Barclays’ chief executive, Antony Jenkins, has said that it could take up to a decade for the bank to regain public trust in the aftermath of a series of scandals.
Mr Jenkins made the comment in a speech to students at Brooke House Sixth Form College in East London.
In the chat, which was broadcast on this morning's Today programme on BBC Radio 4, Mr Jenkins said: “Trust is a very easy thing to lose, and a very hard thing to win back.
"In my view it will takes several years - probably five to ten - to rebuilt trust in Barclays."
Barclays was the first bank to be implicated in the Libor scandal, in which traders rigged the London inter-banking rate, leading to a £290 million fine in June 2012, and the bank was also involved in the PPI mis-selling scandal.
Mr Jenkins vowed to restore Barclay’s reputation when he was made CEO in August last year, after the Libor scandal brought down his predecessor, Bob Diamond. In February he revealed his plan to overhaul the bank by fundamentally changing the culture under which its traders operate.
He added in his speech that he hoped the future actions of Barclays would help rebuild confidence in the wider banking sector.
Mr Jenkins chose as his theme “the importance of long-term thinking and planning, and proper leadership”.
“Trust is lost in weeks and months, and regained in years and decades,” he said.
"My point is not that short term markets are bad or inaccurate. They serve a very useful purpose. It is susceptible to elevator analysis – this is up this is down. In addition to looking at the short term and what that tells us how do we focus on longer term drivers of the economy."
British economist John Kay told the Today programme, which Mr Jenkins was guest editing, that bankers' now spend more time than religious leaders telling the public that they are ethical, while simultaneously working in an industry that has acted anything but ethically.
“Over the last 20 years banks have systematically destroyed their relationship with their customers,” Mr Kay said, adding that he was not very optimistic that things would improve.
Mr Jenkins responded by saying that that the cure to a rotten culture is proper leadership from the top, but that the process is a slow one.
"In my view leadership sets the culture in big organisations and culture drives organisational performance. If you want a different sort of organisational performance, a more ethical business, you’re going to have to change culture. Culture takes time to change and it comes back to leadership. If you take a long term perspective you’ll build the right culture," he said.
Mr Jenkins added that he was setting a target for Barclays to be more trusted than not by 2018.
It is one of eight commitments Jenkins will make to staff, customers, shareholders and what he calls society in a few months.
Source: Independent
Tuesday, December 31, 2013
Friday, December 13, 2013
Volcker Rule: Real Bank Regulation or Smoke and Mirrors?
U.S. regulators have approved new legislation, the Volcker Rule, which seeks to prevent the similar acts of risk-taking on Wall Street that helped trigger the 2008 financial crisis. The rule aims to limit banks’ trading bets, being bared from trading for their own profit. The legislation itself is over 900 pages long, with new narrower exemptions for legitimate trades.
Five U.S. regulatory agencies voted on the rule which seeks to ban a lucrative practice for banks, that is proprietary trading. Aside from the trading, the new legislation also limits banks’ investments in hedge funds and private equity funds. The rule is named for Paul Volcker, a former Federal Reserve chairman who was an adviser to President Obama during the financial crisis.
Banks had hoped to substantially soften the rule, but the infamous “London Whale,” JPMorgan’s $6 billion trading loss in 2012, motivated regulators to devise a tough version. The impact of the regulations will depend on how forcefully the banks are monitored in order to assure that they are not trying to mask speculative bets as permissible trades.
The rule promises surveillance of big banks’ trading operations, the majority of which will be summarized through documentation requirements which force banks to justify trades and strategies, basically the banks will have to monitor themselves, and report their actions honestly and accurately. Regulators will be responsible for checking the banks’ self-reporting.
“The rule is so conceptual it’s all about the implementation,… The regulators didn’t draw really bright lines for hedging or market-making. This thing is one giant loophole if it’s badly implemented.” – Marcus Stanley, policy director for Americans for Financial Reform, a group that represents more than 250 organizations.
The public will be placing their trust in regulators once again, who in the past failed to notice, or neglected to mention, the potential dangers facing the financial market.
“No one will really know whether regulators, who have failed so abysmally in the past, have learned from the crisis and will start regulating the banks for real by aggressively enforcing the Volcker Rule,” – Dennis Kelleher, president of Better Markets, a nonprofit group that advocates stringent rules on big banks.
The Volcker Rule is being portrayed in the media as being tough: restricting the investment decisions of the banks. In reality however, there remains no thorough outline detailing the regulation procedures, and the responsibility lays mostly on the banks to regulate themselves, and for us to trust that they are going to report their actions honestly. We are apparently also expected to trust that the regulators are going to inform the public promptly, and follow proper criminal procedures, if there are any exchanges or actions which diverge from the permitted guidelines set out in Volcker’s new rule.
“At some point someone is going to have to write up a manual for examiners on what to look for and how to enforce that stuff. That’s going to be a really important document,” – Bradley Sabel, legal counsel at Shearman and Sterling.
For now though, we just get to wonder if his is the beginning of real regulation for the banks, or new set of smoke and mirrors.
Source: http://www.exposingthetruth.co
Five U.S. regulatory agencies voted on the rule which seeks to ban a lucrative practice for banks, that is proprietary trading. Aside from the trading, the new legislation also limits banks’ investments in hedge funds and private equity funds. The rule is named for Paul Volcker, a former Federal Reserve chairman who was an adviser to President Obama during the financial crisis.
Banks had hoped to substantially soften the rule, but the infamous “London Whale,” JPMorgan’s $6 billion trading loss in 2012, motivated regulators to devise a tough version. The impact of the regulations will depend on how forcefully the banks are monitored in order to assure that they are not trying to mask speculative bets as permissible trades.
The rule promises surveillance of big banks’ trading operations, the majority of which will be summarized through documentation requirements which force banks to justify trades and strategies, basically the banks will have to monitor themselves, and report their actions honestly and accurately. Regulators will be responsible for checking the banks’ self-reporting.
“The rule is so conceptual it’s all about the implementation,… The regulators didn’t draw really bright lines for hedging or market-making. This thing is one giant loophole if it’s badly implemented.” – Marcus Stanley, policy director for Americans for Financial Reform, a group that represents more than 250 organizations.
The public will be placing their trust in regulators once again, who in the past failed to notice, or neglected to mention, the potential dangers facing the financial market.
“No one will really know whether regulators, who have failed so abysmally in the past, have learned from the crisis and will start regulating the banks for real by aggressively enforcing the Volcker Rule,” – Dennis Kelleher, president of Better Markets, a nonprofit group that advocates stringent rules on big banks.
The Volcker Rule is being portrayed in the media as being tough: restricting the investment decisions of the banks. In reality however, there remains no thorough outline detailing the regulation procedures, and the responsibility lays mostly on the banks to regulate themselves, and for us to trust that they are going to report their actions honestly. We are apparently also expected to trust that the regulators are going to inform the public promptly, and follow proper criminal procedures, if there are any exchanges or actions which diverge from the permitted guidelines set out in Volcker’s new rule.
“At some point someone is going to have to write up a manual for examiners on what to look for and how to enforce that stuff. That’s going to be a really important document,” – Bradley Sabel, legal counsel at Shearman and Sterling.
For now though, we just get to wonder if his is the beginning of real regulation for the banks, or new set of smoke and mirrors.
Source: http://www.exposingthetruth.co
Tuesday, December 10, 2013
Obama's tribute to Mandela: The full speech
To Graça Machel and the Mandela family; to President Zuma and members of the government; to heads of state and government, past and present; distinguished guests – it is a singular honor to be with you today, to celebrate a life unlike any other. To the people of South Africa – people of every race and walk of life – the world thanks you for sharing Nelson Mandela with us. His struggle was your struggle. His triumph was your triumph. Your dignity and hope found expression in his life, and your freedom, your democracy is his cherished legacy.
It is hard to eulogise any man – to capture in words not just the facts and the dates that make a life, but the essential truth of a person – their private joys and sorrows; the quiet moments and unique qualities that illuminate someone’s soul. How much harder to do so for a giant of history, who moved a nation toward justice, and in the process moved billions around the world.
Born during World War I, far from the corridors of power, a boy raised herding cattle and tutored by elders of his Thembu tribe – Madiba would emerge as the last great liberator of the 20th century. Like Gandhi, he would lead a resistance movement – a movement that at its start held little prospect of success. Like King, he would give potent voice to the claims of the oppressed, and the moral necessity of racial justice. He would endure a brutal imprisonment that began in the time of Kennedy and Khrushchev, and reached the final days of the Cold War. Emerging from prison, without force of arms, he would – like Lincoln – hold his country together when it threatened to break apart. Like America's founding fathers, he would erect a constitutional order to preserve freedom for future generations - a commitment to democracy and rule of law ratified not only by his election, but by his willingness to step down from power.
Given the sweep of his life, and the adoration that he so rightly earned, it is tempting then to remember Nelson Mandela as an icon, smiling and serene, detached from the tawdry affairs of lesser men. But Madiba himself strongly resisted such a lifeless portrait. Instead, he insisted on sharing with us his doubts and fears; his miscalculations along with his victories. "I'm not a saint," he said, "unless you think of a saint as a sinner who keeps on trying."
It was precisely because he could admit to imperfection – because he could be so full of good humor, even mischief, despite the heavy burdens he carried - that we loved him so. He was not a bust made of marble; he was a man of flesh and blood – a son and husband, a father and a friend. That is why we learned so much from him; that is why we can learn from him still. For nothing he achieved was inevitable. In the arc of his life, we see a man who earned his place in history through struggle and shrewdness; persistence and faith. He tells us what’s possible not just in the pages of dusty history books, but in our own lives as well.
