of the Transnet building. She also points to an information note signed by Cele, dated June 28 last year, that apparently confirmed that the Transnet building was identified for leasing.
Cele points a finger at public works as the department responsible for managing the procurement process correctly. "The DPW is solely responsible for the unlawful conclusion of the lease agreement," he says.
Mahlangu-Nkabinde's version is contradicted by almost every other player in the leasing saga. According to Madonsela's report, the minister explained a mysterious increase in floor space needed by police -- which ended up being exactly what was on offer at Shabangu's building -- as being added "to accommodate for non-assignable areas, such as partitions, passages, toilets and common areas". "This explanation of the minister is, however, not in line with the needs analysis that was resubmitted by the SAPS," the protector noted.
The minister claimed that Doidge and his director general, Siviwe Dongwana, did not brief her properly. She denies instructing Dongwana to inform Shabangu's bankers that the transaction was proceeding. She refused to answer questions from the public protector, she claimed, because the report on the Pretoria lease showed that Madonsela had already made up her mind.
Shabangu denied applying undue pressure on public works officials, including the director general, or improperly influencing them in the procurement process relating to the Pretoria and Durban leases. He further denied ever meeting the minister outside her office. Asked to explain how he became aware of the SAPS's need for alternative accommodation in Durban, Shabangu indicated that he was informed that the office lease of the provincial police was due to expire and was provided with a "needs analysis" indicating the extent of the required alternative accommodation. It was because he was aware of the extent of the need for alternative accommodation in Durban that his company decided to buy the Transnet building.
But Madonsela noted: "Shabangu's above explanation is inconsistent with the documentary evidence obtained during the investigation, in terms of which it was found that the first needs analysis, reflecting the extent of the SAPS's need for alternative accommodation, was only submitted to the DPW on 23 June 2010. "However, the sale agreement for the Transnet building was concluded with Shabangu on behalf of [Roux Shabangu] on 19 March 2010, three months earlier." Ten days after Independent Newspapers claimed Thuli Madonsela faced imminent arrest for fraud and corruption there is no clarity on who was pushing the "investigation" and who leaked it. As the public backlash mounted, Justice Minister Jeff Radebe and Police Minister Nathi Mthethwa claimed the public protector was not being investigated.
Radebe cleared Madonsela of wrongdoing relating to work her company did for the justice department while she was a full-time South African Law Reform Commission member. President Jacob Zuma rushed to send out a statement of support. The newspaper group then produced "irrefutable proof" of its claims — an "information note" showing only that police were given insight, presumably by someone in the justice department, into a justice department file containing a September 2009 state law opinion on Madonsela's business interests. Police also apparently gave details of departmental payments to her company.
But, significantly, the note was directed to the Hawks's commercial crime head, Hans Meiring, which suggests senior police interest. The matter is also understood to have been drawn to Hawks boss Anwa Dramat's attention. "High-level sources" then leaked the document to a journalist, couched in claims of "imminent arrest" on "fraud and corruption charges" -- which the document did not prove.
Was there ever a police probe of Madonsela? Who was behind it? Was Independent Newspapers manipulated? By whom and why? In seeking to deny that there had been an investigation Hawks spokesperson Macintosh Polela made much of an apparent error in the case number refered to in the information note. It was all an "unfortunate mix-up", he said. The case number refered to a totally separate case ergo the note did not prove Madonsela had been investigated.
In fact the case number proves nothing of the kind. Independent Newspapers originally wrote: "The police stumbled upon information on Madonsela while investigating a separate case registered at the Pretoria Central Police Station." But investigating officer James Hills wrote in the information note: "During the investigation of Pretoria-Central CAS 515/01/2008 at the department of justice and constitutional development, the following came to my attention." Clearly this case number is associated with the "separate case". It was never intended either by the Independent Group or by Hill to refer to the Madonsela probe.
Polela used this confusion to cover the fact that Cabinet had made it politically difficult for police to come clean on the investigation and the leak. He said: "There was a mix-up when someone read a file for that case. It appears there was a piece of paper which mentioned Madonsela, but I don't know what that piece of paper was about … As far as I know [the leak] is not being investigated from our side."
The previous week police headquarters said the South African Police Service would launch a full investigation into the circumstances that led to "media reports …that the public protector is about to be arrested" and would announce the outcome.
Why the arrest claim was leaked days before the release of Madonsela’s second SAPS lease report -- and why ministers then smothered the matter -- remain smouldering questions.
Source: Mail & Guardian
Madonsela's latest report found that a lease agreement between the public works department and businessman Roux Shabangu, for a headquarters building for the provincial South African Police Service in Durban, is invalid. In her previous report, released in February, she made similar findings about another police lease in Pretoria, also between public works and Shabangu.
