There is little disagreement that corruption is a serious problem facing South Africa. Unfortunately, various indicators suggest that the problem is getting worse. The annual Transparency Corruptions Perceptions Index is a useful measure of whether corruption is getting better or worse in 182 countries worldwide. Ten points indicate the absence of perceptions of corruption, while 0 means that the country is entirely corrupt. On this scale, in 2011 New Zealand scored closest to ten with a score of 9,5, while Somalia was rated as the most corrupt country in the world with a score of 1. The 2011 index reveals that South Africa registered its lowest score to date of 4,1 points when compared with our highest rating of 5,1 in 2007. Worryingly, we have dropped from 54th place in 2010 to 64th place in 2012 on the world rankings. The surveys from Afrobarometer – a public opinion survey focusing on Africa – have also shown that South Africans are increasingly concerned about corruption. While in 2008, 15% of adults thought that corruption was ‘an important national issue’, by 2011 this had increased to 29%.
In October 2011, the head of the Special Investigating Unit (SIU), Willie Hofmeyr, told the National Assembly Portfolio Committee on Justice and Constitutional Development that corruption involving government procurement was costing South Africa as much as R30 billion each year. To place this in perspective, this amount of money could increase the annual budget of the Department of Basic Education by 20%, the Department of Health by 25% or the entire criminal justice system by 30%. In short, if taxpayers’ money were not being stolen by, or with the connivance of, corrupt government officials and politicians, all South Africans could benefit from substantially more schools, hospitals and police stations staffed with better-paid doctors, teachers and police officers.
It is then fortunate that, officially at least, the government has identified corruption as a serious challenge and has set itself the objective of reducing corruption so as to ‘boost investor trust and willingness to invest in the country’. Towards this end it set the goal of prosecuting and convicting a hundred individuals that are suspected to have corruptly acquired assets worth more than R5 million by 2014. To achieve this the government has established the Anti-Corruption Task Team to coordinate the activities of various investigation agencies and the National Prosecution Authority (NPA). Although Hofmeyr pointed out earlier this year that at least 26 individuals meeting the government’s targeted profile are before the courts on corruption charges, its overall target is too ambitious given the handful of successful convictions achieved in the past few years.
The question is, why is the problem of corruption so large and damaging to South Africa if there is an official government policy to reduce it? The answer lies in examining the extent to which there is political will to take appropriate action against the most politically powerful and connected people.
When an ordinary citizen is alleged to have committed a crime such as corruption, the South African Police Service (SAPS) will identify that person as a suspect in a criminal matter. The SAPS will then use its legally provided investigative powers and resources to gather any evidence that will allow the suspect to be criminally charged and brought before a court. The suspect is given various rights and is entitled to having lawyers test the evidence so as to ensure that it is indeed correct and that the he/she is not being falsely accused. If the evidence is found wanting suspects will be acquitted and if not, may find themselves convicted and sent to prison.
It is the unfortunate reality that politically connected individuals are being protected from criminal justice processes. When Police Commissioner General Bheki Cele was found by the Public Protector to have engaged in conduct that was ‘improper, unlawful and amounted to maladministration’, he was not subjected to a criminal investigation. Rather, his friend and the person who appointed him to his post, President Jacob Zuma, appointed a board of inquiry to look into allegations of corruption and wrongdoing. However, unlike a police investigation, the board of inquiry could not subpoena witnesses, or access cellphone records and bank statements, as was the case in the investigation against convicted ex-SAPS Commissioner Jackie Selebi. The inquiry had no investigative powers and therefore could only consider evidence provided to it by willing parties. The recently leaked inquiry report therefore raised more questions than answers and apparently recommended that a full criminal investigation be undertaken into the matter. If Zuma implements this recommendation, it will be the first example of a senior politically connected person at a national level being subject to such an investigation under his administration.
Disturbing allegations emerged as a result of various investigations by the Directorate for Priority Crimes Investigations Unit (also known as the Hawks), that the Head of SAPS Crime Intelligence, Lieutenant-General Richard Mdluli, and his close colleagues were implicated in a range of crimes including murder, rape, kidnapping, intimidation and wide-scale corruption. It is alleged that the Minister of Police halted all investigations into Mdluli and ordered that he be reinstated. Mdluli was irregularly appointed to his position after a cabinet ministers’ meeting two months after Zuma was sworn in as the President of South Africa. It has been alleged that this was because of Mdluli’s willingness to use his position to support Zuma to stay in power. Indeed, Mdluli has written letters to Zuma that state as much.
That the current acting SAPS National Commissioner Nhlanhla Sibusiso Mkhwanazi has recently re-suspended Mdluli is seen by many as a bold move to reject political interference in police matters, a move that could cost him his position. Current criminal investigations into Mdluli by the Hawks appear to have been taken despite political interference.
More recently we have read of allegations that the Minister of Police, Nathi Mthethwa, irregularly benefited from the Secret Service Account of the SAPS Crime Intelligence Division when R195 581.40 was used for renovations to his private residence. If this allegation is true, it may amount to unlawful conduct as the funds in this account consist of taxpayers’ money to be used for crime intelligence work only. The Minister of Police has denied that he benefited from the Secret Service Account and stated that he had asked the Auditor-General (AG) to investigate. As is the case with the board of inquiry into Cele, the AG does not undertake its work with the intention of gathering evidence to support or refute allegations of misconduct or criminality. Therefore the Minister is safe in the knowledge that he will not automatically be facing any criminal sanction from the AG’s investigation into the allegations against him. All the AG will be able to find with regards to wrongdoing is that money was misspent and recommend that further investigations be undertaken – a recommendation that could be ignored by the Minister, to whom the AG will report on this matter.
If politically connected individuals cannot be held accountable for criminal activity through the criminal justice system, there is little incentive for them to stop engaging in corruption and the problem will continue to worsen. Unfortunately, this appears to be happening as there is no political will to subject politically connected people at the highest levels of government to the criminal justice system when there are allegations of wrongdoing. So no matter how many ordinary people the government throws in jail, our country will continue to suffer the negative effects of corruption of state resources being used to benefit a handful of individuals.
Source: ISS
Thursday, May 31, 2012
Conveyancers and Bank Panels
There has been much discussion recently in De Rebus and at other forums on the relationship between conveyancers and bank panels. The editorial in the December 2012 issue of De Rebus -- The real cost of being on bank panels? -- asks whether attorneys can afford to bow down to the pressure placed on them by some of the banks in order to remain on their panels? It also notes: Should attorneys’ professional standards be compromised in order to ‘please’ the banks, this could be the catalyst for doing away with the reservation of conveyancing work for attorneys. Tell us what you think by completing the quick poll.
Source: Law Society of South Africa
- Read the editorial in December 2011 'The real cost of being on bank panels'?
- Read the letter in the October 2011 issue: Banks make for a disgruntled conveyancer
- Read the letter in the January/February 2012 issue: Effect banks have on conveyancing circles and the CPA
- Read the letter in the March 2012 issue: Poletiek rondom prokureurs en panele van banke dien
- Read the letters in the May 2012 issue: Conveyancers cast off the shackles and Bank panel attorneys and ethics
Source: Law Society of South Africa
Wednesday, May 30, 2012
Amid Uproar, Graphic Painting of South African President Is Removed From Gallery
To the artist and a gallery director, it was a scathing piece of satire — a riff on Soviet-style propaganda aimed at a powerful president with a controversial sexual history who presides over a liberation movement-turned-political party that many here feel has lost its revolutionary appeal. But to that party, the African National Congress; many black South Africans; and, most of all, the man it depicted, President Jacob Zuma, the painting — which portrayed Mr. Zuma in a Leninesque pose with his genitals exposed — was a reminder of the pain and humiliation frequently visited on black bodies by white hands under apartheid.
On Wednesday, both sides agreed to disagree on the merits of the painting, “The Spear,” by the Cape Town artist Brett Murray, which was part of an exhibit at the Goodman Gallery here. But they agreed on one thing: It would no longer be on display. In exchange for the A.N.C.’s agreeing to drop a lawsuit, the gallery agreed to remove the work, which had already been vandalized, from the exhibition. The battle over the painting pit the right to free expression, which has been increasingly under pressure in South Africa, against what the A.N.C. argued was Mr. Zuma’s right to dignity. It demonstrated that even as the years tick by since apartheid’s end, the wounds of that brutal system remain deep.