Mandela showed us the power of action; of taking risks on behalf of our ideals. Perhaps Madiba was right that he inherited, "a proud rebelliousness, a stubborn sense of fairness" from his father. Certainly he shared with millions of black and colored South Africans the anger born of, "a thousand slights, a thousand indignities, a thousand unremembered moments … a desire to fight the system that imprisoned my people."
But like other early giants of the ANC – the Sisulus and Tambos – Madiba disciplined his anger; and channelled his desire to fight into organisation, and platforms, and strategies for action, so men and women could stand-up for their dignity. Moreover, he accepted the consequences of his actions, knowing that standing up to powerful interests and injustice carries a price. "I have fought against white domination and I have fought against black domination," he said at his 1964 trial. "I’ve cherished the ideal of a democratic and free society in which all persons live together in harmony and with equal opportunities. It is an ideal which I hope to live for and to achieve. But if needs be, it is an ideal for which I am prepared to die."
Mandela taught us the power of action, but also ideas; the importance of reason and arguments; the need to study not only those you agree with, but those who you don’t. He understood that ideas cannot be contained by prison walls, or extinguished by a sniper’s bullet. He turned his trial into an indictment of apartheid because of his eloquence and passion, but also his training as an advocate. He used decades in prison to sharpen his arguments, but also to spread his thirst for knowledge to others in the movement. And he learned the language and customs of his oppressor so that one day he might better convey to them how their own freedom depended upon his.
Mandela demonstrated that action and ideas are not enough; no matter how right, they must be chiseled into laws and institutions. He was practical, testing his beliefs against the hard surface of circumstance and history. On core principles he was unyielding, which is why he could rebuff offers of conditional release, reminding the Apartheid regime that, "prisoners cannot enter into contracts." But as he showed in painstaking negotiations to transfer power and draft new laws, he was not afraid to compromise for the sake of a larger goal. And because he was not only a leader of a movement, but a skillful politician, the Constitution that emerged was worthy of this multiracial democracy; true to his vision of laws that protect minority as well as majority rights, and the precious freedoms of every South African.
Finally, Mandela understood the ties that bind the human spirit. There is a word in South Africa – Ubuntu – that describes his greatest gift: his recognition that we are all bound together in ways that can be invisible to the eye; that there is a oneness to humanity; that we achieve ourselves by sharing ourselves with others, and caring for those around us. We can never know how much of this was innate in him, or how much of it was shaped and burnished in a dark, solitary cell. But we remember the gestures, large and small – introducing his jailors as honoured guests at his inauguration; taking the pitch in a Springbok uniform; turning his family’s heartbreak into a call to confront HIV and Aids – that revealed the depth of his empathy and understanding. He not only embodied Ubuntu; he taught millions to find that truth within themselves. It took a man like Madiba to free not just the prisoner, but the jailor as well; to show that you must trust others so that they may trust you; to teach that reconciliation is not a matter of ignoring a cruel past, but a means of confronting it with inclusion, generosity and truth. He changed laws, but also hearts.
For the people of South Africa, for those he inspired around the globe – Madiba’s passing is rightly a time of mourning, and a time to celebrate his heroic life. But I believe it should also prompt in each of us a time for self-reflection. With honesty, regardless of our station or circumstance, we must ask: how well have I applied his lessons in my own life?
It is a question I ask myself – as a man and as a president. We know that like South Africa, the United States had to overcome centuries of racial subjugation. As was true here, it took the sacrifice of countless people – known and unknown – to see the dawn of a new day. Michelle and I are the beneficiaries of that struggle. But in America and South Africa, and countries around the globe, we cannot allow our progress to cloud the fact that our work is not done. The struggles that follow the victory of formal equality and universal franchise may not be as filled with drama and moral clarity as those that came before, but they are no less important. For around the world today, we still see children suffering from hunger, and disease; run-down schools, and few prospects for the future. Around the world today, men and women are still imprisoned for their political beliefs; and are still persecuted for what they look like, or how they worship, or who they love.
We, too, must act on behalf of justice. We, too, must act on behalf of peace. There are too many of us who happily embrace Madiba’s legacy of racial reconciliation, but passionately resist even modest reforms that would challenge chronic poverty and growing inequality. There are too many leaders who claim solidarity with Madiba’s struggle for freedom, but do not tolerate dissent from their own people. And there are too many of us who stand on the sidelines, comfortable in complacency or cynicism when our voices must be heard.
The questions we face today – how to promote equality and justice; to uphold freedom and human rights; to end conflict and sectarian war – do not have easy answers. But there were no easy answers in front of that child in Qunu. Nelson Mandela reminds us that it always seems impossible until it is done. South Africa shows us that is true. South Africa shows us we can change. We can choose to live in a world defined not by our differences, but by our common hopes. We can choose a world defined not by conflict, but by peace and justice and opportunity.
We will never see the likes of Nelson Mandela again. But let me say to the young people of Africa, and young people around the world – you can make his life’s work your own. Over thirty years ago, while still a student, I learned of Mandela and the struggles in this land. It stirred something in me. It woke me up to my responsibilities – to others, and to myself – and set me on an improbable journey that finds me here today. And while I will always fall short of Madiba’s example, he makes me want to be better. He speaks to what is best inside us. After this great liberator is laid to rest; when we have returned to our cities and villages, and rejoined our daily routines, let us search then for his strength – for his largeness of spirit – somewhere inside ourselves. And when the night grows dark, when injustice weighs heavy on our hearts, or our best laid plans seem beyond our reach – think of Madiba, and the words that brought him comfort within the four walls of a cell:
It matters not how strait the gate,
How charged with punishments the scroll,
I am the master of my fate:
I am the captain of my soul.
What a great soul it was. We will miss him deeply. May God bless the memory of Nelson Mandela. May God bless the people of South Africa.
Source: Mail & Guardian
It is hard to eulogise any man – to capture in words not just the facts and the dates that make a life, but the essential truth of a person – their private joys and sorrows; the quiet moments and unique qualities that illuminate someone’s soul. How much harder to do so for a giant of history, who moved a nation toward justice, and in the process moved billions around the world.
Born during World War I, far from the corridors of power, a boy raised herding cattle and tutored by elders of his Thembu tribe – Madiba would emerge as the last great liberator of the 20th century. Like Gandhi, he would lead a resistance movement – a movement that at its start held little prospect of success. Like King, he would give potent voice to the claims of the oppressed, and the moral necessity of racial justice. He would endure a brutal imprisonment that began in the time of Kennedy and Khrushchev, and reached the final days of the Cold War. Emerging from prison, without force of arms, he would – like Lincoln – hold his country together when it threatened to break apart. Like America's founding fathers, he would erect a constitutional order to preserve freedom for future generations - a commitment to democracy and rule of law ratified not only by his election, but by his willingness to step down from power.
Given the sweep of his life, and the adoration that he so rightly earned, it is tempting then to remember Nelson Mandela as an icon, smiling and serene, detached from the tawdry affairs of lesser men. But Madiba himself strongly resisted such a lifeless portrait. Instead, he insisted on sharing with us his doubts and fears; his miscalculations along with his victories. "I'm not a saint," he said, "unless you think of a saint as a sinner who keeps on trying."
It was precisely because he could admit to imperfection – because he could be so full of good humor, even mischief, despite the heavy burdens he carried - that we loved him so. He was not a bust made of marble; he was a man of flesh and blood – a son and husband, a father and a friend. That is why we learned so much from him; that is why we can learn from him still. For nothing he achieved was inevitable. In the arc of his life, we see a man who earned his place in history through struggle and shrewdness; persistence and faith. He tells us what’s possible not just in the pages of dusty history books, but in our own lives as well.
Mandela showed us the power of action; of taking risks on behalf of our ideals. Perhaps Madiba was right that he inherited, "a proud rebelliousness, a stubborn sense of fairness" from his father. Certainly he shared with millions of black and colored South Africans the anger born of, "a thousand slights, a thousand indignities, a thousand unremembered moments … a desire to fight the system that imprisoned my people."
But like other early giants of the ANC – the Sisulus and Tambos – Madiba disciplined his anger; and channelled his desire to fight into organisation, and platforms, and strategies for action, so men and women could stand-up for their dignity. Moreover, he accepted the consequences of his actions, knowing that standing up to powerful interests and injustice carries a price. "I have fought against white domination and I have fought against black domination," he said at his 1964 trial. "I’ve cherished the ideal of a democratic and free society in which all persons live together in harmony and with equal opportunities. It is an ideal which I hope to live for and to achieve. But if needs be, it is an ideal for which I am prepared to die."
Mandela taught us the power of action, but also ideas; the importance of reason and arguments; the need to study not only those you agree with, but those who you don’t. He understood that ideas cannot be contained by prison walls, or extinguished by a sniper’s bullet. He turned his trial into an indictment of apartheid because of his eloquence and passion, but also his training as an advocate. He used decades in prison to sharpen his arguments, but also to spread his thirst for knowledge to others in the movement. And he learned the language and customs of his oppressor so that one day he might better convey to them how their own freedom depended upon his.
Mandela demonstrated that action and ideas are not enough; no matter how right, they must be chiseled into laws and institutions. He was practical, testing his beliefs against the hard surface of circumstance and history. On core principles he was unyielding, which is why he could rebuff offers of conditional release, reminding the Apartheid regime that, "prisoners cannot enter into contracts." But as he showed in painstaking negotiations to transfer power and draft new laws, he was not afraid to compromise for the sake of a larger goal. And because he was not only a leader of a movement, but a skillful politician, the Constitution that emerged was worthy of this multiracial democracy; true to his vision of laws that protect minority as well as majority rights, and the precious freedoms of every South African.