Zuma has delayed acting on the Pretoria report, sending Justice Minister Jeff Radebe to negotiate for action to be taken only after the release of the latest report. Now it is time for the president to show to his backbone on the issue. Will he accept the findings and act decisively, or will he delay again?
The political ramifications of both options are significant. Madonsela's recommendations are stronger now, as they are bolstered by new evidence, and the political atmosphere has become charged by the furore that followed last week's media leak of the protector's "imminent arrest".
But if Zuma acts on her recommendations there could be unpleasant political consequences -- particularly if his role in the Shabangu leases was not benign. It is still not clear, for example, why Zuma sacked former public works minister Geoff Doidge, who was investigating the Shabangu deals.
And it is suspicious that Mahlangu-Nkabinde, Doidge's replacement, promptly suspended director general Siviwe Dongwana -- who was also investigating the deals -- and pushed the Pretoria lease through against senior legal opinion and despite her department's decision to suspend the lease.
Commenting on such suspicions, Madonsela said: "We could not find evidence of criminality. We could not explain why people behaved the way they did. The conduct of the police and the public works department was quite strange in trying to move regardless of the circumstances. But I can't make findings on the basis of a hunch. Their behaviour was strange." She said: "I am not prescribing what should be done, but I expect the president to do the right thing."
The biggest problem Madonsela has handed to Zuma is Mahlangu-Nkabinde, who refused to answer certain questions during the public protector's investigation. Madonsela said Mahlangu-Nkabinde's behaviour was improper and unlawful and the minister had "failed to meet the requisite of statesmanship expected from her". She urged Zuma to consider taking action against Mahlangu-Nkabinde. The minister should, within 60 days, "report to the Cabinet on her actions in relation to the procurement of the leases … and her failure to fully co-operate with the public protector".
Zuma will then have to deal with the Cele problem -- or publicly duck it. The commissioner once provided muscle for Zuma's rise to the presidency and is now rumoured to be part of a faction aiming to unseat him. Madonsela found Cele to be guilty of improper and unlawful conduct and maladministration. "The minister of police [Nathi Mthethwa] should, with the assistance of the national treasury, take urgent steps to ensure that the appropriate action is instituted against all the relevant officials of the SAPS," Madonsela said. These included Cele.
She also recommended that Mahlangu-Nkabinde take action against her errant officials, with the assistance of the treasury and the public service department. And while these steps were followed, Madonsela recommended that the police review their needs analysis for the accommodation of their provincial offices and the family violence, child protection and sexual offences units in Durban, which were to be housed in Shabangu's building.
The public works department should then follow proper procedures to help the police find suitable, cost-effective accommodation, as they are mandated to do. "The department of public works and the SAPS must ensure that appropriate measures are implemented to prevent a recurrence of contraventions of the relevant procurement legislation and prescripts," she said.
In both Durban and Pretoria Madonsela found that the lease agreements were invalid because their procurement had not complied with constitutional requirements and other regulations. In both cases she said the police -- Cele in particular, although he denies this -- had identified the buildings before involving the public works department, which is what they should have done. Public works then chose, irregularly, to deviate from open tender procedures, negotiating directly with Shabangu and settling on higher than market-value leases, which compromised the police's stretched operations budget. Shabangu contacted police and public works officials "and is alleged to have put pressure on them in regard to the finalisation of the procurement process".
Madonsela emphasised that there was no evidence of criminality in her investigation of Shabangu's role. "The argument presented by the department of finance was that since we could not conclude that Roux Property Fund [Shabangu's company] had got the leases because of fraud or through other illegal processes, we could not use the law to red-card him," she said. Little has changed in the protector's report compared with the draft that was leaked before she received the responses of those implicated. Looking at those responses -- now dealt with in the final report -- it is easy to understand why.
Commissioner Cele was at pains to point out that he did not invent the SAPS's need for a new lease. "On the contrary, there was a need to either relocate to a new building or construct one long before I came into this department in August 2009," he told the protector.
One of the main aspects of the provisional report disputed by Cele is that it was he who identified the Transnet building as alternative accommodation for police in Durban. But Madonsela says two of his subordinates -- Generals Hlela and Terblanche -- confirmed, independently of each other, that Cele had indeed instructed them to procure the lease of the Transnet building. She also points to an information note signed by Cele, dated June 28 last year, that apparently confirmed that the Transnet building was identified for leasing.
Cele points a finger at public works as the department responsible for managing the procurement process correctly. "The DPW is solely responsible for the unlawful conclusion of the lease agreement," he says.
Mahlangu-Nkabinde's version is contradicted by almost every other player in the leasing saga. According to Madonsela's report, the minister explained a mysterious increase in floor space needed by police -- which ended up being exactly what was on offer at Shabangu's building -- as being added "to accommodate for non-assignable areas, such as partitions, passages, toilets and common areas". "This explanation of the minister is, however, not in line with the needs analysis that was resubmitted by the SAPS," the protector noted.