The portrayal of the president’s genitals in a painting by a white artist outraged many black South Africans who argued that it harked back to apartheid-era humiliations meted out against them. The A.N.C. and its allies called for protest marches and a boycott of a newspaper that had published a photograph of the painting. After two weeks of resistance on free speech grounds, the gallery agreed to remove the painting. “The debate engendered by this work has been robust and rich and will continue,” said a joint statement released by the Goodman Gallery and the A.N.C. “But what is also clear is the real distress and hurt that this image has caused some people. The image has conjured up past historical hurts and humiliations for some people.”
Both sides claimed victory in a conciliatory but at times tense news conference at the gallery. “In this process, we have stood very firm with respect to our belief in freedom of artistic expression,” said the gallery’s director, Liza Essers, adding that the exhibition would continue without “The Spear.” An A.N.C. spokesman, Jackson Mthembu, said freedom of expression must be balanced against human dignity and shared understanding. “All of us have a duty to build a commonly shared geographic space called South Africa,” he said. “We cannot do so if we do not appreciate the humiliation of the past to some degree.” The agreement was an attempt to end a bitter public battle over the painting. Gallery staff members had received death threats. Vandals wrote “traitor” on the car of a black gallery employee, and two men defaced the painting, obscuring both the face and the genitals.
As often happens in post-apartheid South Africa, the arguments often broke along racial lines. White commentators tended to focus on the artist’s right to expression and the right of newspapers and other publications to show photographs of the painting. The gallery, which draws a largely white audience, and whose administrative and curatorial staff has only one black member, drew harsh criticism from unexpected quarters. Several black writers, some of whom are often harshly critical of the A.N.C. and Mr. Zuma, said the work tapped apartheid-era fears. “Regardless of the artist’s intentions, ‘The Spear’ became a proxy for the anger over the many unremedied injuries, large and small, that blacks have suffered at the hands of whites and for the lack of cognizance of these offenses,” wrote Osiame Molefe, a columnist for the news Web site The Daily Maverick.
Nudity in particular is a delicate issue. Under apartheid-era laws, black people who were not carrying a required pass were subject to strip searches by the police, and black miners were often stripped by overseers looking for gold hidden in their body cavities. The idea of a white man painting the penis of a black man, particularly the nation’s leader, struck many people as insensitive. Under apartheid, the columnist Justice Malala wrote for The Times of Johannesburg, “the black man was viewed as a sex-obsessed, lazy ... well, animal, really. We were not human here.”
In an open letter to one of Mr. Zuma’s daughters, Ferial Haffajee, the editor of The City Press, the newspaper that printed the photograph of the painting, said she regretted the decision. “Our common national dignity is a paper-thin one; a chimera in parts,” she wrote. “The exposure of black genitalia is still a raw and festering wound — its resurrection in any form a painful flashback to the various and many indignities inflicted on the black body from colonialism to its later manifestation as apartheid.”
Ms. Essers said such an interpretation did not occur to her or to Mr. Murray as they planned and designed the exhibition, which broadly satirizes the corruption and misrule that have plagued the A.N.C. in recent years. Mr. Mthembu said that while the party might not like the other images on display, it objected only to “The Spear.”
Mr. Zuma was acquitted in 2006 of charges that he had raped a young woman. He said the sex had been consensual, but was widely criticized for testifying that although he knew the woman was infected with the virus that causes AIDS, he did not use a condom.
He said he showered afterward in an effort to prevent infection, a statement that angered many AIDS activists and health officials here. A practicing polygamist, Mr. Zuma has four wives and more than 20 children.
Source: New York Times
On Wednesday, both sides agreed to disagree on the merits of the painting, “The Spear,” by the Cape Town artist Brett Murray, which was part of an exhibit at the Goodman Gallery here. But they agreed on one thing: It would no longer be on display. In exchange for the A.N.C.’s agreeing to drop a lawsuit, the gallery agreed to remove the work, which had already been vandalized, from the exhibition. The battle over the painting pit the right to free expression, which has been increasingly under pressure in South Africa, against what the A.N.C. argued was Mr. Zuma’s right to dignity. It demonstrated that even as the years tick by since apartheid’s end, the wounds of that brutal system remain deep.
The portrayal of the president’s genitals in a painting by a white artist outraged many black South Africans who argued that it harked back to apartheid-era humiliations meted out against them. The A.N.C. and its allies called for protest marches and a boycott of a newspaper that had published a photograph of the painting. After two weeks of resistance on free speech grounds, the gallery agreed to remove the painting. “The debate engendered by this work has been robust and rich and will continue,” said a joint statement released by the Goodman Gallery and the A.N.C. “But what is also clear is the real distress and hurt that this image has caused some people. The image has conjured up past historical hurts and humiliations for some people.”
Both sides claimed victory in a conciliatory but at times tense news conference at the gallery. “In this process, we have stood very firm with respect to our belief in freedom of artistic expression,” said the gallery’s director, Liza Essers, adding that the exhibition would continue without “The Spear.” An A.N.C. spokesman, Jackson Mthembu, said freedom of expression must be balanced against human dignity and shared understanding. “All of us have a duty to build a commonly shared geographic space called South Africa,” he said. “We cannot do so if we do not appreciate the humiliation of the past to some degree.” The agreement was an attempt to end a bitter public battle over the painting. Gallery staff members had received death threats. Vandals wrote “traitor” on the car of a black gallery employee, and two men defaced the painting, obscuring both the face and the genitals.
As often happens in post-apartheid South Africa, the arguments often broke along racial lines. White commentators tended to focus on the artist’s right to expression and the right of newspapers and other publications to show photographs of the painting. The gallery, which draws a largely white audience, and whose administrative and curatorial staff has only one black member, drew harsh criticism from unexpected quarters. Several black writers, some of whom are often harshly critical of the A.N.C. and Mr. Zuma, said the work tapped apartheid-era fears. “Regardless of the artist’s intentions, ‘The Spear’ became a proxy for the anger over the many unremedied injuries, large and small, that blacks have suffered at the hands of whites and for the lack of cognizance of these offenses,” wrote Osiame Molefe, a columnist for the news Web site The Daily Maverick.
Nudity in particular is a delicate issue. Under apartheid-era laws, black people who were not carrying a required pass were subject to strip searches by the police, and black miners were often stripped by overseers looking for gold hidden in their body cavities. The idea of a white man painting the penis of a black man, particularly the nation’s leader, struck many people as insensitive. Under apartheid, the columnist Justice Malala wrote for The Times of Johannesburg, “the black man was viewed as a sex-obsessed, lazy ... well, animal, really. We were not human here.”
In an open letter to one of Mr. Zuma’s daughters, Ferial Haffajee, the editor of The City Press, the newspaper that printed the photograph of the painting, said she regretted the decision. “Our common national dignity is a paper-thin one; a chimera in parts,” she wrote. “The exposure of black genitalia is still a raw and festering wound — its resurrection in any form a painful flashback to the various and many indignities inflicted on the black body from colonialism to its later manifestation as apartheid.”
Ms. Essers said such an interpretation did not occur to her or to Mr. Murray as they planned and designed the exhibition, which broadly satirizes the corruption and misrule that have plagued the A.N.C. in recent years. Mr. Mthembu said that while the party might not like the other images on display, it objected only to “The Spear.”
Mr. Zuma was acquitted in 2006 of charges that he had raped a young woman. He said the sex had been consensual, but was widely criticized for testifying that although he knew the woman was infected with the virus that causes AIDS, he did not use a condom.
He said he showered afterward in an effort to prevent infection, a statement that angered many AIDS activists and health officials here. A practicing polygamist, Mr. Zuma has four wives and more than 20 children.
Source: New York Times
Ex-Liberian Leader Gets 50 Years for War Crimes
Charles G. Taylor, the former president of Liberia and a once-powerful warlord, was sentenced on Wednesday to 50 years in prison for his role in atrocities committed in Sierra Leone during its civil war in the 1990s. In what was viewed as a watershed case for modern human rights law, Mr. Taylor was the first former head of state convicted by an international tribunal since the Nuremberg trials in Germany after World War II.
Mr. Taylor was found guilty of “aiding and abetting, as well as planning, some of the most heinous and brutal crimes recorded in human history,” said Richard Lussick, the judge who presided over the sentencing here in an international criminal court near The Hague. He said the lengthy prison term underscored Mr. Taylor’s position as a government’s leader during the time the crimes were committed. “Leadership must be carried out by example, by the prosecution of crimes, not the commission of crimes,” the judge said in a statement read before the court.
If carried out, the sentence is likely to mean that Mr. Taylor, 64, will spend the rest of his life in prison. He looked at the floor after he was asked to stand as the sentence was read. The chief prosecutor, Brenda Hollis, told a news conference that could be viewed in West Africa: “The sentence today does not replace amputated limbs; it does not bring back those who were murdered,” she said. “It does not heal the wounds of those who were raped or forced to become sexual slaves.”