Finally, Mandela understood the ties that bind the human spirit. There is a word in South Africa – Ubuntu – that describes his greatest gift: his recognition that we are all bound together in ways that can be invisible to the eye; that there is a oneness to humanity; that we achieve ourselves by sharing ourselves with others, and caring for those around us. We can never know how much of this was innate in him, or how much of it was shaped and burnished in a dark, solitary cell. But we remember the gestures, large and small – introducing his jailors as honoured guests at his inauguration; taking the pitch in a Springbok uniform; turning his family’s heartbreak into a call to confront HIV and Aids – that revealed the depth of his empathy and understanding. He not only embodied Ubuntu; he taught millions to find that truth within themselves. It took a man like Madiba to free not just the prisoner, but the jailor as well; to show that you must trust others so that they may trust you; to teach that reconciliation is not a matter of ignoring a cruel past, but a means of confronting it with inclusion, generosity and truth. He changed laws, but also hearts.
For the people of South Africa, for those he inspired around the globe – Madiba’s passing is rightly a time of mourning, and a time to celebrate his heroic life. But I believe it should also prompt in each of us a time for self-reflection. With honesty, regardless of our station or circumstance, we must ask: how well have I applied his lessons in my own life?
It is a question I ask myself – as a man and as a president. We know that like South Africa, the United States had to overcome centuries of racial subjugation. As was true here, it took the sacrifice of countless people – known and unknown – to see the dawn of a new day. Michelle and I are the beneficiaries of that struggle. But in America and South Africa, and countries around the globe, we cannot allow our progress to cloud the fact that our work is not done. The struggles that follow the victory of formal equality and universal franchise may not be as filled with drama and moral clarity as those that came before, but they are no less important. For around the world today, we still see children suffering from hunger, and disease; run-down schools, and few prospects for the future. Around the world today, men and women are still imprisoned for their political beliefs; and are still persecuted for what they look like, or how they worship, or who they love.
We, too, must act on behalf of justice. We, too, must act on behalf of peace. There are too many of us who happily embrace Madiba’s legacy of racial reconciliation, but passionately resist even modest reforms that would challenge chronic poverty and growing inequality. There are too many leaders who claim solidarity with Madiba’s struggle for freedom, but do not tolerate dissent from their own people. And there are too many of us who stand on the sidelines, comfortable in complacency or cynicism when our voices must be heard.
The questions we face today – how to promote equality and justice; to uphold freedom and human rights; to end conflict and sectarian war – do not have easy answers. But there were no easy answers in front of that child in Qunu. Nelson Mandela reminds us that it always seems impossible until it is done. South Africa shows us that is true. South Africa shows us we can change. We can choose to live in a world defined not by our differences, but by our common hopes. We can choose a world defined not by conflict, but by peace and justice and opportunity.
We will never see the likes of Nelson Mandela again. But let me say to the young people of Africa, and young people around the world – you can make his life’s work your own. Over thirty years ago, while still a student, I learned of Mandela and the struggles in this land. It stirred something in me. It woke me up to my responsibilities – to others, and to myself – and set me on an improbable journey that finds me here today. And while I will always fall short of Madiba’s example, he makes me want to be better. He speaks to what is best inside us. After this great liberator is laid to rest; when we have returned to our cities and villages, and rejoined our daily routines, let us search then for his strength – for his largeness of spirit – somewhere inside ourselves. And when the night grows dark, when injustice weighs heavy on our hearts, or our best laid plans seem beyond our reach – think of Madiba, and the words that brought him comfort within the four walls of a cell:
It matters not how strait the gate,
How charged with punishments the scroll,
I am the master of my fate:
I am the captain of my soul.
What a great soul it was. We will miss him deeply. May God bless the memory of Nelson Mandela. May God bless the people of South Africa.
Source: Mail & Guardian
Tuesday, December 3, 2013
South Africans losing trust in political and business ethics
According to research by Transparency International, South Africa is perceived as being more corrupt this year than it was last year.
What is considerably alarming is that 50% of persons interviewed perceived the judiciary as corrupt; 70% perceived parliament as corrupt and a staggering 83% perceived the South African Police Service as corrupt.
In a statement on Tuesday, local civil society organization Corruption Watch (CW) said the perceptions were indicative of a public that was losing trust in political, public, and business leadership.
Source: the Sowetan
Monday, December 2, 2013
Mdluli wins bid to appeal charges ruling
Suspended police crime intelligence head Richard Mdluli, the National Prosecuting Authority and the Specialised Commercial Crime Unit may appeal against a ruling that charges against him must be reinstated, the high court in Pretoria ruled on Monday.
Freedom Under Law (FUL) did not oppose the application, and said the matter concerned issues of significant public importance which ought to be aired in the Supreme Court of Appeal.
An application by the public interest group to revive a previous interim interdict stopping Mdluli from returning to work would continue only at a later stage.
National police commissioner Riah Phiyega has agreed to give the FUL 30 days' notice if she wants to reinstate Mdluli.
The FUL said it reserved its rights to approach the court again.
Deputy Judge President of the high courts in Johannesburg and Pretoria Aubrey Ledwaba granted leave to appeal against Judge John Murphy's ruling in September in favour of the FUL.
Decision set aside
Murphy had set aside decisions to withdraw charges of money laundering and murder, and disciplinary proceedings, against Mdluli.
Ledwaba said there were compelling reasons to grant leave, and there was a reasonable prospect that another court might come to a different conclusion.
Considering the importance and complexity of the issues, the Supreme Court of Appeal in Bloemfontein would be the correct court to deal with the matter.
Ledwaba said Murphy was not available to hear the application. The application for leave to appeal began before Murphy in October, but due to "some unfortunate altercation" between him and William Mokhari SC, Ledwaba intervened and postponed the matter indefinitely.
The altercation started when Mokhari, who represented the police commissioner, told Murphy it was presumptuous to ask if Phiyega intended reinstating Mdluli.
Murphy repeatedly told Mokhari to sit down and when he refused, Murphy walked out of the court. Mokhari, who is the chairperson of the Johannesburg Bar Council, has since laid a formal complaint about the judge's "demeaning" remarks with the Judicial Service Commission. – Sapa
Freedom Under Law (FUL) did not oppose the application, and said the matter concerned issues of significant public importance which ought to be aired in the Supreme Court of Appeal.
An application by the public interest group to revive a previous interim interdict stopping Mdluli from returning to work would continue only at a later stage.
National police commissioner Riah Phiyega has agreed to give the FUL 30 days' notice if she wants to reinstate Mdluli.
The FUL said it reserved its rights to approach the court again.
Deputy Judge President of the high courts in Johannesburg and Pretoria Aubrey Ledwaba granted leave to appeal against Judge John Murphy's ruling in September in favour of the FUL.
Decision set aside
Murphy had set aside decisions to withdraw charges of money laundering and murder, and disciplinary proceedings, against Mdluli.
Ledwaba said there were compelling reasons to grant leave, and there was a reasonable prospect that another court might come to a different conclusion.
Considering the importance and complexity of the issues, the Supreme Court of Appeal in Bloemfontein would be the correct court to deal with the matter.
Ledwaba said Murphy was not available to hear the application. The application for leave to appeal began before Murphy in October, but due to "some unfortunate altercation" between him and William Mokhari SC, Ledwaba intervened and postponed the matter indefinitely.
The altercation started when Mokhari, who represented the police commissioner, told Murphy it was presumptuous to ask if Phiyega intended reinstating Mdluli.
Murphy repeatedly told Mokhari to sit down and when he refused, Murphy walked out of the court. Mokhari, who is the chairperson of the Johannesburg Bar Council, has since laid a formal complaint about the judge's "demeaning" remarks with the Judicial Service Commission. – Sapa
Saturday, November 23, 2013
Reducing Crime: Learning From The Failed Criminal Justice System
The United States holds the highest incarceration rate in the world, with over 2 million currently in America’s prisons, and millions more on parole and probation. The majority are in state prisons, around 60 percent, and roughly 10 percent are held in federal prisons. In 2011, one out of every 34 adults [7 million+] were being supervised by the criminal justice system, at that time there were over 2 million incarcerated, 854,000 on parole, and 4 million on probation.
In 2009, the US held roughly 4.5 percent of the world’s total population, but housed 23 percent of the worlds prisoners. California and Texas hold the first positions for having the most prisoners, both have over 100,000 inmates. Thousands of individuals are serving severe time for non-violent, and often victimless crimes. Timothy Jackson, an inmate from Angola prison in Louisiana, has served over 16 years, and still looking to spend the rest of his life in prison for having stolen a jacket from a department store that was valued at $159.00.
Other individuals have been sentenced to life with no chance of parole for crimes like siphoning gas from a truck, trying to cash a stolen cheque, selling marijuana, and stealing tools from a tool shed. Although legislation varies from between the states, the federal government has increasingly taken a zero-tolerance approach to crime, even victimless crime such as marijuana possession. The infamous three-strike rule has also proved ineffective at reducing recidivism (or repeat offenses). Surprisingly, violent crime rates have declined for the past several years, which may perhaps be due to fact that hundreds of thousands of individuals that were engaged within the system received stricter life sentencing, and they are therefore permanently caged within the criminal justice system, removing their participation as a criminal statistic.
After three decades of steady increase, crime rates have been in steady decline. Aside from stricter sentencing, rates may also be in decline in response to soaring gun ownership rates. Or, perhaps the violent crime rates are in decline because self-report is in decline, or the statistics themselves are not reliably accurate, or laws are not being strictly enforced. The answer no doubt is a myriad of factors which all contribute to the overall effect seen. According to the Federal Bureau of Investigation [FBI], violent crime rates have declined by roughly 25 percent. Regardless of the decline seen in crime rates though, prison population continues to soar and remain at an all time high, with alarming numbers of juveniles being detained and held in solitary confinement.