The minister claimed that Doidge and his director general, Siviwe Dongwana, did not brief her properly. She denies instructing Dongwana to inform Shabangu's bankers that the transaction was proceeding. She refused to answer questions from the public protector, she claimed, because the report on the Pretoria lease showed that Madonsela had already made up her mind.
Shabangu denied applying undue pressure on public works officials, including the director general, or improperly influencing them in the procurement process relating to the Pretoria and Durban leases. He further denied ever meeting the minister outside her office. Asked to explain how he became aware of the SAPS's need for alternative accommodation in Durban, Shabangu indicated that he was informed that the office lease of the provincial police was due to expire and was provided with a "needs analysis" indicating the extent of the required alternative accommodation. It was because he was aware of the extent of the need for alternative accommodation in Durban that his company decided to buy the Transnet building.
But Madonsela noted: "Shabangu's above explanation is inconsistent with the documentary evidence obtained during the investigation, in terms of which it was found that the first needs analysis, reflecting the extent of the SAPS's need for alternative accommodation, was only submitted to the DPW on 23 June 2010. "However, the sale agreement for the Transnet building was concluded with Shabangu on behalf of [Roux Shabangu] on 19 March 2010, three months earlier." Ten days after Independent Newspapers claimed Thuli Madonsela faced imminent arrest for fraud and corruption there is no clarity on who was pushing the "investigation" and who leaked it. As the public backlash mounted, Justice Minister Jeff Radebe and Police Minister Nathi Mthethwa claimed the public protector was not being investigated.
Radebe cleared Madonsela of wrongdoing relating to work her company did for the justice department while she was a full-time South African Law Reform Commission member. President Jacob Zuma rushed to send out a statement of support. The newspaper group then produced "irrefutable proof" of its claims — an "information note" showing only that police were given insight, presumably by someone in the justice department, into a justice department file containing a September 2009 state law opinion on Madonsela's business interests. Police also apparently gave details of departmental payments to her company.
But, significantly, the note was directed to the Hawks's commercial crime head, Hans Meiring, which suggests senior police interest. The matter is also understood to have been drawn to Hawks boss Anwa Dramat's attention. "High-level sources" then leaked the document to a journalist, couched in claims of "imminent arrest" on "fraud and corruption charges" -- which the document did not prove.
Was there ever a police probe of Madonsela? Who was behind it? Was Independent Newspapers manipulated? By whom and why? In seeking to deny that there had been an investigation Hawks spokesperson Macintosh Polela made much of an apparent error in the case number refered to in the information note. It was all an "unfortunate mix-up", he said. The case number refered to a totally separate case ergo the note did not prove Madonsela had been investigated.
In fact the case number proves nothing of the kind. Independent Newspapers originally wrote: "The police stumbled upon information on Madonsela while investigating a separate case registered at the Pretoria Central Police Station." But investigating officer James Hills wrote in the information note: "During the investigation of Pretoria-Central CAS 515/01/2008 at the department of justice and constitutional development, the following came to my attention." Clearly this case number is associated with the "separate case". It was never intended either by the Independent Group or by Hill to refer to the Madonsela probe.
Polela used this confusion to cover the fact that Cabinet had made it politically difficult for police to come clean on the investigation and the leak. He said: "There was a mix-up when someone read a file for that case. It appears there was a piece of paper which mentioned Madonsela, but I don't know what that piece of paper was about … As far as I know [the leak] is not being investigated from our side."
The previous week police headquarters said the South African Police Service would launch a full investigation into the circumstances that led to "media reports …that the public protector is about to be arrested" and would announce the outcome.
Why the arrest claim was leaked days before the release of Madonsela’s second SAPS lease report -- and why ministers then smothered the matter -- remain smouldering questions.
Source: Mail & Guardian
Thuli Madonsela: A timeline
News reports about attacks on the Public Protector can be confusing. Why was she accused of fraud and who are her enemies? Use our timeline to make sense of the story.
October 2009
Advocate Thuli Madonsela is announced as South Africa's new Public Protector -- South Africa's third since 1994. She replaces Lawrence Mushwana, who had a dubious record in connection with the Oilgate scandal.
2 August 2010
Complaints are lodged by Paul Hoffman of the Institute for Accountability in Southern Africa and Pieter Groenewald of the Freedom Front Plus with the Public Protector in connection with a Sunday Times report alleging improper procurement in the leasing of office accommodation for the South African Police Services (SAPS) in the Sanlam Middestad building in Pretoria and the Transnet Building in Durban. These complaints originated from a newspaper article published on August 1 2010 alleging improper conduct and maladministration by police National Commissioner Bheki Cele and the Department of Public Works (DPW). The combined value of the leases amounts to over R1.7bn and is entered into between the South African Police Service and controversial property vendor Roux Shabangu.