Mr. Taylor’s legal team said it would file an appeal. “The sentence is clearly excessive, clearly disproportionate to his circumstances, his age and his health, and does not take into account the fact that he stepped down from office voluntarily,” said Morris Anya, one of Mr. Taylor’s lawyers.
The prosecution, which had sought an even longer sentence of 80 years, said it was considering its own appeal, to raise the level of responsibility attributed to Mr. Taylor for crimes committed under his leadership. Two rebel commanders tried earlier were handed similar prison sentences of 50 and 52 years, and a prosecutor said Mr. Taylor’s overall responsibility for the atrocities was considerably greater. He did not freely leave office, but was pushed out in 2003 as rebels marched on his capital and a delegation of African leaders urged him to prevent further bloodshed and seek exile in Nigeria. The court must set a precise prison term; it is not allowed to impose a life sentence or the death penalty.
Outside the courthouse, Salamba Silla, who works with victims’ groups in Sierra Leone, pleaded for more help for former child soldiers, orphans, people whose limbs were hacked off and other victims of the country’s war. “You can see hundreds of them begging on the streets of Freetown,” the capital, she said. “Many who suffered horrendously need help to return to the provinces, they think they cannot survive there.” Ibrahim Sorie, a lawmaker from Sierra Leone who had been seated in the court’s gallery, said the sentence was fair. “It restores our faith in the rule of law, and we see that impunity is ending for top people,” Mr. Sorie said. By previous agreement, Mr. Taylor will serve his sentence in a British prison, but since the appeals process is expected to last at least a year, he will remain in the relative comfort of the United Nations’ detention center at The Hague.
After more than a year of deliberations, the Special Court for Sierra Leone found Mr. Taylor guilty in late April of crimes against humanity and war crimes for his part in fomenting widespread brutality that included murder, rape, the use of child soldiers, the mutilation of thousands of civilians and the mining of diamonds to pay for guns and ammunition. Prosecutors have said that Mr. Taylor was motivated in these gruesome actions not by any ideology but rather by “pure avarice” and a thirst for power.
The United Nations-backed tribunal began it work in Sierra Leone, where it tried its other cases, but out of concern that hearings in West Africa would cause unrest among those who still support Mr. Taylor, his trial was moved to the Netherlands.
In Liberia, where Mr. Taylor began a civil war and amassed a record of human rights atrocities during his dictatorial rule, there has not been the political will or the resources to set up a tribunal. The mandate of the Special Court for Sierra Leone covers only crimes between 1996 and 2002, and because the tribunal is to be shut down, critics say that a number of people close to Mr. Taylor have escaped prosecution.
Witnesses who testified at the Taylor trial — which lasted more than twice as long as planned — included men whose hands had been chopped off and women who had been raped. Associates and aides of Mr. Taylor also testified. One aide described a secret bonding ritual in Liberia during which he and others joined Mr. Taylor in eating a human heart.
Diamonds, as well as atrocities, also came up repeatedly in the 2,500-page judgment. The judges agreed with the prosecution that diamonds mined in Sierra Leone were used to pay for arms and ammunition for Mr. Taylor’s proxy army, and that rough diamonds were delivered to Mr. Taylor’s house in Monrovia, the Liberian capital. One diamond story that received a lot of attention during the trial involved the court appearance of the model Naomi Campbell. Prosecutors said Ms. Campbell had been sent uncut diamonds as a gift from Mr. Taylor after they attended a charity dinner hosted by Nelson Mandela when he was the president of South Africa. Two of Ms. Campbell’s companions who recounted the episode in court — her agent, Carole White, and the actress Mia Farrow — were repeatedly called “liars” during cross-examination by the defense. But the judges wrote that the two women were “frank and truthful witnesses,” and contrasted them with Ms. Campbell. They called her a “reluctant witness” who “deliberately omitted certain details out of fear.” They added that Ms. Campbell “said she came to the realization that the diamonds were sent by Taylor.”
Eight other leading members of different forces and rebel groups have already been sentenced by the tribunal. Mr. Taylor is the special court’s last defendant. Since his trial began, 115 witnesses have testified.
The three-panel bench, made up of judges from Uganda, Samoa and Ireland, gave Mr. Taylor leeway during his defense. He spent seven months — covering 81 days of the trial — in the witness chair, telling his life story without ever being cut off for digressions or political statements. He said he had heard about atrocities — “that nobody on this planet would not have heard about the atrocities in Sierra Leone” — but that he would “never, ever” have permitted them.
Source: New York Times
Mr. Taylor was found guilty of “aiding and abetting, as well as planning, some of the most heinous and brutal crimes recorded in human history,” said Richard Lussick, the judge who presided over the sentencing here in an international criminal court near The Hague. He said the lengthy prison term underscored Mr. Taylor’s position as a government’s leader during the time the crimes were committed. “Leadership must be carried out by example, by the prosecution of crimes, not the commission of crimes,” the judge said in a statement read before the court.
If carried out, the sentence is likely to mean that Mr. Taylor, 64, will spend the rest of his life in prison. He looked at the floor after he was asked to stand as the sentence was read. The chief prosecutor, Brenda Hollis, told a news conference that could be viewed in West Africa: “The sentence today does not replace amputated limbs; it does not bring back those who were murdered,” she said. “It does not heal the wounds of those who were raped or forced to become sexual slaves.”
Mr. Taylor’s legal team said it would file an appeal. “The sentence is clearly excessive, clearly disproportionate to his circumstances, his age and his health, and does not take into account the fact that he stepped down from office voluntarily,” said Morris Anya, one of Mr. Taylor’s lawyers.
The prosecution, which had sought an even longer sentence of 80 years, said it was considering its own appeal, to raise the level of responsibility attributed to Mr. Taylor for crimes committed under his leadership. Two rebel commanders tried earlier were handed similar prison sentences of 50 and 52 years, and a prosecutor said Mr. Taylor’s overall responsibility for the atrocities was considerably greater. He did not freely leave office, but was pushed out in 2003 as rebels marched on his capital and a delegation of African leaders urged him to prevent further bloodshed and seek exile in Nigeria. The court must set a precise prison term; it is not allowed to impose a life sentence or the death penalty.
Outside the courthouse, Salamba Silla, who works with victims’ groups in Sierra Leone, pleaded for more help for former child soldiers, orphans, people whose limbs were hacked off and other victims of the country’s war. “You can see hundreds of them begging on the streets of Freetown,” the capital, she said. “Many who suffered horrendously need help to return to the provinces, they think they cannot survive there.” Ibrahim Sorie, a lawmaker from Sierra Leone who had been seated in the court’s gallery, said the sentence was fair. “It restores our faith in the rule of law, and we see that impunity is ending for top people,” Mr. Sorie said. By previous agreement, Mr. Taylor will serve his sentence in a British prison, but since the appeals process is expected to last at least a year, he will remain in the relative comfort of the United Nations’ detention center at The Hague.
After more than a year of deliberations, the Special Court for Sierra Leone found Mr. Taylor guilty in late April of crimes against humanity and war crimes for his part in fomenting widespread brutality that included murder, rape, the use of child soldiers, the mutilation of thousands of civilians and the mining of diamonds to pay for guns and ammunition. Prosecutors have said that Mr. Taylor was motivated in these gruesome actions not by any ideology but rather by “pure avarice” and a thirst for power.
The United Nations-backed tribunal began it work in Sierra Leone, where it tried its other cases, but out of concern that hearings in West Africa would cause unrest among those who still support Mr. Taylor, his trial was moved to the Netherlands.
In Liberia, where Mr. Taylor began a civil war and amassed a record of human rights atrocities during his dictatorial rule, there has not been the political will or the resources to set up a tribunal. The mandate of the Special Court for Sierra Leone covers only crimes between 1996 and 2002, and because the tribunal is to be shut down, critics say that a number of people close to Mr. Taylor have escaped prosecution.
Witnesses who testified at the Taylor trial — which lasted more than twice as long as planned — included men whose hands had been chopped off and women who had been raped. Associates and aides of Mr. Taylor also testified. One aide described a secret bonding ritual in Liberia during which he and others joined Mr. Taylor in eating a human heart.