Imprisonment is a costly endeavor for society, indeed the States spend well over $45 billion in tax dollars on corrections, it costs an average of $23,876 dollars to imprison someone for a year, according to data from 2005, the total cost varies among the states. While the taxpayer is footing the bill to house “criminals” within the various institutions [strategically separated] within their communities, prisons are immorally profiting off the labor of their inmates.
Tens of thousands of inmates are being “generously” employed, some for as little as 20 cents an hour, within numerous prison systems. Starbucks, Nintendo, Victoria’s Secret, Wal-Mart, and JC Penny are just some of the mega corporations that are invested in, and profiting from, the labor of individuals who have become one more statistic as part of America’s soaring incarceration rates. This system encourages and creates a demand for arrests, and enables the prison industrial complex to feed off of them and continue to increase profits. With such a system in place it is reasonable to assume that incarceration rates may not decline, even if violent crime declines, as long as the prison is established in such a way that it makes a higher profit along with the increase in the rate of their incarceration.
The expectations of our justice system to both punish and rehabilitate, is a conflicting objective which leads to internal conflict and contradiction. The system aims to prevent crime by instilling fear on the offender, but recidivism remains high and states with stricter punishment still see high incarceration rates [e.g Texas]. The “fear” of prison isn’t sufficient to prevent crime, or even to reduce recidivism. Meanwhile rehabilitation, especially utilizing methods which incorporate members from the community, has a lasting effect at deterring individuals from engaging in a life of crime. Programs such as meditation have also shown to drastically help inmates cope with daily anxiety and stress.
One popular form of rehabilitation is a program of meditation for inmates referred to as Transcendental Meditation, taking part in such activities can help inmates to cope with their frustration, anxiety, and anger. Transcendental Meditation can significantly reduce crime, criminal aggression, violence, recidivism, terrorism, and even international conflict, while simultaneously developing higher levels of psychological functioning (Alexander et al., 2003). Victim-offender mediation has also proven beneficial, in some instances mediation will occur between the offender, the victim, and perhaps other family and community members. Every individual gets a chance to address their concerns over the event, how the crime made any impact on their life. This type of rehabilitation effort encourages justice, accountability, restoration, and community involvement. Even allowing the inmates to help train stray dogs seems to a highly therapeutic effect and actually saves money by extending how long the strays can be kept. Instead of locking up the offender as a caged animal, shunning them away from society and making them feel uninvolved with the community, it takes a more positive approach in encouraging the offender to be a part of that community.
A fiscally responsible nation cannot afford such a dysfunctional criminal justice system. Getting “tough” on crime doesn’t prevent crime, nor does it decrease recidivism. This mirrors how violent parenting strategies often don’t produce more able or responsible children. And the fear of prison initially is not sufficient enough to prevent crime either: fear is only effective in motivating criminals to avoid being caught as instead of avoiding the crime. When the individual is ostracized from the community, they forget how to be a part of it, this only adds to their troubles.
When inmates finally get out of prison, many don’t have a place to live or means to get a job or even to print a resume for one. Even for tasks as simple as buying groceries, many of these individuals never learned the basic skills which would enable them to create a monthly budget, or to plan out meals and necessary life costs, so that they could better manage to cover their daily needs without finding themselves short and feeling the need to resort to crime. Many individuals within the system also suffer from some mental impairment or drug addiction, and simply caging these individuals doesn’t solve any underlying problem.
Our current criminal justice system has failed and continues to fail not just the prisoners, but society overall. It conditions the guards to treat others as less than human, it creates further resentment and anger in the hearts of the prisoners, and almost no one comes out alright, let alone rehabilitated, on the other side. This is literally only “working” those investing in private prisons. Isn’t it time we focused on solving problems, on rehabilitation, and not solely on punishment at a high financial to all involved?
Source: http://www.exposingthetruth.co
In 2009, the US held roughly 4.5 percent of the world’s total population, but housed 23 percent of the worlds prisoners. California and Texas hold the first positions for having the most prisoners, both have over 100,000 inmates. Thousands of individuals are serving severe time for non-violent, and often victimless crimes. Timothy Jackson, an inmate from Angola prison in Louisiana, has served over 16 years, and still looking to spend the rest of his life in prison for having stolen a jacket from a department store that was valued at $159.00.
Other individuals have been sentenced to life with no chance of parole for crimes like siphoning gas from a truck, trying to cash a stolen cheque, selling marijuana, and stealing tools from a tool shed. Although legislation varies from between the states, the federal government has increasingly taken a zero-tolerance approach to crime, even victimless crime such as marijuana possession. The infamous three-strike rule has also proved ineffective at reducing recidivism (or repeat offenses). Surprisingly, violent crime rates have declined for the past several years, which may perhaps be due to fact that hundreds of thousands of individuals that were engaged within the system received stricter life sentencing, and they are therefore permanently caged within the criminal justice system, removing their participation as a criminal statistic.
After three decades of steady increase, crime rates have been in steady decline. Aside from stricter sentencing, rates may also be in decline in response to soaring gun ownership rates. Or, perhaps the violent crime rates are in decline because self-report is in decline, or the statistics themselves are not reliably accurate, or laws are not being strictly enforced. The answer no doubt is a myriad of factors which all contribute to the overall effect seen. According to the Federal Bureau of Investigation [FBI], violent crime rates have declined by roughly 25 percent. Regardless of the decline seen in crime rates though, prison population continues to soar and remain at an all time high, with alarming numbers of juveniles being detained and held in solitary confinement.
Imprisonment is a costly endeavor for society, indeed the States spend well over $45 billion in tax dollars on corrections, it costs an average of $23,876 dollars to imprison someone for a year, according to data from 2005, the total cost varies among the states. While the taxpayer is footing the bill to house “criminals” within the various institutions [strategically separated] within their communities, prisons are immorally profiting off the labor of their inmates.
Tens of thousands of inmates are being “generously” employed, some for as little as 20 cents an hour, within numerous prison systems. Starbucks, Nintendo, Victoria’s Secret, Wal-Mart, and JC Penny are just some of the mega corporations that are invested in, and profiting from, the labor of individuals who have become one more statistic as part of America’s soaring incarceration rates. This system encourages and creates a demand for arrests, and enables the prison industrial complex to feed off of them and continue to increase profits. With such a system in place it is reasonable to assume that incarceration rates may not decline, even if violent crime declines, as long as the prison is established in such a way that it makes a higher profit along with the increase in the rate of their incarceration.
The expectations of our justice system to both punish and rehabilitate, is a conflicting objective which leads to internal conflict and contradiction. The system aims to prevent crime by instilling fear on the offender, but recidivism remains high and states with stricter punishment still see high incarceration rates [e.g Texas]. The “fear” of prison isn’t sufficient to prevent crime, or even to reduce recidivism. Meanwhile rehabilitation, especially utilizing methods which incorporate members from the community, has a lasting effect at deterring individuals from engaging in a life of crime. Programs such as meditation have also shown to drastically help inmates cope with daily anxiety and stress.
One popular form of rehabilitation is a program of meditation for inmates referred to as Transcendental Meditation, taking part in such activities can help inmates to cope with their frustration, anxiety, and anger. Transcendental Meditation can significantly reduce crime, criminal aggression, violence, recidivism, terrorism, and even international conflict, while simultaneously developing higher levels of psychological functioning (Alexander et al., 2003). Victim-offender mediation has also proven beneficial, in some instances mediation will occur between the offender, the victim, and perhaps other family and community members. Every individual gets a chance to address their concerns over the event, how the crime made any impact on their life. This type of rehabilitation effort encourages justice, accountability, restoration, and community involvement. Even allowing the inmates to help train stray dogs seems to a highly therapeutic effect and actually saves money by extending how long the strays can be kept. Instead of locking up the offender as a caged animal, shunning them away from society and making them feel uninvolved with the community, it takes a more positive approach in encouraging the offender to be a part of that community.
A fiscally responsible nation cannot afford such a dysfunctional criminal justice system. Getting “tough” on crime doesn’t prevent crime, nor does it decrease recidivism. This mirrors how violent parenting strategies often don’t produce more able or responsible children. And the fear of prison initially is not sufficient enough to prevent crime either: fear is only effective in motivating criminals to avoid being caught as instead of avoiding the crime. When the individual is ostracized from the community, they forget how to be a part of it, this only adds to their troubles.
When inmates finally get out of prison, many don’t have a place to live or means to get a job or even to print a resume for one. Even for tasks as simple as buying groceries, many of these individuals never learned the basic skills which would enable them to create a monthly budget, or to plan out meals and necessary life costs, so that they could better manage to cover their daily needs without finding themselves short and feeling the need to resort to crime. Many individuals within the system also suffer from some mental impairment or drug addiction, and simply caging these individuals doesn’t solve any underlying problem.
Our current criminal justice system has failed and continues to fail not just the prisoners, but society overall. It conditions the guards to treat others as less than human, it creates further resentment and anger in the hearts of the prisoners, and almost no one comes out alright, let alone rehabilitated, on the other side. This is literally only “working” those investing in private prisons. Isn’t it time we focused on solving problems, on rehabilitation, and not solely on punishment at a high financial to all involved?
Source: http://www.exposingthetruth.co
Thursday, November 21, 2013
Friday, November 15, 2013
Nkandla report: The real reasons why ministers took on Thuli
The fight between Public Protector Thuli Madonsela and the security cluster is about much more than her provisional report into state expenditure at President Jacob Zuma’s private Nkandla homestead.
It signals the start of a new war between openness and accountability, on the one hand, and secrecy, cloaked in the garb of security, on the other. And it is clear that the Protection of State Information Bill – the so-called secrecy Bill – passed for the third time in the National Assembly this week, opens up a dangerous new front in that war.
Last Friday, Police Minister Nathi Mthethwa approached the Pretoria high court to interdict Madonsela from releasing the draft report, purportedly in a quest for more time.
In effect, though, he sought to block the release until the security cluster ministers were satisfied with the way she had accommodated their concerns about allegedly sensitive information.