August 3 2010
Madonsela requests Cele and officials at DPW to cease with implementation of the said leases until an investigation into the matter is completed. It is confirmed the investigation would be undertaken in conjunction with Willie Hofmeyr's Special Investigation Unit (SIU).
4 August 2010
Journalist Mzilikazi wa Afrika is arrested for allegedly being in possession of a fake letter of resignation from Mpumalanga Premier David Mabuza. His arrest is widely seen as an attempt at intimidation relating to the original report appearing in the Sunday Times. He is held in Nelspruit for several days -- even after his case is thrown out of court.
October 11 2010
Director general at DPW, Siviwe Dongwana, informs Cele a new procurement process for the leasing of accommodation for the SAPS headquarters in Pretoria and Durban will be affected after an internal enquiry and independent legal advice deems the lease acquisitions to be invalid.
October 25 2010
Madonsela issues a preliminary report on the investigation, confirming her support for the new procurement process initiation.
October 31 2010
Gwen Mahlangu-Nkabinde replaces the former minister of public works, Geoff Doidge, in a Cabinet reshuffle by President Jacob Zuma.
November 11 2010
Mahlangu-Nkabinde announces, upon obtaining legal advice from the Office of the State Attorney on the lease agreement with regards to the Middestad building, that the lease is enforceable.
December 8 2010
DPW announces the suspension of Dongwana on charges in relation to insubordination, dereliction of duty, failure to discharge official duties and bringing the department into disrepute.
February 22 2011
Madonsela releases an initial report into the matter entitled: Against the Rules -- with specific reference to the Sanlam Middestad building in Pretoria. The report lists a number of irregularities in the leasing process.
March 2 2011
The offices of the Public Protector are visited by members of the SAPS crime intelligence unit, allegedly regarding Madonsela's investigations into Cele. Police later deny it was a raid.
March 10 2011
Madonsela announces she will not revisit findings in her report, despite being asked to do so by Mahlangu-Nkabinde.
June 10 2011
Mahlangu-Nkabinde announces a moratorium on all DPW tenders to "root out corruption". The move is slammed by the media and opposition parties and labeled as political opportunism.
June 17 2011
Shabangu calls a press briefing in Pretoria to "set the record straight" and defends the leasing deals, accusing "white capitalists" of accusing him of shady deals because he is a successful black businessman.
June 18 2011
Dongwana tells the media he feared for his safety and that of his family as he felt he was pressured into approving two lease deals.
June 21 2011
Mahlangu-Nkabinde announces her intention to take the matter regarding the leases to court to pronounce legality.
July 6 2011
A shock report is published by the Star newspaper about Madonsela’s imminent arrest on charges of alleged corruption during her tenure many years before as commissioner at the South African Law Reform Commission.
July 6 2011
The Star report is published the same day as a scheduled press briefing by Madonsela about the police leases and other matters. The report is criticised as a political ploy related to Madonsela's investigations into the leases. The protector vows to continue in her investigations into the leases.
July 7 2011
Justice and Constitutional Development Minister Jeff Radebe throws his weight behind Madonsela, announcing that she did not break any laws when her company offered services to the justice department while she worked for the South Africa Law Reform Commission. Police Minister Nathi Mthethwa also announces that he has no knowledge of an imminent arrest, after consulting with Cele, and the Zuma makes his support clear as well.
July 11 2011
It is confirmed that the head of the SIU, Willie Hofmeyr, is being investigated by the Serious Economic Offences Unit for reportedly flouting supply-chain and procurement procedures in the awarding of a tender to refurbish SIU offices in Pretoria
July 14 2011
Madonsela releases a second report into the leasing scandal -- with specific reference to the Transnet building in Durban -- entitled: Against the rules too. The report finds serious fault with Mahlangu-Nkabinde and Cele during the acquisition and implementation of the leases and calls for serious remedial action. The pair are slammed for their lack of cooperation during the investigation.
July 15 to 17 2011
The weekend media announce the report as a watershed moment for Zuma, which will test his earlier support and possibly force him to take action.
July 18 2011
Cele announces a press briefing for July 19 to respond to findings by the Public Protector that his actions in connection with the two controversial building leases were unlawful, improper and constituted maladministration. The briefing is then postponed to July 21.
July 20 2011
Cele again cancels the press briefing, scheduled for the following day.
Source: Mail & Guardian
October 2009
Advocate Thuli Madonsela is announced as South Africa's new Public Protector -- South Africa's third since 1994. She replaces Lawrence Mushwana, who had a dubious record in connection with the Oilgate scandal.