Diamonds, as well as atrocities, also came up repeatedly in the 2,500-page judgment. The judges agreed with the prosecution that diamonds mined in Sierra Leone were used to pay for arms and ammunition for Mr. Taylor’s proxy army, and that rough diamonds were delivered to Mr. Taylor’s house in Monrovia, the Liberian capital. One diamond story that received a lot of attention during the trial involved the court appearance of the model Naomi Campbell. Prosecutors said Ms. Campbell had been sent uncut diamonds as a gift from Mr. Taylor after they attended a charity dinner hosted by Nelson Mandela when he was the president of South Africa. Two of Ms. Campbell’s companions who recounted the episode in court — her agent, Carole White, and the actress Mia Farrow — were repeatedly called “liars” during cross-examination by the defense. But the judges wrote that the two women were “frank and truthful witnesses,” and contrasted them with Ms. Campbell. They called her a “reluctant witness” who “deliberately omitted certain details out of fear.” They added that Ms. Campbell “said she came to the realization that the diamonds were sent by Taylor.”
Eight other leading members of different forces and rebel groups have already been sentenced by the tribunal. Mr. Taylor is the special court’s last defendant. Since his trial began, 115 witnesses have testified.
The three-panel bench, made up of judges from Uganda, Samoa and Ireland, gave Mr. Taylor leeway during his defense. He spent seven months — covering 81 days of the trial — in the witness chair, telling his life story without ever being cut off for digressions or political statements. He said he had heard about atrocities — “that nobody on this planet would not have heard about the atrocities in Sierra Leone” — but that he would “never, ever” have permitted them.
Source: New York Times
Thursday, May 24, 2012
Murray’s Painting of Zuma has South Africans in a Tizz
The painting, which shows a Bolshevik Zuma with his genitals protruding from his suit, has been met by a phenomenal media and political storm. Art critics, twitterati and cognoscenti are earnestly debating The Spear’s artistic merits, prompted largely by threats of legal action by the ANC and protests by members of the public to take it down or keep it up. And, in a rather Situationist turn of events, four people have appeared in court in relation to the defacing of both the gallery and the painting on Saturday.
As for Zuma, he is not amused. The polygamous President has expressed hurt and surprise at being portrayed as a “philanderer and womaniser” and has threatened to sue Murray. His unsurprisingly humourless reaction has been characterised by the special brand of vitriol he normally reserves for the political cartoonist Zapiro, who he sued in 2010 for ZAR5m.
It is certainly heartening that South Africans are once again demonstrating their robust engagement with political culture and debate. It is also intriguing and inspiring that this story has seen art liberated from the rarefied world of contemporary galleries such as The Goodman into the public domain. This has unfortunately been stimulated by a hostile response by the ANC, which is worryingly typical in its unhealthy penchant for censorship. South Africa’s ruling party recently tried to get a controversial Secrecy Bill pushed through parliament, and only backed down after sustained protest by South Africans against its undemocratic provisions.
The relish and self-righteousness with which it now calls for Murray’s head bodes ill for transparency and democracy, and for its relationship to art and culture. The ANC issued a press statement on May 17 saying:
“We have this morning instructed our lawyers to approach our courts to compel Brett Murray and Goodman Gallery to remove the portrait from display as well as from their website and destroy all printed promotional material. We have also detected that this distasteful and vulgar portrait of the President has been displayed on a weekend newspaper and its website, we again have instructed our lawyers to request the said newspaper to remove the portrait from their website.”
Censoring freedom of expression through art and literature brings the stench of despotism with it, and South Africans should be mindful of such historical moments and the implications for their leadership’s increasing encroachment on cultural production. They would also do well to remember the words of the exiled German poet Heinrich Heine: “where books are burned, in the end people will burn.”
It is also worrying that reaction to the painting has seized upon the sexualisation of Zuma, and although this is certainly a recurring theme of his political life, it is decontextualized from the exhibition, as well as Murray’s oeuvre, which has interrogated the themes of race and politics and critiqued corruption and greed in South Africa. This exhibition is a sequel to Murray’s highly acclaimed 2010 show Hail to the Thief, and subverts the poster form techniques of the struggle art genre. It also highlights poignant themes around the perceived culture of tenderpreneurship and enrichment among the ANC aristocracy, while most South Africans languish in poverty, in its disillusioned depictions of the abuse of power, and the elite’s infamous penchant for Johnnie Walker Black.
But Zuma should take comfort in the knowledge that he is not the only statesman being lampooned thus by artists – last week Stephen Harper, the Canadian PM, was depicted in the buff on an Ottoman with a pooch. Harper’s office responded by tweet with considerably more humour: “On the Sutherland painting: we’re not impressed. Everyone knows the PM is a cat person”. He could also take some notes from South African opposition leader Helen Zille. She merely laughed off a photo-shopped image of herself that has been circulating in retaliation online.
‘The Spear’ has been sold to a foreign buyer for about ZAR135,000, and The Goodman remains defiant in continuing to display the painting and the exhibition. The painting has been removed for now due to damage. Murray could not be reached for comment.
Desné Masie is a journalist and academic. She is a former senior editor for the Financial Mail in South Africa, and is currently studying towards a PhD in finance at the University of Edinburgh Business School.
Source: African Arguments
Tuesday, May 22, 2012
'The People Have Grown Weary of War'
After nearly 10 years of costly war in Afghanistan and little to show for it, NATO members clearly want out -- and as quickly as possible. At a summit in Chicago on Monday they agreed to just that, announcing they had finalized a plan for a complete withdrawal from the country by 2014, leaving only training units behind.
United States President Barack Obama, who hosted the two-day summit in his hometown, assured that Afghanistan would be stable enough to carry on without the support of international troops, but admitted that the country would continue to grapple with major problems.
With this agreement the partners are essentially adhering to an already established timeline for ending the lengthy conflict in Afghanistan by withdrawing some 130,000 NATO-led troops. The country's own forces are expected to take control of the combat mission by mid-2013, at which point Western forces will transition into a back-up role.
Though there are doubts about how well Afghanistan will deal on its own with widespread poverty, violence and political unrest, Obama said the decision was irreversible.
A 'Responsible Timetable'
"I think that the timetable that we've established is a sound one, it is a responsible one," said the president. "Are there risks involved in it? Absolutely."
NATO said that while it would continue to provide "long-term political and practical support" after 2014, this aid would not involve combat.
Meanwhile, tensions with Pakistan over crucial supply routes needed for the withdrawal overshadowed the summit. The country blocked off the routes in retaliation for US airstrikes that resulted in the death of 24 Pakistani soldiers earlier this year. Though no resolution has been reached, Obama said there had been progress in negotiations.
Another small hiccup came during the summit when new French President François Hollande said he would keep a campaign promise to withdraw the majority of his country's 3,300 troops from Afghanistan by the end of the year. Some of the country's troops will remain to provide training.
German commentators on Tuesday question whether Afghanistan can truly handle a NATO troop withdrawal, suggesting that the timing has more to do with alliance members' domestic concerns.
The conservative daily Die Welt writes:
"NATO's International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) may have won all of its battles, but no one talks of victory any longer. The reason for the war was eliminated with Osama bin Laden's death."
"With the current strategy, southern and western Afghanistan can't be secured in the long term. Thus they will have to concentrate on the more stable provinces, as experienced US diplomats suggest. ... Where Afghan security forces can hold their positions, they will need further support from American forces on the ground and in the air, in a strategy that no longer focuses on occupation, development and retention, but on defense, security and reinforcement. Along with this comes forming an Afghan national army that lives up to its name, rather than training the police force, which remains weak and ineffective. Forces will also have to ally themselves with warlords and give up the nice idea of a federal republic of Afghanistan for a complex balance of the actual powers. If the withdrawal ends in lawlessness and Afghanistan falls into bloody chaos, then it would be a disaster for NATO."
The left-leaning daily Die Tageszeitung writes:
"This troop reduction is meant to create the appearance that the war in Afghanistan is over. Just as it was with Iraq, the issues will fall away from the front pages and the minds of the voters. … But the war will go on, just as it does in Iraq. … The war goes on, with no peace in sight, but its appearance has changed."
"Everything points to the fact that NATO countries' handover plan is over-hasty, sugarcoats the reality in Afghanistan and, in the worst case, will help lead to a civil war there. But we can be certain that we'll only get the good news out of Chicago: Everything is going according to plan."
The center-left daily Süddeutsche Zeitung writes:
"The now-finished NATO summit in Chicago has once again revealed the basic problem of the alliance: It lacks solidarity. ... There are reasons for this egocentric approach within the alliance. The people have grown weary of war. … The leaders are mainly focused on the battle with the financial markets and no longer have time for complicated conflicts like the one in distant Afghanistan."
"Every attempt to give NATO a new identity has failed. The strategic concept is a masterpiece in concealing differences. And since it spread to the east there is yet another rift. The eastern members still see Russia as the biggest danger, while the Western states are trying to make the country a close partner."
"If NATO still wants to make a difference, it will have to manage some clarity about its situation. But in the end, they may recognize that the alliance no longer exists. Still, this risk is more bearable than the prospect of further years spent in a political coma."