What emerges starkly in the court papers is that the ministers believe any document that draws on classified information must itself be classified. In his founding affidavit, Mthethwa in effect threatened criminal sanction should Madonsela release an uncensored draft report to other “affected, implicated and interested parties” to obtain their responses.
Principle of secrecy
He warned: “Release of the provisional report to third parties … without prior authorisation of [the ministers] … is unlawful and carries … a criminal penalty.”
Mthethwa’s affidavit attached an earlier letter to Madonsela from Public Works Minister Thulas Nxesi, also on behalf of the defence, police and state security ministers.
Nxesi made the point explicitly: “As neither I, nor the ministers involved, have given the necessary permission to declassify the documentation relied upon by you in your provisional report, we deem it necessary to inform you that to release your provisional report without our authorisation would, in effect, result in … a contravention of section 4 of the National Key Points Act, 102 of 1980, and section 4 of the Protection of Information Act, 84 of 1982.”
Nowhere did Mthethwa refer to any specific contents of the draft report to justify the claim that the president’s security was at risk.
What really seems to be at stake is the principle of secrecy – and who gets to pronounce on it.
In her stinging reply, Madonsela said the ministers did not cite a “single fact” to illustrate how the president’s safety would be compromised by the disclosure of the draft report.
In his second affidavit, tabled on Thursday, Mthethwa sidestepped that challenge, claiming it was irrelevant to the request for more time.
In their reply, the ministers abandoned their interdict, citing the fact that Madonsela, in asking for the matter to be postponed until November 15, had in effect given them the extra time they asked for.
But it would be a mistake to see this as a final climb-down instead of a tactical retreat.
Further litigation to come?
In his second affidavit, Mthethwa foreshadows potential further litigation, stating: “It will be argued at an appropriate time, when the need arises, that the [public protector], not being an expert on matters of security, cannot be an arbiter on whether or not there exists a security breach from the contents of the provisional report … Should the respondent arrogate to herself that power to determine whether or not there is a breach of security arising from the contents of her provisional report, I am advised that she will in law be acting ultra vires her powers and the law.”
In short, ministers, not Madonsela, must decide whether the report breaches security.
Mthethwa adds: “The classified and top-secret information extracted by [the public protector] in her provisional report … is governed by the minimum information security standards, and it is those classified and top-secret documents and/or extracts that require the minister to authorise its further publication.”
Clearly, no authorisation has been granted. If Madonsela does not excise what they ask her to, there appears to be a real chance the security cluster will return to court.
The state security department itself accepts that apartheid-era laws the ministers rely on are probably unconstitutional, making the ministers’ attempt to exert their authority over Madonsela something of a reach.
That will change when the secrecy Bill is signed into law – which the president could do any day now.
Top secret
The new Act specifies that the state security minister will make regulations governing how chapter nine institutions – including the public protector and the auditor general – will be allowed to access and use classified information.
The push for a security curtain was echoed in the report of the Joint Standing Committee of Intelligence (JSCI), which released its Nkandla report on Thursday.
After the outcry over the expenditure – about R210-million – in November 2012, the public works minister appointed a government task team to investigate. Its report – classified as top secret – was delivered to Nxesi in January.
In June, the report was referred to the JSCI, which usually carries out oversight of the intelligence services.
An opinion from the parliamentary legal adviser recommended the JSCI restrict itself to matters to do with security oversight, redact sensitive information and then refer the report to the National Assembly.
The JSCI ignored this advice, endorsed the top-secret classification and even recommended that any new information uncovered should be referred back to the JSCI for consideration behind closed doors.
It notes: “Matters relating to the allocation of tenders … should be referred to the office of the auditor general for a full investigation … However, the JSCI believes that because of the classification aspects of the subject matter, the auditor general should report on this investigation to the JSCI.”
Of even more concern is how the JSCI parrots the ministers’ line in their interaction with Madonsela.
A sign of things to come
In a veiled reference to her, the JSCI notes: “Entities which have investigative powers … should not be inappropriately motivated … to launch into an investigation on a matter which has already been assigned to another entity. It is therefore recommended that the executive give urgent attention to this matter … so that unnecessary parallel investigations can be avoided.”
This was precisely the argument the ministers used to try to discourage Madonsela’s Nkandla investigation.
In a letter to Madonsela in April, the state attorney referred to her meeting with the ministers and noted: “The purpose … was to discuss with you our concerns regarding parallel investigations ...”
He said a draft proclamation for the Special Investigating Unit to take up the matter had already been sent to the president and a request for an Nkandla audit had been addressed to the auditor general. “Our clients, therefore, propose … that you hold your investigation in abeyance until the processes embarked upon have been completed.”
Madonsela said in her affidavit this week that the auditor general’s audit had not materialised, nor had the Special Investigating Unit yet been authorised to investigate.
Source: Mail & Guardian
It signals the start of a new war between openness and accountability, on the one hand, and secrecy, cloaked in the garb of security, on the other. And it is clear that the Protection of State Information Bill – the so-called secrecy Bill – passed for the third time in the National Assembly this week, opens up a dangerous new front in that war.
Last Friday, Police Minister Nathi Mthethwa approached the Pretoria high court to interdict Madonsela from releasing the draft report, purportedly in a quest for more time.
In effect, though, he sought to block the release until the security cluster ministers were satisfied with the way she had accommodated their concerns about allegedly sensitive information.
What emerges starkly in the court papers is that the ministers believe any document that draws on classified information must itself be classified. In his founding affidavit, Mthethwa in effect threatened criminal sanction should Madonsela release an uncensored draft report to other “affected, implicated and interested parties” to obtain their responses.
Principle of secrecy
He warned: “Release of the provisional report to third parties … without prior authorisation of [the ministers] … is unlawful and carries … a criminal penalty.”
Mthethwa’s affidavit attached an earlier letter to Madonsela from Public Works Minister Thulas Nxesi, also on behalf of the defence, police and state security ministers.
Nxesi made the point explicitly: “As neither I, nor the ministers involved, have given the necessary permission to declassify the documentation relied upon by you in your provisional report, we deem it necessary to inform you that to release your provisional report without our authorisation would, in effect, result in … a contravention of section 4 of the National Key Points Act, 102 of 1980, and section 4 of the Protection of Information Act, 84 of 1982.”
Nowhere did Mthethwa refer to any specific contents of the draft report to justify the claim that the president’s security was at risk.
What really seems to be at stake is the principle of secrecy – and who gets to pronounce on it.
In her stinging reply, Madonsela said the ministers did not cite a “single fact” to illustrate how the president’s safety would be compromised by the disclosure of the draft report.
In his second affidavit, tabled on Thursday, Mthethwa sidestepped that challenge, claiming it was irrelevant to the request for more time.
In their reply, the ministers abandoned their interdict, citing the fact that Madonsela, in asking for the matter to be postponed until November 15, had in effect given them the extra time they asked for.
But it would be a mistake to see this as a final climb-down instead of a tactical retreat.
Further litigation to come?
In his second affidavit, Mthethwa foreshadows potential further litigation, stating: “It will be argued at an appropriate time, when the need arises, that the [public protector], not being an expert on matters of security, cannot be an arbiter on whether or not there exists a security breach from the contents of the provisional report … Should the respondent arrogate to herself that power to determine whether or not there is a breach of security arising from the contents of her provisional report, I am advised that she will in law be acting ultra vires her powers and the law.”
In short, ministers, not Madonsela, must decide whether the report breaches security.
Mthethwa adds: “The classified and top-secret information extracted by [the public protector] in her provisional report … is governed by the minimum information security standards, and it is those classified and top-secret documents and/or extracts that require the minister to authorise its further publication.”
Clearly, no authorisation has been granted. If Madonsela does not excise what they ask her to, there appears to be a real chance the security cluster will return to court.
The state security department itself accepts that apartheid-era laws the ministers rely on are probably unconstitutional, making the ministers’ attempt to exert their authority over Madonsela something of a reach.
That will change when the secrecy Bill is signed into law – which the president could do any day now.
Top secret
The new Act specifies that the state security minister will make regulations governing how chapter nine institutions – including the public protector and the auditor general – will be allowed to access and use classified information.
The push for a security curtain was echoed in the report of the Joint Standing Committee of Intelligence (JSCI), which released its Nkandla report on Thursday.
After the outcry over the expenditure – about R210-million – in November 2012, the public works minister appointed a government task team to investigate. Its report – classified as top secret – was delivered to Nxesi in January.
In June, the report was referred to the JSCI, which usually carries out oversight of the intelligence services.
An opinion from the parliamentary legal adviser recommended the JSCI restrict itself to matters to do with security oversight, redact sensitive information and then refer the report to the National Assembly.
The JSCI ignored this advice, endorsed the top-secret classification and even recommended that any new information uncovered should be referred back to the JSCI for consideration behind closed doors.
It notes: “Matters relating to the allocation of tenders … should be referred to the office of the auditor general for a full investigation … However, the JSCI believes that because of the classification aspects of the subject matter, the auditor general should report on this investigation to the JSCI.”
Of even more concern is how the JSCI parrots the ministers’ line in their interaction with Madonsela.
A sign of things to come
In a veiled reference to her, the JSCI notes: “Entities which have investigative powers … should not be inappropriately motivated … to launch into an investigation on a matter which has already been assigned to another entity. It is therefore recommended that the executive give urgent attention to this matter … so that unnecessary parallel investigations can be avoided.”
This was precisely the argument the ministers used to try to discourage Madonsela’s Nkandla investigation.
In a letter to Madonsela in April, the state attorney referred to her meeting with the ministers and noted: “The purpose … was to discuss with you our concerns regarding parallel investigations ...”