M&G editor in chief Nic Dawes tells you everything you need to know about Public Protector Thuli Madonsela's report into police leasing deals. Will the president take action? What's next for Madonsela? Watch our video analysis and find out.
Complaints are lodged by Paul Hoffman of the Institute for Accountability in Southern Africa and Pieter Groenewald of the Freedom Front Plus with the Public Protector in connection with a Sunday Times report alleging improper procurement in the leasing of office accommodation for the South African Police Services (SAPS) in the Sanlam Middestad building in Pretoria and the Transnet Building in Durban. These complaints originated from a newspaper article published on August 1 2010 alleging improper conduct and maladministration by police National Commissioner Bheki Cele and the Department of Public Works (DPW). The combined value of the leases amounts to over R1.7bn and is entered into between the South African Police Service and controversial property vendor Roux Shabangu.
August 3 2010
Madonsela requests Cele and officials at DPW to cease with implementation of the said leases until an investigation into the matter is completed. It is confirmed the investigation would be undertaken in conjunction with Willie Hofmeyr's Special Investigation Unit (SIU).
4 August 2010
Journalist Mzilikazi wa Afrika is arrested for allegedly being in possession of a fake letter of resignation from Mpumalanga Premier David Mabuza. His arrest is widely seen as an attempt at intimidation relating to the original report appearing in the Sunday Times. He is held in Nelspruit for several days -- even after his case is thrown out of court.
October 11 2010
Director general at DPW, Siviwe Dongwana, informs Cele a new procurement process for the leasing of accommodation for the SAPS headquarters in Pretoria and Durban will be affected after an internal enquiry and independent legal advice deems the lease acquisitions to be invalid.
October 25 2010
Madonsela issues a preliminary report on the investigation, confirming her support for the new procurement process initiation.
October 31 2010
Gwen Mahlangu-Nkabinde replaces the former minister of public works, Geoff Doidge, in a Cabinet reshuffle by President Jacob Zuma.
November 11 2010
Mahlangu-Nkabinde announces, upon obtaining legal advice from the Office of the State Attorney on the lease agreement with regards to the Middestad building, that the lease is enforceable.
December 8 2010
DPW announces the suspension of Dongwana on charges in relation to insubordination, dereliction of duty, failure to discharge official duties and bringing the department into disrepute.
February 22 2011
Madonsela releases an initial report into the matter entitled: Against the Rules -- with specific reference to the Sanlam Middestad building in Pretoria. The report lists a number of irregularities in the leasing process.
March 2 2011
The offices of the Public Protector are visited by members of the SAPS crime intelligence unit, allegedly regarding Madonsela's investigations into Cele. Police later deny it was a raid.
March 10 2011
Madonsela announces she will not revisit findings in her report, despite being asked to do so by Mahlangu-Nkabinde.
June 10 2011
Mahlangu-Nkabinde announces a moratorium on all DPW tenders to "root out corruption". The move is slammed by the media and opposition parties and labeled as political opportunism.
June 17 2011
Shabangu calls a press briefing in Pretoria to "set the record straight" and defends the leasing deals, accusing "white capitalists" of accusing him of shady deals because he is a successful black businessman.
June 18 2011
Dongwana tells the media he feared for his safety and that of his family as he felt he was pressured into approving two lease deals.
June 21 2011
Mahlangu-Nkabinde announces her intention to take the matter regarding the leases to court to pronounce legality.
July 6 2011
A shock report is published by the Star newspaper about Madonsela’s imminent arrest on charges of alleged corruption during her tenure many years before as commissioner at the South African Law Reform Commission.
July 6 2011
The Star report is published the same day as a scheduled press briefing by Madonsela about the police leases and other matters. The report is criticised as a political ploy related to Madonsela's investigations into the leases. The protector vows to continue in her investigations into the leases.
July 7 2011
Justice and Constitutional Development Minister Jeff Radebe throws his weight behind Madonsela, announcing that she did not break any laws when her company offered services to the justice department while she worked for the South Africa Law Reform Commission. Police Minister Nathi Mthethwa also announces that he has no knowledge of an imminent arrest, after consulting with Cele, and the Zuma makes his support clear as well.
July 11 2011
It is confirmed that the head of the SIU, Willie Hofmeyr, is being investigated by the Serious Economic Offences Unit for reportedly flouting supply-chain and procurement procedures in the awarding of a tender to refurbish SIU offices in Pretoria
July 14 2011
Madonsela releases a second report into the leasing scandal -- with specific reference to the Transnet building in Durban -- entitled: Against the rules too. The report finds serious fault with Mahlangu-Nkabinde and Cele during the acquisition and implementation of the leases and calls for serious remedial action. The pair are slammed for their lack of cooperation during the investigation.