SPIEGEL ONLINE writes:
"No wonder that the world leaders were happy, especially US President and host Barack Obama. Now, after the failed Iraq mission, he can keep his promise to end America's second hopeless war. Other leaders have similar situations. Not a single NATO country still has a voter majority in favor of continuing the Afghan mission. Many governments, including the one in Berlin, have promised to bring their soldiers home. Now they can deliver."
"But behind the successful staging in Chicago lurk a few pitfalls ahead of the 2014 withdrawal. The alliance will continue to face fears that certain members will withdraw earlier than planned. The reaction to the expected announcement by the new French president that he would remove some 2,000 of his 3,100 soldiers by 2012 illustrates this nervousness."
"The 'conditions on the ground' in Afghanistan weren't even brought up in Chicago. Commanders there still have major doubts about the capabilities of the Afghan army. And just as uncertain is the political situation with President Hamid Karzai, the erstwhile great hope of the West. Initially he wanted to leave office in 2014, when a new leader would be elected. But now he is considering pushing the election back and is searching for a suitable candidate. All the same, Karzai could also massively manipulate the election as he did in 2009. And that kind of election fraud would not look good ahead of the end to a successful NATO mission."
The conservative daily Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung writes:
"The US' strategic view is increasingly focused on Asia and away from Europe. For the younger generation of politicians in Washington, keeping up trans-Atlantic relations is no longer self-evident. ... In principle, that's not a dramatic development. After the fall of the Soviet threat, it was inevitable that interests would diverge -- at least to a certain extent. The common missions in the Balkans and Afghanistan initially covered up the fact that Europeans and Americans won't necessarily act in concert in a globalized world. Last year's Libya war was already something of a prototype for a NATO à la carte that is starting to take shape. Those taking part in an operation have an actual interest in it. In the case of Libya, even the US remained in the background. That's why non member states like Australia play such a major role already today. In Afghanistan, they are providing more soldiers than many members."
"In that sense, the US could better afford a NATO that is more flexible in that way than could its European allies. Although the US is also implementing austerity measures, the country remains a world power capable of acting around the world. No country in Europe can make that claim, as the Libya war showed once again. Europe, which already has a tendency to be mostly interested in its own issues, barely has a diplomatic foot in the door in Asia and other developing regions. Asia will actually overtake Europe in arms spending this year. That is a sea change whose weight will be felt in many strategically important places."
"In Chicago, NATO tried to counter this development with stronger military-technological cooperation for the collective purchase and use of expensive machinery. The idea makes sense, but will raise questions in Germany that many people won't like. Will it really still be possible for Germany's parliament to have to approve any deployment of troops that the country has provided in the future? The price of ambitious cooperation is the loss of national sovereignty, when it comes to both NATO and the euro. And this can't be improved with better management of deficits. Once again Europe will need to seriously discuss what security is worth to it. The generous social-welfare state has not only driven many countries into debt, but also made them more vulnerable to foreign enemies."
Source: SPIEGEL
Monday, May 21, 2012
Bill places cap on legal fees
While KwaZulu-Natal law professionals approved certain aspects of the Legal Practice Bill, they are adamant that a complete overhaul of the profession is not the answer.
The bill, which proposes to give Justice and Constitutional Development Minister Jeff Radebe the power to cap legal fees and to abolish bar councils and law societies, has raised eyebrows in the profession. The bill has been on the backburner for more than 10 years, and was again submitted to Parliament last week. If passed in its current form, the bill would absorb the Law Society of South Africa and all bar councils, creating a new South African Legal Practice Council whose role would be to regulate the profession. The proposed council would report directly to the justice and constitutional development minister.
Law professionals in KZN said they have been practising as a self-regulated profession for generations within regulations set out by the various bar councils and law societies. The president of the KZN Law Society, Mxolisi Nxasana, said although he fully supported the government’s call for a unified legal system, he was critical of the profession being controlled by the state. “The bill, in essence, is very useful; however, regulation should be left to the legal profession itself. It should not be controlled by the government,” Nxasana said.
Nxasana also said the capping of fees would be in direct conflict with the Competition Act. He said one of the criticisms of the current system was that clients who wished to employ the services of an advocate had to do so via an attorney. The attorney then briefed the advocate at a cost to the client, he said. If the bill was passed, Nxasana said, the client would be able to approach an advocate directly, thereby cutting costs.
Nxasana said at the moment there were different rules for each province. “If the aim is to unify all the rules, so that the same rules are applicable throughout the country, I don’t see why the government would want to take over legal practitioners, as long as the rules are in line with the Attorneys Act,” he said. Responding to Justice Minister Jeff Radebe’s comments about legal fees in South Africa being higher than those in cities such as New York and Washington DC, Nxasana said: “Our legal fees are not that high, and it goes back to the issue of self-regulation.” Another concern regarding the bill was the clause allowing for ministerial appointees to serve on the council.
Nxasana said he was concerned the bill would allow Radebe to appoint non-lawyers to serve on the council. A Durban attorney said many in the legal fraternity believed that the bill was drafted in “haste”. “The bill should have more input from legal professionals. Whatever input has been given thus far has not been given serious thought,” he said. He also said if there were certain aspects the minister wanted to raise, such as candidate attorneys providing community service, he would be for it. He said he welcomed the idea because of the shortage of access to legal services, especially in rural areas. However, these concerns did not justify an overhaul of the profession. Regarding the capping of legal fees, the attorney said it would be impossible. “If the government caps legal fees – for drafting wills, for example – would banks also be capped, seeing that they also offer the service?” he asked. He said there were currently mechanisms in place to regulate legal fees.
Source: Iol
The bill, which proposes to give Justice and Constitutional Development Minister Jeff Radebe the power to cap legal fees and to abolish bar councils and law societies, has raised eyebrows in the profession. The bill has been on the backburner for more than 10 years, and was again submitted to Parliament last week. If passed in its current form, the bill would absorb the Law Society of South Africa and all bar councils, creating a new South African Legal Practice Council whose role would be to regulate the profession. The proposed council would report directly to the justice and constitutional development minister.
Law professionals in KZN said they have been practising as a self-regulated profession for generations within regulations set out by the various bar councils and law societies. The president of the KZN Law Society, Mxolisi Nxasana, said although he fully supported the government’s call for a unified legal system, he was critical of the profession being controlled by the state. “The bill, in essence, is very useful; however, regulation should be left to the legal profession itself. It should not be controlled by the government,” Nxasana said.
Nxasana also said the capping of fees would be in direct conflict with the Competition Act. He said one of the criticisms of the current system was that clients who wished to employ the services of an advocate had to do so via an attorney. The attorney then briefed the advocate at a cost to the client, he said. If the bill was passed, Nxasana said, the client would be able to approach an advocate directly, thereby cutting costs.
Nxasana said at the moment there were different rules for each province. “If the aim is to unify all the rules, so that the same rules are applicable throughout the country, I don’t see why the government would want to take over legal practitioners, as long as the rules are in line with the Attorneys Act,” he said. Responding to Justice Minister Jeff Radebe’s comments about legal fees in South Africa being higher than those in cities such as New York and Washington DC, Nxasana said: “Our legal fees are not that high, and it goes back to the issue of self-regulation.” Another concern regarding the bill was the clause allowing for ministerial appointees to serve on the council.
Nxasana said he was concerned the bill would allow Radebe to appoint non-lawyers to serve on the council. A Durban attorney said many in the legal fraternity believed that the bill was drafted in “haste”. “The bill should have more input from legal professionals. Whatever input has been given thus far has not been given serious thought,” he said. He also said if there were certain aspects the minister wanted to raise, such as candidate attorneys providing community service, he would be for it. He said he welcomed the idea because of the shortage of access to legal services, especially in rural areas. However, these concerns did not justify an overhaul of the profession. Regarding the capping of legal fees, the attorney said it would be impossible. “If the government caps legal fees – for drafting wills, for example – would banks also be capped, seeing that they also offer the service?” he asked. He said there were currently mechanisms in place to regulate legal fees.
Source: Iol
Saturday, May 19, 2012
Sexwale takes aim at Mdluli and 'unseat Zuma saga'
Human Settlements Minister Tokyo Sexwale "will leave no stone unturned" in his quest to learn whether police crime intelligence boss Lieutenant-General Richard Mdluli abused state resources. Sexwale this week laid a formal complaint with the office of the public protector, Thuli Madonsela.