He said a draft proclamation for the Special Investigating Unit to take up the matter had already been sent to the president and a request for an Nkandla audit had been addressed to the auditor general. “Our clients, therefore, propose … that you hold your investigation in abeyance until the processes embarked upon have been completed.”
Madonsela said in her affidavit this week that the auditor general’s audit had not materialised, nor had the Special Investigating Unit yet been authorised to investigate.
Source: Mail & Guardian
Wednesday, November 13, 2013
Parliament should reject Robert McBride's nomination as head of the Independent Police Investigative Directorate
Dr Mamphela Ramphele, the leader of Agang SA, calls on Parliament to reject the appointment of disgraced former Ekurhuleni metro police chief Robert McBride as head of the Independent Police Investigative Directorate (Ipid).
"McBride has tarnished his copybook with too many criminal charges that he has managed to escape in the past, making his potential appointment to such an important public institution highly questionable," she said. "South African citizens deserve better - they deserve clean government that looks after the interests of every citizen, not the political elite," she said.
Dr Ramphele, who addressed a meeting in the Strand district of Cape Town last evening, called on South Africans to vote for a clean and professional police force - one of the key issues Agang SA is championing in the run up to the 2014 elections.
At the meeting, she praised the Strand Broadlands community for the way in which they had managed to root out a scourge of drug dealers by working together with the police in a peaceful and effective campaign over a period of seven months.
Her message follows the alarming event last week in Khutsong, west of Johannesburg, where residents took the law into their own hands against gangsters, and killed six people.
"This country desperately needs to respect its public institutions, including the police, so that we can have law and order. We need a country that is free of corruption and crime - a country that trains and pays its police force well and expects the best of them," Ramphele said.
"Imagine we could have a country where everybody feels safe on the streets. It is possible, if we all insist on the best services our nation can deliver to us all."
Statement issued by Dr Mamphela Ramphele, the leader of Agang SA, November 13 2013
Source: Politicsweb
"McBride has tarnished his copybook with too many criminal charges that he has managed to escape in the past, making his potential appointment to such an important public institution highly questionable," she said. "South African citizens deserve better - they deserve clean government that looks after the interests of every citizen, not the political elite," she said.
Dr Ramphele, who addressed a meeting in the Strand district of Cape Town last evening, called on South Africans to vote for a clean and professional police force - one of the key issues Agang SA is championing in the run up to the 2014 elections.
At the meeting, she praised the Strand Broadlands community for the way in which they had managed to root out a scourge of drug dealers by working together with the police in a peaceful and effective campaign over a period of seven months.
Her message follows the alarming event last week in Khutsong, west of Johannesburg, where residents took the law into their own hands against gangsters, and killed six people.
"This country desperately needs to respect its public institutions, including the police, so that we can have law and order. We need a country that is free of corruption and crime - a country that trains and pays its police force well and expects the best of them," Ramphele said.
"Imagine we could have a country where everybody feels safe on the streets. It is possible, if we all insist on the best services our nation can deliver to us all."
Statement issued by Dr Mamphela Ramphele, the leader of Agang SA, November 13 2013
Source: Politicsweb
Tuesday, November 12, 2013
Protecting our public protector: We need to defend the space for Thuli Madonsela to work without fear or favour
Durban - The public protector is under siege from many quarters and has had little vocal support from citizens whose interests she is tasked to protect. We need to play our role in defending the space for her to work without fear or favour.
Our political environment reminds me of Machiavelli’s words that: “There is nothing more difficult, nothing more doubtful of success than to initiate new ways of things. For the reformer has enemies in all those who profit from the old ways, and only lukewarm support from those who would profit from the new way. This lukewarmness arising partly from fear of their adversaries, and partly from the incredulity of mankind, who do not actually believe in anything until they have had experience of it.”
Change agents like our public protector are up against a political culture that has still to grow into the promise of freedom embedded in our constitution. Holding those in public office accountable is only possible if citizens demand it and support organs of state responsible for protecting the public interest.
The biggest challenge facing chapter nine institutions such as the public protector is the tolerance by citizens of the confusion deliberately created by the ANC between the state, the government, the governing party and the president. When ministers in the security cluster invoke the risks to “state security”, that the release of the public protector’s report on the upgrades of President Jacob Zuma’s Nkandla residence would entail, are they focusing on the “state” or the person of the “president”?
The state represents the “commonwealth” that belongs to all citizens. How can this commonwealth’s security be put at risk by the exposure of improprieties in the procurement processes regarding the expenditure of a significant amount of taxpayers’ money in excess of R200 million? How does exposure of the suggested presence of a cattle kraal worth an estimated R1.2m jeopardise the security of our commonwealth as citizens?
It is the concealment of wrongdoing in public procurement processes that is putting our commonwealth at risk. In my travels across the country in villages, townships, universities, workplaces and corporate offices, my fellow citizens point to corruption as the biggest threat to our future as a society.
They identify corruption as the reason we have not come far enough and fast enough in living out our aspirations as a society in the past 20 years. Disclosure is like sunshine that disinfects hidden wrongdoing and eradicates corruption.
Young people who comprise the largest segment of our population can shape the country’s future in next year’s elections. Yet many are not sure that registering and voting will have any impact on their future. A big part of their misgiving comes from their perception that the state, government, ANC and president are an unmovable corrupt monolith that is destroying the country. This misgiving represents the biggest risk to our democracy.
The fearless work of the public protector’s office is essential to restoring the hope in young people that no one is above the law and that citizens’ rights matter and will be protected.
Moreover, there was a worrying phenomenon among poor communities this past weekend. In some areas, people refused to register or to allow registration to take place in their areas until their demands are met. They, too, do not distinguish between the IEC, a chapter nine institution, and the government.
We must stand up and defend the space for the key institutions of our democracy to operate without fear or favour. It is a question of “for whom the bell tolls” – it tolls for all of us. Today it is the public protector, tomorrow it is the judiciary, then it will be citizens without the protection of those key institutions. By then, it will be too late to stand up.
We have been through similar moments in our history and must not return there. When I was banned and banished to Tzaneen, my lawyer was told it was not in the state’s interests to disclose why I had been banished to that area.
Are we again ready to tolerate threats to our democracy in the name of “state security” as defined by those determined to secure their positions in power? Are we willing to protect abuse of power and resources in order to protect those in public office?
We can stop abuse of power by those who should be serving us who instead focus on serving themselves. We must not shy away from raising our voices in protection of the public protector so she can do her work to secure the public interest. We have seen how her report on the IEC chairwoman’s impropriety in procuring the lease of property for IEC offices has been attacked on procedural grounds. Are we to condone wrongdoing in this and many other matters through political procedural stonewalling? Where will these stonewalling tactics end?
We have seen enough signs of the president’s lack of capacity to take responsibility for executive action at too many levels: the Schabir Shaik case, his rape trial, Guptagate etc.
His performance in Parliament where he trivialised accountability for Guptagate into a joke about it not being realistic for him to know who is landing at our airports was an embarrassment. Waterkloof is an airforce base that we have afforded him and authorised other officials to use – to serve us. It is not to be used to curry favour with his friends.
We need a strong public protector to keep the executive branch of the state accountable to citizens. We have to protect the public protector so she can continue to protect the “commonwealth” from those invoking “state security” to put our democracy at risk. We dare not fail.
Mamphela Ramphele
Source: The Mercury
Our political environment reminds me of Machiavelli’s words that: “There is nothing more difficult, nothing more doubtful of success than to initiate new ways of things. For the reformer has enemies in all those who profit from the old ways, and only lukewarm support from those who would profit from the new way. This lukewarmness arising partly from fear of their adversaries, and partly from the incredulity of mankind, who do not actually believe in anything until they have had experience of it.”
Change agents like our public protector are up against a political culture that has still to grow into the promise of freedom embedded in our constitution. Holding those in public office accountable is only possible if citizens demand it and support organs of state responsible for protecting the public interest.
The biggest challenge facing chapter nine institutions such as the public protector is the tolerance by citizens of the confusion deliberately created by the ANC between the state, the government, the governing party and the president. When ministers in the security cluster invoke the risks to “state security”, that the release of the public protector’s report on the upgrades of President Jacob Zuma’s Nkandla residence would entail, are they focusing on the “state” or the person of the “president”?
The state represents the “commonwealth” that belongs to all citizens. How can this commonwealth’s security be put at risk by the exposure of improprieties in the procurement processes regarding the expenditure of a significant amount of taxpayers’ money in excess of R200 million? How does exposure of the suggested presence of a cattle kraal worth an estimated R1.2m jeopardise the security of our commonwealth as citizens?
It is the concealment of wrongdoing in public procurement processes that is putting our commonwealth at risk. In my travels across the country in villages, townships, universities, workplaces and corporate offices, my fellow citizens point to corruption as the biggest threat to our future as a society.
They identify corruption as the reason we have not come far enough and fast enough in living out our aspirations as a society in the past 20 years. Disclosure is like sunshine that disinfects hidden wrongdoing and eradicates corruption.
Young people who comprise the largest segment of our population can shape the country’s future in next year’s elections. Yet many are not sure that registering and voting will have any impact on their future. A big part of their misgiving comes from their perception that the state, government, ANC and president are an unmovable corrupt monolith that is destroying the country. This misgiving represents the biggest risk to our democracy.
The fearless work of the public protector’s office is essential to restoring the hope in young people that no one is above the law and that citizens’ rights matter and will be protected.
Moreover, there was a worrying phenomenon among poor communities this past weekend. In some areas, people refused to register or to allow registration to take place in their areas until their demands are met. They, too, do not distinguish between the IEC, a chapter nine institution, and the government.
We must stand up and defend the space for the key institutions of our democracy to operate without fear or favour. It is a question of “for whom the bell tolls” – it tolls for all of us. Today it is the public protector, tomorrow it is the judiciary, then it will be citizens without the protection of those key institutions. By then, it will be too late to stand up.