July 15 to 17 2011
The weekend media announce the report as a watershed moment for Zuma, which will test his earlier support and possibly force him to take action.
July 18 2011
Cele announces a press briefing for July 19 to respond to findings by the Public Protector that his actions in connection with the two controversial building leases were unlawful, improper and constituted maladministration. The briefing is then postponed to July 21.
July 20 2011
Cele again cancels the press briefing, scheduled for the following day.
Source: Mail & Guardian
Sunday, July 10, 2011
Ngoepe: Powers of executive and judiciary are equal
The powers of the three organs of government -- the executive, the judiciary, and the legislature -- are all equal, Judge President of the North and South Gauteng High Courts, Bernard Ngoepe, said on Sunday. "None can be higher than the other. They are all equal," he told the South African Press Association in an interview at the closing of the Access to Justice conference in Johannesburg.
Ngoepe was referring to comments made by President Jacob Zuma that although the separation of powers was important, courts should not be more powerful than the government. "In as much as we seek to respect the powers and role conferred by our Constitution on the legislature and the judiciary, we expect the same from these very important institutions," Zuma said on Friday. "The powers conferred on the courts cannot be superior to the powers resulting from the political and consequently administrative mandate resulting from popular democratic elections."
Zuma stressed the need to distinguish the areas of responsibility between the judiciary and the branches of government, particularly with regards to government policy formulation. "The executive, as elected officials, have the sole discretion to decide policies for government. "This means that once government has decided on appropriate policies, the judiciary cannot, when striking down legislation or parts thereof on the basis of illegality, raise that as an opportunity to change the policies," he said.
Ngoepe believed Zuma meant that all three institutions were bound by the Constitution. "As far as I am concerned, what he [Zuma] means is that the Constitution demarcates the areas of authority of the judiciary, the executive and Parliament, and that each of the three institutions is bound by the Constitution to remain within the parameter of its constitutional authority and not encroach on the authority of the other two." This was a valued principle, said Ngoepe.
Some political analysts told the Saturday Star they interpreted the president's comments as a reference to the Constitutional Court's ruling earlier this year in which a narrow majority of justices found legislation that controversially killed off the Scorpions unit -- and established the Hawks -- as being unconstitutional. Political analyst, advocate Paul Hoffman, director of the Institute for Accountability in Southern Africa, told the publication it was the duty of the courts to uphold the Constitution. "The executive cannot do as it pleases on matters of policy," he said. "Any law or any conduct produced as a matter of policy which is inconsistent with the Constitution, such as dissolving the Scorpions or denying treatment to Aids patients, is invalid."
Delegates heard at the three-day conference that the independence of the judiciary was crucial for a democratic and just system. Zuma said the Constitution had adequate checks and balances to protect and safeguard the independence of the judiciary. Some politicians had undermined this, Ngoebe said. "In the past, there have been a few remarks by some individual politicians which could be understood as undermining the independence of the judiciary. However, there has been nothing serious in this regard."
He said there had been times when judges believed their lives were in danger. "There have been instances when judges who were doing certain cases felt threatened and were afforded police protection."
Source: Mail & Guardian
Ngoepe was referring to comments made by President Jacob Zuma that although the separation of powers was important, courts should not be more powerful than the government. "In as much as we seek to respect the powers and role conferred by our Constitution on the legislature and the judiciary, we expect the same from these very important institutions," Zuma said on Friday. "The powers conferred on the courts cannot be superior to the powers resulting from the political and consequently administrative mandate resulting from popular democratic elections."
Zuma stressed the need to distinguish the areas of responsibility between the judiciary and the branches of government, particularly with regards to government policy formulation. "The executive, as elected officials, have the sole discretion to decide policies for government. "This means that once government has decided on appropriate policies, the judiciary cannot, when striking down legislation or parts thereof on the basis of illegality, raise that as an opportunity to change the policies," he said.
Ngoepe believed Zuma meant that all three institutions were bound by the Constitution. "As far as I am concerned, what he [Zuma] means is that the Constitution demarcates the areas of authority of the judiciary, the executive and Parliament, and that each of the three institutions is bound by the Constitution to remain within the parameter of its constitutional authority and not encroach on the authority of the other two." This was a valued principle, said Ngoepe.
Some political analysts told the Saturday Star they interpreted the president's comments as a reference to the Constitutional Court's ruling earlier this year in which a narrow majority of justices found legislation that controversially killed off the Scorpions unit -- and established the Hawks -- as being unconstitutional. Political analyst, advocate Paul Hoffman, director of the Institute for Accountability in Southern Africa, told the publication it was the duty of the courts to uphold the Constitution. "The executive cannot do as it pleases on matters of policy," he said. "Any law or any conduct produced as a matter of policy which is inconsistent with the Constitution, such as dissolving the Scorpions or denying treatment to Aids patients, is invalid."