The home of Sexwale's lawyer, Muzi Sikhakane, was burgled a month ago and documents relating to Mdluli's alleged abuse of state resources were stolen. Sikhakane acted for Sexwale when he instituted legal action against Mdluli following allegations in a report allegedly signed by the top cop. Among the claims in the report were that Sexwale was central to a plot to overthrow President Jacob Zuma.
Mdluli's name was mentioned in an ANC national executive committee meeting last year when the "ground coverage" intelligence report on an alleged conspiracy against Zuma was discussed. A statement from Sexwale's office said his complaint to the public protector included the "report in which it was alleged that"... five cabinet members, three premiers and other persons were involved in a plot to unseat" Zuma at the ANC's elective conference in Mangaung in December.
"The objective is to leave no stone unturned in establishing the truth around this saga and, particularly, to ensure that the tendency to use state resources to pursue party political positions is stemmed ."
Mdluli was served with a suspension notice on Wednesday. The SABC reported on Friday that he denied receiving it. He could not be reached for comment yesterday.
The spokeswoman for Madonsela's office, Kgalalelo Masibi, said she had received Sexwale's complaint on Friday. "The public protector will advise of her decision to investigate or not within seven days," Masibi said.
Source: Times Live
The home of Sexwale's lawyer, Muzi Sikhakane, was burgled a month ago and documents relating to Mdluli's alleged abuse of state resources were stolen. Sikhakane acted for Sexwale when he instituted legal action against Mdluli following allegations in a report allegedly signed by the top cop. Among the claims in the report were that Sexwale was central to a plot to overthrow President Jacob Zuma.
Mdluli's name was mentioned in an ANC national executive committee meeting last year when the "ground coverage" intelligence report on an alleged conspiracy against Zuma was discussed. A statement from Sexwale's office said his complaint to the public protector included the "report in which it was alleged that"... five cabinet members, three premiers and other persons were involved in a plot to unseat" Zuma at the ANC's elective conference in Mangaung in December.
"The objective is to leave no stone unturned in establishing the truth around this saga and, particularly, to ensure that the tendency to use state resources to pursue party political positions is stemmed ."
Mdluli was served with a suspension notice on Wednesday. The SABC reported on Friday that he denied receiving it. He could not be reached for comment yesterday.
The spokeswoman for Madonsela's office, Kgalalelo Masibi, said she had received Sexwale's complaint on Friday. "The public protector will advise of her decision to investigate or not within seven days," Masibi said.
Source: Times Live
Friday, May 18, 2012
Police boss moves against Richard Mdluli
Acting commissioner Nhlanhla Mkhwanazi appears to be defying political attempts to bury the investigation into the former head of crime intelligence. Mkhwanazi has given embattled crime intelligence boss Richard Mdluli and his ally, the manager of the police secret services account, Major General Solly Lazarus, seven days to give reasons why they should not be suspended for a second time. The move may indicate an increasing defiance by Mkhwanazi of political attempts to bury the Mdluli investigation.
The Mail & Guardian has confirmed from three independent sources that Mdluli and Lazarus both received the letters. Brigadier Lindela Mashigo, Mkhwanazi’s spokesperson, would not confirm this, saying it was an internal matter. Mdluli and Lazarus were reinstated on March 27 following a stormy meeting between Mkhwanazi, Police Minister Nathi Mthethwa and inspector general of intelligence Faith Radebe.
The reinstatement – contrary to Radebe’s written advice that criminal charges against Mdluli and disciplinary charges against Lazarus should proceed – was widely viewed as having been precipitated by pressure from Mthethwa. Mthethwa has denied issuing such an instruction, but the withdrawal of murder and fraud charges against Mdluli and his return as crime intelligence boss prompted a public outcry. Last week Mthethwa acted to diffuse pressure by announcing that Mdluli would be temporarily transferred from crime intelligence while a ministerial task team investigated claims that there was a conspiracy against him by other senior police generals. But Mthethwa’s action did not prevent advocacy group Freedom under Law from launching an urgent application on Tuesday to have Mdluli suspended pending a full high court review of the decisions that led to his reinstatement.
Mkwhanazi’s move against Mdluli may partially defuse the application, but it also suggests that the government is losing control of its attempts to manage the situation politically. Mkhwanazi has previously expressed his unhappiness over how police decisions on certain cases have been dictated by “powers beyond us” – and was understood to be referring to the Mdluli saga.
Zuma told a business breakfast on Thursday there was “no need for alarm” over the government’s handling of Mdluli, but the Freedom under Law application contains new revelations that will ratchet up public concern.
Source: Mail & Guardian
The Mail & Guardian has confirmed from three independent sources that Mdluli and Lazarus both received the letters. Brigadier Lindela Mashigo, Mkhwanazi’s spokesperson, would not confirm this, saying it was an internal matter. Mdluli and Lazarus were reinstated on March 27 following a stormy meeting between Mkhwanazi, Police Minister Nathi Mthethwa and inspector general of intelligence Faith Radebe.
The reinstatement – contrary to Radebe’s written advice that criminal charges against Mdluli and disciplinary charges against Lazarus should proceed – was widely viewed as having been precipitated by pressure from Mthethwa. Mthethwa has denied issuing such an instruction, but the withdrawal of murder and fraud charges against Mdluli and his return as crime intelligence boss prompted a public outcry. Last week Mthethwa acted to diffuse pressure by announcing that Mdluli would be temporarily transferred from crime intelligence while a ministerial task team investigated claims that there was a conspiracy against him by other senior police generals. But Mthethwa’s action did not prevent advocacy group Freedom under Law from launching an urgent application on Tuesday to have Mdluli suspended pending a full high court review of the decisions that led to his reinstatement.
Mkwhanazi’s move against Mdluli may partially defuse the application, but it also suggests that the government is losing control of its attempts to manage the situation politically. Mkhwanazi has previously expressed his unhappiness over how police decisions on certain cases have been dictated by “powers beyond us” – and was understood to be referring to the Mdluli saga.
Zuma told a business breakfast on Thursday there was “no need for alarm” over the government’s handling of Mdluli, but the Freedom under Law application contains new revelations that will ratchet up public concern.
Source: Mail & Guardian
Sunday, May 13, 2012
Durban advocate commits suicide
Durban advocate Mvuseni Ngubane has been found dead at his home in Pinetown, KwaZulu-Natal police said on Sunday. Lieutenant colonel Vincent Mdunge said Ngubane was found with a gunshot wound to the head at around 15:00 on Saturday. He said there was a pistol next to the body. "Police found a suicide note near his body. Some parts of the letter were not readable due to bloodstains." Mdunge said family members found Ngubane on the back seat of his Mercedes-Benz in the garage. Paramedics declared him dead on the scene.
Ngubane handled high profile cases including that of convicted drug dealer Cheryl Cwele, the wife of State Security Minister Siyabonga Cwele. The SABC reported that Ngubane had served on various boards and committees. He was a former president of the Black Lawyers' Association and chaired the Law Society of SA.
Ngubane was a successful lawyer who was recently appointed to the president’s new arms deal commission of inquiry. He was highly respected among colleagues who twice elected him as president of the Black Lawyers’ Association (BLA). He hit the headlines in recent years when he represented Sheryl Cwele, the then-wife of State Security Minister Siyabonga Cwele, in her drug trafficking case. She was convicted and sentenced to 12 years in prison for drug trafficking. She has appealed against the sentence.
Cwele told The Witness she had been informed of Ngubane’s death on Saturday night by one of his colleagues. “It was very shocking to me. I respected him and he was very professional. “I never had any suspicions that he had trouble in his personal life,” she said. She said it was too early to make any decisions regarding her court case.
A source who did not want to be named told The Witness that Ngubane had been under financial strain because many of his clients were not honouring their debts. “He was always a man for smiles and jokes, so he wasn’t hard enough on those who owed him,” said the source.
Ngubane’s brother, Boy Ngubane, said the suicide note found in the car did not shed light on what pushed him to commit suicide. “There was nothing significant on the note and as a family we have taken a decision not to talk about it.
“He was not a person who suffered from any form of depression, when we were together, he was a bit tired but I just assumed that it was because of his training schedule as he was the kind of person who enjoyed training and often ran short-distance marathons.”
Source: News24
Ngubane handled high profile cases including that of convicted drug dealer Cheryl Cwele, the wife of State Security Minister Siyabonga Cwele. The SABC reported that Ngubane had served on various boards and committees. He was a former president of the Black Lawyers' Association and chaired the Law Society of SA.
Ngubane was a successful lawyer who was recently appointed to the president’s new arms deal commission of inquiry. He was highly respected among colleagues who twice elected him as president of the Black Lawyers’ Association (BLA). He hit the headlines in recent years when he represented Sheryl Cwele, the then-wife of State Security Minister Siyabonga Cwele, in her drug trafficking case. She was convicted and sentenced to 12 years in prison for drug trafficking. She has appealed against the sentence.