We have been through similar moments in our history and must not return there. When I was banned and banished to Tzaneen, my lawyer was told it was not in the state’s interests to disclose why I had been banished to that area.
Are we again ready to tolerate threats to our democracy in the name of “state security” as defined by those determined to secure their positions in power? Are we willing to protect abuse of power and resources in order to protect those in public office?
We can stop abuse of power by those who should be serving us who instead focus on serving themselves. We must not shy away from raising our voices in protection of the public protector so she can do her work to secure the public interest. We have seen how her report on the IEC chairwoman’s impropriety in procuring the lease of property for IEC offices has been attacked on procedural grounds. Are we to condone wrongdoing in this and many other matters through political procedural stonewalling? Where will these stonewalling tactics end?
We have seen enough signs of the president’s lack of capacity to take responsibility for executive action at too many levels: the Schabir Shaik case, his rape trial, Guptagate etc.
His performance in Parliament where he trivialised accountability for Guptagate into a joke about it not being realistic for him to know who is landing at our airports was an embarrassment. Waterkloof is an airforce base that we have afforded him and authorised other officials to use – to serve us. It is not to be used to curry favour with his friends.
We need a strong public protector to keep the executive branch of the state accountable to citizens. We have to protect the public protector so she can continue to protect the “commonwealth” from those invoking “state security” to put our democracy at risk. We dare not fail.
Mamphela Ramphele
Source: The Mercury
Parties denounce McBride's nomination for IPID head
Opposition parties have criticised a decision to recommend former Ekurhuleni metro police chief Robert McBride as head of the Independent Police Investigative Directorate (IPID).
The Democratic Alliance would "vehemently" oppose the appointment in Parliament, MP Dianne Kohler Barnard said on Tuesday. "IPID is responsible for investigating police officials in positions of authority and deals with sensitive information on a daily basis, thus the executive director must be a person free of scandal."
Lobby group AfriForum said Police Minister Nathi Mthethwa should resign for nominating McBride. "Minister Mthethwa, with this step, clearly indicated that the efficacy and integrity of the police is not a priority for him," said spokesperson Ian Cameron.
The Freedom Front Plus said the recommendation made a "farce and mockery" of Mthethwa's comments that he would eradicate corruption in the police. "IPID investigates corruption in the police and the head of this institution should not be a controversial person and should have an irreproachable character," spokesperson Pieter Groenewald said.
Christian Democratic Party leader Theunis Botha said the recommendation was "a serious challenge for being the sickest joke of the millennium".
"This makes a mockery of all the ANC promises that the policy of cadre deployment will be based on merit."
Shortlisted
Mthethwa said earlier that Cabinet decided at a meeting on Wednesday to recommend McBride as IPID executive director. "We believe Mr McBride's appointment as head of IPID will help this important institution to achieve [its] ... mandate," Mthethwa said.
He said McBride was the successful candidate following shortlisting, an interview process, and Cabinet's endorsement. "However, in line with the IPID Act, the appointment can only be finalised once Parliament has concurred."
Kohler Barnard said Mthethwa had requested that the portfolio committee on police consider McBride's nomination in a letter published in Parliament's announcements, tablings and committees on Tuesday morning. According to the IPID Act, the nomination must be considered within 30 parliamentary days.
She said the IPID should not be led by "such a controversial figure".
"The executive director must be suitably qualified for the position, not have previous convictions, and be a person of integrity."
Cameron said Mthethwa's decision had jeopardised the integrity of the police. "McBride had been previously arrested for arms smuggling, drunk driving and defeating the ends of justice. Now he must investigate and control corruption and malpractice in the police ...," he said.
Groenewald said Mthethwa was violating the public's trust with the recommendation. "McBride is extremely controversial and definitely not suitable for the position. The public should be able to trust the head of the IPID because a lot of complaints are against the [South African Police Service]."
Fired
Botha said Mthethwa should be fired. "Surely, no other minister is as determined to destroy his or her department," he said.
"If President [Jacob] Zuma does not now fire this bungling minister, the ANC should not be surprised when the world likens the Cabinet to a bunch of clowns."
McBride, who is a former MP and government official, won an appeal in March against a conviction of drunken driving and attempting to obstruct justice.
He was arrested in 2006 after crashing his official car on the R511 following a Christmas party. In September 2011, a Pretoria magistrate sentenced McBride to two years imprisonment for driving under the influence of alcohol and in effect three years' imprisonment for attempting to obstruct the course of justice.
In 1998, McBride was arrested in Mozambique on charges of gun-running. He spent seven months in a Maputo prison and was later cleared of all charges. He claimed he was investigating illegal gun-running with the National Intelligence Agency.
In 1999, McBride faced an assault charge after he, underworld boss Cyril Beeka, and another man visited an escort agency and allegedly assaulted an employee.
McBride was part of an Umkhonto we Sizwe group that bombed the Why Not Restaurant and Magoo's Bar in Durban on June 14 1986. Three people were killed and 69 were injured in the explosion. He was captured and convicted, and sentenced to death.
In 1992, he was released after his actions were classified as politically motivated. He was later granted amnesty at the Truth and Reconciliation Commission. – Sapa
Source: Mail & Guardian
The Democratic Alliance would "vehemently" oppose the appointment in Parliament, MP Dianne Kohler Barnard said on Tuesday. "IPID is responsible for investigating police officials in positions of authority and deals with sensitive information on a daily basis, thus the executive director must be a person free of scandal."
Lobby group AfriForum said Police Minister Nathi Mthethwa should resign for nominating McBride. "Minister Mthethwa, with this step, clearly indicated that the efficacy and integrity of the police is not a priority for him," said spokesperson Ian Cameron.
The Freedom Front Plus said the recommendation made a "farce and mockery" of Mthethwa's comments that he would eradicate corruption in the police. "IPID investigates corruption in the police and the head of this institution should not be a controversial person and should have an irreproachable character," spokesperson Pieter Groenewald said.
Christian Democratic Party leader Theunis Botha said the recommendation was "a serious challenge for being the sickest joke of the millennium".
"This makes a mockery of all the ANC promises that the policy of cadre deployment will be based on merit."
Shortlisted
Mthethwa said earlier that Cabinet decided at a meeting on Wednesday to recommend McBride as IPID executive director. "We believe Mr McBride's appointment as head of IPID will help this important institution to achieve [its] ... mandate," Mthethwa said.
He said McBride was the successful candidate following shortlisting, an interview process, and Cabinet's endorsement. "However, in line with the IPID Act, the appointment can only be finalised once Parliament has concurred."
Kohler Barnard said Mthethwa had requested that the portfolio committee on police consider McBride's nomination in a letter published in Parliament's announcements, tablings and committees on Tuesday morning. According to the IPID Act, the nomination must be considered within 30 parliamentary days.
She said the IPID should not be led by "such a controversial figure".
"The executive director must be suitably qualified for the position, not have previous convictions, and be a person of integrity."
Cameron said Mthethwa's decision had jeopardised the integrity of the police. "McBride had been previously arrested for arms smuggling, drunk driving and defeating the ends of justice. Now he must investigate and control corruption and malpractice in the police ...," he said.
Groenewald said Mthethwa was violating the public's trust with the recommendation. "McBride is extremely controversial and definitely not suitable for the position. The public should be able to trust the head of the IPID because a lot of complaints are against the [South African Police Service]."
Fired
Botha said Mthethwa should be fired. "Surely, no other minister is as determined to destroy his or her department," he said.
"If President [Jacob] Zuma does not now fire this bungling minister, the ANC should not be surprised when the world likens the Cabinet to a bunch of clowns."
McBride, who is a former MP and government official, won an appeal in March against a conviction of drunken driving and attempting to obstruct justice.
He was arrested in 2006 after crashing his official car on the R511 following a Christmas party. In September 2011, a Pretoria magistrate sentenced McBride to two years imprisonment for driving under the influence of alcohol and in effect three years' imprisonment for attempting to obstruct the course of justice.
In 1998, McBride was arrested in Mozambique on charges of gun-running. He spent seven months in a Maputo prison and was later cleared of all charges. He claimed he was investigating illegal gun-running with the National Intelligence Agency.
In 1999, McBride faced an assault charge after he, underworld boss Cyril Beeka, and another man visited an escort agency and allegedly assaulted an employee.
McBride was part of an Umkhonto we Sizwe group that bombed the Why Not Restaurant and Magoo's Bar in Durban on June 14 1986. Three people were killed and 69 were injured in the explosion. He was captured and convicted, and sentenced to death.
In 1992, he was released after his actions were classified as politically motivated. He was later granted amnesty at the Truth and Reconciliation Commission. – Sapa
Source: Mail & Guardian
Friday, October 18, 2013
New NPA boss Nxasana seeks clarity on Mdluli case
Mxolisi Nxasana says his decision to wait on an appeal court ruling to reinstate charges against Richard Mdluli is not a delaying tactic.
Several security checks are required before the Mail & Guardian meets the recently appointed national director of public prosecutions (NDPP), Mxolisi Nxasana, at the offices of the National Prosecuting Authority (NPA) in Pretoria this week.
Even our cellphones are locked up until we have finished the interview with the 45-year-old attorney who has what is probably one of the toughest jobs in crime-fighting and justice in South Africa.
Nxasana's Durban colleagues approached him about putting himself forward for the top job at the NPA and he agreed. The next step was an interview by a team from the presidency.
Nxasana, who was running his own legal practice, was in court in August, with a client on the stand, when his cellphone started vibrating. The news of his appointment that day changed his life dramatically.
His appointment was made after President Jacob Zuma was taken to court by the civil rights group the Council for the Advancement of the South African Constitution, to force him to appoint a permanent NDPP.