Delegates heard at the three-day conference that the independence of the judiciary was crucial for a democratic and just system. Zuma said the Constitution had adequate checks and balances to protect and safeguard the independence of the judiciary. Some politicians had undermined this, Ngoebe said. "In the past, there have been a few remarks by some individual politicians which could be understood as undermining the independence of the judiciary. However, there has been nothing serious in this regard."
He said there had been times when judges believed their lives were in danger. "There have been instances when judges who were doing certain cases felt threatened and were afforded police protection."
Source: Mail & Guardian
Friday, July 1, 2011
Vodacom cuts off about a million users
Vodacom, South Africa's biggest wireless phones operator, cut off about a million users on Friday for failing to register their SIM cards under a new law in the country. Under the new Regulation of Interception of Communication Act, mobile phone SIM cards must have been registered by 10pm GMT on Thursday to avoid being cut off from the network.
Vodacom, a unit of Britain's Vodafone, said under a million subscribers were disconnected from its network but spokesman Richard Boorman said the impact on revenue would be minimal. "Overall, I can say we're not expecting a major revenue impact," Boorman said, adding only a portion of those disconnected, frequently used their lines.
Vodacom's rival MTN declined to disclose how customers were locked out of the network but said initial indications showed that the numbers were not significant. "MTN is not in a position to disclose the figures of ... subscribers who have been cut off because MTN is in a closed period," Eddie Moyce, customer relationship executive at the operator's South African unit, said in an emailed response to Reuters questions.
MTN is finalising its half-year results and companies typically refrain from making comments on their balance sheets before the results are published. MTN has about 19-million subscribers in South Africa while Vodacom boasts about 26 million users in the country.
Source: Mail & Guardian
Vodacom, a unit of Britain's Vodafone, said under a million subscribers were disconnected from its network but spokesman Richard Boorman said the impact on revenue would be minimal. "Overall, I can say we're not expecting a major revenue impact," Boorman said, adding only a portion of those disconnected, frequently used their lines.
Vodacom's rival MTN declined to disclose how customers were locked out of the network but said initial indications showed that the numbers were not significant. "MTN is not in a position to disclose the figures of ... subscribers who have been cut off because MTN is in a closed period," Eddie Moyce, customer relationship executive at the operator's South African unit, said in an emailed response to Reuters questions.
MTN is finalising its half-year results and companies typically refrain from making comments on their balance sheets before the results are published. MTN has about 19-million subscribers in South Africa while Vodacom boasts about 26 million users in the country.
Source: Mail & Guardian
'Spooks are everywhere'
The latest African Media Barometer (AMB): South Africa 2010 report presents a mixed picture on the state of the media and media freedom in the country. It says there is widespread belief that "spooks are everywhere".
South Africa's overall rating for its media environment has decreased, according to the report published by Friedrich-Ebert-Stiftung (FES) and the Media Institute of Southern Africa. FES is a private German political, non-profit, public-interest institution committed to social democracy. In 2006, the overall score for freedom of expression for the country was 3.2 out of 5, in 2008 it was 3.5 and in 2010 it decreased to 3.
Categories taken into account include: freedom of the media, the media landscape including diversity, independence and sustainability, broadcasting regulation and professional standards. Scoring in a range of subcategories were conducted by a 10-person panel of South Africans, including a trade unionist, a media academic, a journalist, a human rights activist, a broadcasting consultant, a social movement activist, a gender activist and an IT specialist.
The barometer says that although the right to freedom of expression, including media freedom and the right to access information, is guaranteed in the Constitution, in "recent years, though, these protections are being increasingly challenged in practice, or by proposals for new legislation". "The tone of the political discourse is becoming sharper", with "harsh criticism of corruption and greed in government circles from a broad spectrum of society". Government, as well as sections of the ANC, the report says, reacts defensively and critics are labelled as "unpatriotic", "enemies" or "counter-revolutionaries". And police, "overreact" against people with critical views whereas whistle-blowers feel increasingly insecure. "There are reports of people who had revealed instances of corruption to the press being threatened or even killed … and there is the suspicion that spooks are everywhere" the report says, quoting Congress of South African Trade Union's Zwelinzima Vavi's statement that many believe that people are listening in to phone conversations.
However, South Africa scored top marks for the fact that entry into and the practice of journalism was legally unrestricted and that websites and blogs were not required to register or get permission from state authorities. The scores dropped in the category: "the right to freedom of expression is practised and citizens, including journalists, are asserting their rights without fear". In 2008 it was 3.2 and in 2010 it was 2.9. The advertising market, according to the survey, was not large enough to support a diversity of media outlets: in 2008 this score was 3.9 and in 2010, it dropped to 2.7 There was a significant decrease in adequate competition legislation/regulation to prevent media concentration and monopolies. In 2008 it was 4.7 and in 2010 it was 2.6. In the same vein, the indictment on broadcasting regulation and its levels of transparency and independence was severe: the 2006 score was 4.6, the 2008 score was 5 and the 2010 score was 3.3. The scores for "public information is easily accessible, guaranteed by law, to all citizens" was generally low for the three years. In 2006, it was 2.7, in 2008 it was 2.3, and in 2010 2.7.