Cwele told The Witness she had been informed of Ngubane’s death on Saturday night by one of his colleagues. “It was very shocking to me. I respected him and he was very professional. “I never had any suspicions that he had trouble in his personal life,” she said. She said it was too early to make any decisions regarding her court case.
A source who did not want to be named told The Witness that Ngubane had been under financial strain because many of his clients were not honouring their debts. “He was always a man for smiles and jokes, so he wasn’t hard enough on those who owed him,” said the source.
Ngubane’s brother, Boy Ngubane, said the suicide note found in the car did not shed light on what pushed him to commit suicide. “There was nothing significant on the note and as a family we have taken a decision not to talk about it.
“He was not a person who suffered from any form of depression, when we were together, he was a bit tired but I just assumed that it was because of his training schedule as he was the kind of person who enjoyed training and often ran short-distance marathons.”
Source: News24
Friday, May 11, 2012
Deutsche bank pays $202M in New York mortgage fraud deal
Deutsche Bank agreed to pay $202 million to settle civil fraud charges brought by the federal government over the practices of a subsidiary it acquired five years ago, authorities announced.
A federal judge in Manhattan approved the deal reached by representatives of the Frankfurt, Germany-based bank and the government.
Under the agreement, Deutsche Bank AG admitted that it didn't follow all federal housing regulations when it made substantial profits between 2007 and 2009 from the resale of risky mortgages through its subsidiary MortgageIT.
According to the agreement, Deutsche Bank admitted that it was in a position to know that MortgageIT's operations did not conform fully to all of the government's regulations, policies and handbooks. The subsidiary employed more than 2,000 people at branches in all 50 states. The bank agreed to pay $202.3 million to the U.S. Department of Justice within a month.
Deutsche Bank said in a statement Thursday that it was pleased to put the issue behind it.
"This marks a significant step in resolving our mortgage-related exposures," the bank said.
The government said in its lawsuit the bank's failures caused the government to foot the bill for loans that defaulted.
MortgageIT had been a Federal Housing Administration lender operating with government oversight for almost a decade. The mortgage insurance is issued by the FHA.
The lawsuit against Deutsche Bank sought to recover more than $386 million that the Department of Housing and Urban Development has paid out in FHA insurance claims and related costs arising out of MortgageIT's approval of more than 3,100 mortgages, including 1,400 loans that have defaulted so far. It said HUD had paid more than $97 million in FHA claims and related costs arising out of more than 600 mortgages that defaulted within six months.
HUD sets the rules for the FHA mortgage insurance program, including requirements relating to the adequacy of the borrower's income to meet mortgage payments, the borrower's creditworthiness and the appropriateness of the valuation of the property being purchased.
The lawsuit said Deutsche Bank and MortgageIT failed to comply with HUD rules and regulations regarding required quality control procedures, and then lied about their purported compliance.
In a release Thursday, U.S. Attorney Preet Bharara said Deutsche Bank and the subsidiary "treated FHA insurance as free government money to backstop lending practices that did not follow the rules."
He said the compensation agreed to by Deutsche Bank will significantly compensate HUD for the losses it incurred.
Source: Sowetan
A federal judge in Manhattan approved the deal reached by representatives of the Frankfurt, Germany-based bank and the government.
Under the agreement, Deutsche Bank AG admitted that it didn't follow all federal housing regulations when it made substantial profits between 2007 and 2009 from the resale of risky mortgages through its subsidiary MortgageIT.
According to the agreement, Deutsche Bank admitted that it was in a position to know that MortgageIT's operations did not conform fully to all of the government's regulations, policies and handbooks. The subsidiary employed more than 2,000 people at branches in all 50 states. The bank agreed to pay $202.3 million to the U.S. Department of Justice within a month.
Deutsche Bank said in a statement Thursday that it was pleased to put the issue behind it.
"This marks a significant step in resolving our mortgage-related exposures," the bank said.
The government said in its lawsuit the bank's failures caused the government to foot the bill for loans that defaulted.
MortgageIT had been a Federal Housing Administration lender operating with government oversight for almost a decade. The mortgage insurance is issued by the FHA.
The lawsuit against Deutsche Bank sought to recover more than $386 million that the Department of Housing and Urban Development has paid out in FHA insurance claims and related costs arising out of MortgageIT's approval of more than 3,100 mortgages, including 1,400 loans that have defaulted so far. It said HUD had paid more than $97 million in FHA claims and related costs arising out of more than 600 mortgages that defaulted within six months.
HUD sets the rules for the FHA mortgage insurance program, including requirements relating to the adequacy of the borrower's income to meet mortgage payments, the borrower's creditworthiness and the appropriateness of the valuation of the property being purchased.
The lawsuit said Deutsche Bank and MortgageIT failed to comply with HUD rules and regulations regarding required quality control procedures, and then lied about their purported compliance.
In a release Thursday, U.S. Attorney Preet Bharara said Deutsche Bank and the subsidiary "treated FHA insurance as free government money to backstop lending practices that did not follow the rules."
He said the compensation agreed to by Deutsche Bank will significantly compensate HUD for the losses it incurred.
Source: Sowetan
On 11 May 2012 the pro bono rule was published in Government Gazette No. 35313. Broadly the rule provides that all practising members who have practised for less than 40 years and who are less than 60 years old, shall perform pro bono services of not less than 24 hours per calendar year.
Pro bono services shall include, but not be limited to the delivery of advice, opinion or assistance in matters falling within the professional competence of a member, so as to facilitate access to justice for those who cannot afford to pay. The provisions of the KZN Law Society’s pro bono rule is similar to that of the pro bono rules of other provincial law societies, which is important for the development of a common approach and the development of a countrywide pro bono culture.
ProBono.Org is already working closely with the KZN Law Society and the organisations have agreed to a Recognised Structure agreement. As a Recognised Structure, individual attorneys and law firms can receive their pro bono legal work via ProBono.Org, and ProBono.Org will certify the pro bono hours done in fulfilment of the requirements of the rule.
Currently the Durban office of ProBono.Org has various pro bono opportunities to suit different size law firms and a range of legal expertise: matters via the Clearinghouse, Divorce Court Help Desk, Refugee Legal Clinic (Durban), Refugee Legal Clinic (Pietermaritzburg), Micro Trader Legal Support, Consumer Law Clinic, Masters Office Help Desk. Wills Project, and the Labour Law Advice Office.
Source: ProBobo.Org
Pro bono services shall include, but not be limited to the delivery of advice, opinion or assistance in matters falling within the professional competence of a member, so as to facilitate access to justice for those who cannot afford to pay. The provisions of the KZN Law Society’s pro bono rule is similar to that of the pro bono rules of other provincial law societies, which is important for the development of a common approach and the development of a countrywide pro bono culture.
ProBono.Org is already working closely with the KZN Law Society and the organisations have agreed to a Recognised Structure agreement. As a Recognised Structure, individual attorneys and law firms can receive their pro bono legal work via ProBono.Org, and ProBono.Org will certify the pro bono hours done in fulfilment of the requirements of the rule.
Currently the Durban office of ProBono.Org has various pro bono opportunities to suit different size law firms and a range of legal expertise: matters via the Clearinghouse, Divorce Court Help Desk, Refugee Legal Clinic (Durban), Refugee Legal Clinic (Pietermaritzburg), Micro Trader Legal Support, Consumer Law Clinic, Masters Office Help Desk. Wills Project, and the Labour Law Advice Office.
Source: ProBobo.Org
Wednesday, May 2, 2012
Why a South African Anti-Corruption Agency Must be Independent of the Police to be Effective
If it was not already clear why a dedicated anti-corruption agency capable of tackling powerfully connected people had to be independent of the South African Police Service (SAPS), the recent, and indeed ongoing failures of police leadership over the past few years should put this into perspective.
In 2010, ex-SAPS National Commissioner Jackie Selebi was convicted on corruption charges and sentenced to 15 years in prison. In 2011, the SAPS National Commissioner, Bheki Cele, was suspended pending the outcome of an inquiry into his fitness for office. This followed a finding by the Public Protector that his actions in relation to a R1.67 billion police lease deal were ‘improper, unlawful and amounted to maladministration.’
In addition, one of the most powerful SAPS Divisional Commissioners, head of Crime Intelligence Lieutenant-General Richard Mdluli, is facing an astonishing array of allegations implicating him and his close colleagues in murder, rape and wide-scale corruption. The National Minister of Police, Nathi Mthethwa has been accused of halting the Hawks’ investigation into Mdluli so as to protect him from further criminal charges, given Mdluli’s willingness to use his position to support Jacob Zuma’s intention to run for a second term as ANC president. Moreover, there are allegations emerging from investigations by the Hawks that Mthethwa illegally benefitted from the SAPS Secret Service Account to the tune of R195 581 for renovations to his personal residence, which was authorised by Mdluli.
Whether or not these allegations are ultimately proven, they have certainly severely undermined the public image of the police and further demoralised many of the honest hard working police officials expected to place themselves at risk in fighting crime. Moreover, such allegations point to reasons why the political elite might choose not to strengthen the independence and ability of the Directorate of Priority Crimes Investigations (DPCI), commonly known as the Hawks, to investigate corruption committed by those at the highest levels of government.
In March 2011, the Constitutional Court, in the matter of ‘Hugh Glenister vs the President of the Republic of South Africa & others’, ruled that the legislation establishing the DPCI was unconstitutional and invalid. This was because the legislation failed to secure an adequate degree of independence for the DPCI, which was charged with investigating corruption amongst other serious priority crimes. The Court gave the government and parliament 18 months to rectify this shortcoming so as to ensure that South Africa would meet both its constitutional and international obligations with regards to establishing an independent agency that can effectively tackle corruption at all levels of society.
Not only do South Africa’s obligations require that we have an anti-corruption agency that is structurally and operationally independent, the Court ruled that it must also be seen to be independent by the public. It is therefore disappointing that the government appears to have ignored this opportunity provided by the Constitutional Court to establish a truly independent and effective anti-corruption unit.
The 18 months provided by the Constitutional Court was not used to widely consult and develop consensus about the best way to establish an independent and effective anti-corruption agency. Rather, six months before the deadline, the Minister of Police tabled the SAPS Amendment Bill before parliament that provided a minimalistic response to the Court’s findings.
The biggest shortcoming of the Bill is that the Hawks remain a directorate within the SAPS. Instead of establishing a truly independent anti-corruption agency, the Bill tries to provide a level of protection and additional authority to the head of the Hawks, by inter alia:
· allowing the Minister to appoint and dismiss the head of the Hawks so that they don’t have to report directly to the SAPS National Commissioner,
· allowing the head of the Hawks to decide on who may be seconded to assist the directorate from outside of the SAPS and,
· in the case of a dispute about which cases to investigate, having the authority to overrule the National Commissioner
Such provisions however, do not address the various ways in which the Hawks may continue to be subject to political interference and manipulation. The Constitutional Court found that the SAPS National Commissioner was inadequately independent because the Minister of Police could too easily appoint and remove the incumbent. In theory, and in practice, the SAPS National Commissioner is therefore a political appointee and, as has been recently alleged, subject to political manipulation. However, the draft legislation currently before parliament continues to allow the SAPS National Commissioner to determine the budget of the Hawks after consultation with its head, and to report on the budget before parliament. It does not take much effort to imagine that a Commissioner of Police under investigation by the Hawks might use his or her position to undermine the investigation, or to manipulate the head of the unit.
The Bill also gives the Minister of Police the authority to both appoint and initiate proceedings to dismiss the head of the Hawks, who may be suspended without salary before a disciplinary inquiry has been started.
Finally, the Bill maintains the head of the Hawks as a SAPS Deputy National Commissioner, who according to protocol will be expected to salute the SAPS National Commissioner. Hawk members will remain part of the SAPS in every way and will be subject to all its rules, regulations, resources and the dynamics of its organisational culture. How such a directorate will be seen to be truly independent by the general public is difficult to fathom.
These are but a few of the many reasons why, for an anti-corruption agency to be truly effective and independent, it will have to be a separate organisation from the SAPS. Of the 21 submissions made before the Parliamentary Portfolio Committee on Police, 20 argued that the Bill fell short of what was required to effectively investigate corruption committed by South Africa’s political elite. We can only hope that the committee hears the concerns of civil society and frees the Hawks to hunt corruption wherever it may occur.
Source: ISS
In 2010, ex-SAPS National Commissioner Jackie Selebi was convicted on corruption charges and sentenced to 15 years in prison. In 2011, the SAPS National Commissioner, Bheki Cele, was suspended pending the outcome of an inquiry into his fitness for office. This followed a finding by the Public Protector that his actions in relation to a R1.67 billion police lease deal were ‘improper, unlawful and amounted to maladministration.’
In addition, one of the most powerful SAPS Divisional Commissioners, head of Crime Intelligence Lieutenant-General Richard Mdluli, is facing an astonishing array of allegations implicating him and his close colleagues in murder, rape and wide-scale corruption. The National Minister of Police, Nathi Mthethwa has been accused of halting the Hawks’ investigation into Mdluli so as to protect him from further criminal charges, given Mdluli’s willingness to use his position to support Jacob Zuma’s intention to run for a second term as ANC president. Moreover, there are allegations emerging from investigations by the Hawks that Mthethwa illegally benefitted from the SAPS Secret Service Account to the tune of R195 581 for renovations to his personal residence, which was authorised by Mdluli.
Whether or not these allegations are ultimately proven, they have certainly severely undermined the public image of the police and further demoralised many of the honest hard working police officials expected to place themselves at risk in fighting crime. Moreover, such allegations point to reasons why the political elite might choose not to strengthen the independence and ability of the Directorate of Priority Crimes Investigations (DPCI), commonly known as the Hawks, to investigate corruption committed by those at the highest levels of government.
In March 2011, the Constitutional Court, in the matter of ‘Hugh Glenister vs the President of the Republic of South Africa & others’, ruled that the legislation establishing the DPCI was unconstitutional and invalid. This was because the legislation failed to secure an adequate degree of independence for the DPCI, which was charged with investigating corruption amongst other serious priority crimes. The Court gave the government and parliament 18 months to rectify this shortcoming so as to ensure that South Africa would meet both its constitutional and international obligations with regards to establishing an independent agency that can effectively tackle corruption at all levels of society.
Not only do South Africa’s obligations require that we have an anti-corruption agency that is structurally and operationally independent, the Court ruled that it must also be seen to be independent by the public. It is therefore disappointing that the government appears to have ignored this opportunity provided by the Constitutional Court to establish a truly independent and effective anti-corruption unit.
The 18 months provided by the Constitutional Court was not used to widely consult and develop consensus about the best way to establish an independent and effective anti-corruption agency. Rather, six months before the deadline, the Minister of Police tabled the SAPS Amendment Bill before parliament that provided a minimalistic response to the Court’s findings.
The biggest shortcoming of the Bill is that the Hawks remain a directorate within the SAPS. Instead of establishing a truly independent anti-corruption agency, the Bill tries to provide a level of protection and additional authority to the head of the Hawks, by inter alia:
· allowing the Minister to appoint and dismiss the head of the Hawks so that they don’t have to report directly to the SAPS National Commissioner,
· allowing the head of the Hawks to decide on who may be seconded to assist the directorate from outside of the SAPS and,
· in the case of a dispute about which cases to investigate, having the authority to overrule the National Commissioner
Such provisions however, do not address the various ways in which the Hawks may continue to be subject to political interference and manipulation. The Constitutional Court found that the SAPS National Commissioner was inadequately independent because the Minister of Police could too easily appoint and remove the incumbent. In theory, and in practice, the SAPS National Commissioner is therefore a political appointee and, as has been recently alleged, subject to political manipulation. However, the draft legislation currently before parliament continues to allow the SAPS National Commissioner to determine the budget of the Hawks after consultation with its head, and to report on the budget before parliament. It does not take much effort to imagine that a Commissioner of Police under investigation by the Hawks might use his or her position to undermine the investigation, or to manipulate the head of the unit.
The Bill also gives the Minister of Police the authority to both appoint and initiate proceedings to dismiss the head of the Hawks, who may be suspended without salary before a disciplinary inquiry has been started.
Finally, the Bill maintains the head of the Hawks as a SAPS Deputy National Commissioner, who according to protocol will be expected to salute the SAPS National Commissioner. Hawk members will remain part of the SAPS in every way and will be subject to all its rules, regulations, resources and the dynamics of its organisational culture. How such a directorate will be seen to be truly independent by the general public is difficult to fathom.
These are but a few of the many reasons why, for an anti-corruption agency to be truly effective and independent, it will have to be a separate organisation from the SAPS. Of the 21 submissions made before the Parliamentary Portfolio Committee on Police, 20 argued that the Bill fell short of what was required to effectively investigate corruption committed by South Africa’s political elite. We can only hope that the committee hears the concerns of civil society and frees the Hawks to hunt corruption wherever it may occur.
Source: ISS
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)