Regarding the provision that there were "no laws restricting freedom of expression such as excessive official secrets or libel acts, or laws that unreasonably interfere with the responsibilities of media", the country scores a good 4, but the report says if the Protection of Information Bill is enacted and if a media appeals tribunal is instituted, it would change the picture.
Applying for information in terms of the Promotion of Access to Information Act of 2002 (Paia) is "cumbersome" and "often requests for information are ignored. Further, many departments did not appoint information officers as required under the act, the report says. Mention is made of the Mail & Guardian winning a High Court order in June 2010, which obliged the government to release a report on the 2002 elections in Zimbabwe. The judge agreed that the release of the report was in the public interest, but government appealed to the Supreme Court of Appeal, lost that appeal in December 2010, and then applied to the Constitutional Court this year. Judgment is pending.
The Secrecy Bill, if enacted, would threaten the gains envisaged in Paia, according to the report.
Source: Mail & Guardian
South Africa's overall rating for its media environment has decreased, according to the report published by Friedrich-Ebert-Stiftung (FES) and the Media Institute of Southern Africa. FES is a private German political, non-profit, public-interest institution committed to social democracy. In 2006, the overall score for freedom of expression for the country was 3.2 out of 5, in 2008 it was 3.5 and in 2010 it decreased to 3.
Categories taken into account include: freedom of the media, the media landscape including diversity, independence and sustainability, broadcasting regulation and professional standards. Scoring in a range of subcategories were conducted by a 10-person panel of South Africans, including a trade unionist, a media academic, a journalist, a human rights activist, a broadcasting consultant, a social movement activist, a gender activist and an IT specialist.
The barometer says that although the right to freedom of expression, including media freedom and the right to access information, is guaranteed in the Constitution, in "recent years, though, these protections are being increasingly challenged in practice, or by proposals for new legislation". "The tone of the political discourse is becoming sharper", with "harsh criticism of corruption and greed in government circles from a broad spectrum of society". Government, as well as sections of the ANC, the report says, reacts defensively and critics are labelled as "unpatriotic", "enemies" or "counter-revolutionaries". And police, "overreact" against people with critical views whereas whistle-blowers feel increasingly insecure. "There are reports of people who had revealed instances of corruption to the press being threatened or even killed … and there is the suspicion that spooks are everywhere" the report says, quoting Congress of South African Trade Union's Zwelinzima Vavi's statement that many believe that people are listening in to phone conversations.
However, South Africa scored top marks for the fact that entry into and the practice of journalism was legally unrestricted and that websites and blogs were not required to register or get permission from state authorities. The scores dropped in the category: "the right to freedom of expression is practised and citizens, including journalists, are asserting their rights without fear". In 2008 it was 3.2 and in 2010 it was 2.9. The advertising market, according to the survey, was not large enough to support a diversity of media outlets: in 2008 this score was 3.9 and in 2010, it dropped to 2.7 There was a significant decrease in adequate competition legislation/regulation to prevent media concentration and monopolies. In 2008 it was 4.7 and in 2010 it was 2.6. In the same vein, the indictment on broadcasting regulation and its levels of transparency and independence was severe: the 2006 score was 4.6, the 2008 score was 5 and the 2010 score was 3.3. The scores for "public information is easily accessible, guaranteed by law, to all citizens" was generally low for the three years. In 2006, it was 2.7, in 2008 it was 2.3, and in 2010 2.7.
Regarding the provision that there were "no laws restricting freedom of expression such as excessive official secrets or libel acts, or laws that unreasonably interfere with the responsibilities of media", the country scores a good 4, but the report says if the Protection of Information Bill is enacted and if a media appeals tribunal is instituted, it would change the picture.
Applying for information in terms of the Promotion of Access to Information Act of 2002 (Paia) is "cumbersome" and "often requests for information are ignored. Further, many departments did not appoint information officers as required under the act, the report says. Mention is made of the Mail & Guardian winning a High Court order in June 2010, which obliged the government to release a report on the 2002 elections in Zimbabwe. The judge agreed that the release of the report was in the public interest, but government appealed to the Supreme Court of Appeal, lost that appeal in December 2010, and then applied to the Constitutional Court this year. Judgment is pending.
The Secrecy Bill, if enacted, would threaten the gains envisaged in Paia, according to the report.
Source: Mail & Guardian
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)