It meant a rushed move and he and his wife, Amagugu Khanyile Nxasana, who is also an attorney and works for a mining company, are still busy settling their family in Gauteng.
Nxasana says he has prioritised the cases of suspended police crime intelligence head Richard Mdluli and NPA prosecutor, advocate Glynnis Breytenbach. Breytenbach, now back at work downstairs in the sprawling NPA offices, still maintains that she was suspended and charged to stop her from proceeding with a fraud case against Mdluli.
Cool-headed attorney
Shortly after his appointment Nxasana informed Parliament that he had launched an application for leave to appeal a Pretoria High Court judgment ordering the reinstatement of criminal charges against Mdluli.
As a result, he soon went from "hero to villain", according to some news reports. The cool-headed attorney says he was not given a chance to explain the rationale behind the move.
The nub of the NPA's court application, seen by the M&G, is that the courts should not interfere with the decisions of an independent prosecutor except in exceptional cases.
The damning judgment by Judge John Murphy was handed down after civil society organisation Freedom Under Law made an application to the Pretoria High Court asking it to overturn the decision by specialised commercial crimes unit head Lawrence Mrwebi to drop the charges against Mdluli.
In his judgment, Murphy ordered the immediate reinstatement of corruption and murder charges against Mdluli.
"We just want the higher courts to give guidance because this is a first judgment of its kind," says Nxasana emphatically.
"If I want to reinstate the charges against Mdluli, I can. Nobody should view the decision as a delaying tactic. I owe nothing to Mdluli and I haven't even met him. I owe the NPA and the people of South Africa, and no one else.
"I am hoping that Judge Murphy will grant us leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Appeal."
Spy tapes
Nxasana says he is yet to meet Zuma himself and also insists that his cannot be considered a political appointment.
When asked whether he would take up the case of former acting NPA head Nomgcobo Jiba, who came under fire for apparently refusing to hand over the controversial "spy tapes" that let Zuma off the hook, Nxasana says he is not yet aware of what is on the tapes.
"If I feel that there is prima facie evidence that will ultimately warrant prosecution I can tell you my duty, my responsibility, will be mandated by the Constitution, regardless of who appointed me," he says.
"Without putting a name to any person, if a crime is committed and there is admissable and credible evidence, my team will come to a conclusion. It doesn't matter what position a person holds. Even if it is President Zuma, or whoever it is."
Mention his former mentor and close friend, the late attorney Mvuseni Ngubane, and Nxasana's face immediately lights up.
"Whenever I think about him I know he was going to be first person to be proud of my appointment," he says. "I was his candidate attorney, his product. We went on to become very good friends. He had faith in me. So I did look up to him."
Unclear
Nxasana's reflections on Ngubane are tinged with sadness.
"Mvuseni was my mentor. I wish he were around. He would be able to say: 'You are what you are because of me.'
"As an officer of the court he was a very principled man, who held the value and ethos of the profession in very high esteem. He wouldn't do anything to compromise his profession, and he instilled this in me."
Ngubane was found dead in the back of his Mercedes-Benz in his garage in Durban in 2012, in what was described as a suspected suicide.
The attorney had been appointed to the key position of secretary of the Arms Procurement Commission and would have controlled all the evidence gathered by the inquiry, which is now under way.
To this day, it is unclear why he decided to take his life, says Nxasana.
Regularly detained
"It was suicide. I was glad that I was among the first persons to arrive at the scene and to witness what had happened myself and to see where he was sitting with the firearm. It was just next to him," says Nxasana, who wants to dispel any rumours that his friend's death might not have been a suicide.
"This was captured on the CCTV monitor, which was viewed, and there was absolutely no foul play."
After his appointment Nxasana relinquished his post as chairperson of the Durban branch of the Black Lawyers' Association, a position Ngubane had held until his death.
Nxasana, who is little known outside of KwaZulu-Natal, says he owes his fighting spirit to many people, including his father, Bhakisisa Harold Nxasana, who was a trade unionist in the clothing industry.
The older Nxasana, he says, was regularly detained by police at the family's home in Umlazi. On his release the house would be filled with inspiring visitors like anti-apartheid lawyer Mlungisi Griffiths Mxenge and political activist Rick Turner, both of whom were later assassinated, allegedly by apartheid security forces.
His mother, Toti Clotilda Nxasana, a teacher, mostly raised the family single-handedly, sometimes with financial help from his father's prominent friends.
The Richard Mdluli saga
In early 2011 the police's suspended crime intelligence head, Richard Mdluli, was arrested and charged with various crimes, including murder, intimidation, attempted murder, kidnapping, assault with intent to do grievous bodily harm and defeating the ends of justice.
Later the same year he was arrested again and charged with further counts of fraud, corruption, theft and money laundering. This was after he was sensationally accused of looting the police secret service account for his personal benefit.
The charges against him were withdrawn, but the Pretoria High Court ruled recently that the National Prosecuting Authority (NPA) should reinstate the charges. The NPA has launched an urgent application for leave to appeal that judgment.
Last month the police's specialist unit, the Hawks, laid a criminal charge against the NPA's specialised commercial crimes unit head, Lawrence Mrwebi, for defeating the ends of justice by dropping the corruption charges against Mdluli. – Glynnis Underhill
Source: Mail & Guardian
Several security checks are required before the Mail & Guardian meets the recently appointed national director of public prosecutions (NDPP), Mxolisi Nxasana, at the offices of the National Prosecuting Authority (NPA) in Pretoria this week.
Even our cellphones are locked up until we have finished the interview with the 45-year-old attorney who has what is probably one of the toughest jobs in crime-fighting and justice in South Africa.
Nxasana's Durban colleagues approached him about putting himself forward for the top job at the NPA and he agreed. The next step was an interview by a team from the presidency.
Nxasana, who was running his own legal practice, was in court in August, with a client on the stand, when his cellphone started vibrating. The news of his appointment that day changed his life dramatically.
His appointment was made after President Jacob Zuma was taken to court by the civil rights group the Council for the Advancement of the South African Constitution, to force him to appoint a permanent NDPP.
It meant a rushed move and he and his wife, Amagugu Khanyile Nxasana, who is also an attorney and works for a mining company, are still busy settling their family in Gauteng.
Nxasana says he has prioritised the cases of suspended police crime intelligence head Richard Mdluli and NPA prosecutor, advocate Glynnis Breytenbach. Breytenbach, now back at work downstairs in the sprawling NPA offices, still maintains that she was suspended and charged to stop her from proceeding with a fraud case against Mdluli.
Cool-headed attorney
Shortly after his appointment Nxasana informed Parliament that he had launched an application for leave to appeal a Pretoria High Court judgment ordering the reinstatement of criminal charges against Mdluli.
As a result, he soon went from "hero to villain", according to some news reports. The cool-headed attorney says he was not given a chance to explain the rationale behind the move.
The nub of the NPA's court application, seen by the M&G, is that the courts should not interfere with the decisions of an independent prosecutor except in exceptional cases.
The damning judgment by Judge John Murphy was handed down after civil society organisation Freedom Under Law made an application to the Pretoria High Court asking it to overturn the decision by specialised commercial crimes unit head Lawrence Mrwebi to drop the charges against Mdluli.
In his judgment, Murphy ordered the immediate reinstatement of corruption and murder charges against Mdluli.
"We just want the higher courts to give guidance because this is a first judgment of its kind," says Nxasana emphatically.
"If I want to reinstate the charges against Mdluli, I can. Nobody should view the decision as a delaying tactic. I owe nothing to Mdluli and I haven't even met him. I owe the NPA and the people of South Africa, and no one else.
"I am hoping that Judge Murphy will grant us leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Appeal."
Spy tapes
Nxasana says he is yet to meet Zuma himself and also insists that his cannot be considered a political appointment.
When asked whether he would take up the case of former acting NPA head Nomgcobo Jiba, who came under fire for apparently refusing to hand over the controversial "spy tapes" that let Zuma off the hook, Nxasana says he is not yet aware of what is on the tapes.
"If I feel that there is prima facie evidence that will ultimately warrant prosecution I can tell you my duty, my responsibility, will be mandated by the Constitution, regardless of who appointed me," he says.
"Without putting a name to any person, if a crime is committed and there is admissable and credible evidence, my team will come to a conclusion. It doesn't matter what position a person holds. Even if it is President Zuma, or whoever it is."
Mention his former mentor and close friend, the late attorney Mvuseni Ngubane, and Nxasana's face immediately lights up.
"Whenever I think about him I know he was going to be first person to be proud of my appointment," he says. "I was his candidate attorney, his product. We went on to become very good friends. He had faith in me. So I did look up to him."
Unclear
Nxasana's reflections on Ngubane are tinged with sadness.
"Mvuseni was my mentor. I wish he were around. He would be able to say: 'You are what you are because of me.'
"As an officer of the court he was a very principled man, who held the value and ethos of the profession in very high esteem. He wouldn't do anything to compromise his profession, and he instilled this in me."
Ngubane was found dead in the back of his Mercedes-Benz in his garage in Durban in 2012, in what was described as a suspected suicide.
The attorney had been appointed to the key position of secretary of the Arms Procurement Commission and would have controlled all the evidence gathered by the inquiry, which is now under way.
To this day, it is unclear why he decided to take his life, says Nxasana.
Regularly detained
"It was suicide. I was glad that I was among the first persons to arrive at the scene and to witness what had happened myself and to see where he was sitting with the firearm. It was just next to him," says Nxasana, who wants to dispel any rumours that his friend's death might not have been a suicide.
"This was captured on the CCTV monitor, which was viewed, and there was absolutely no foul play."
After his appointment Nxasana relinquished his post as chairperson of the Durban branch of the Black Lawyers' Association, a position Ngubane had held until his death.
Nxasana, who is little known outside of KwaZulu-Natal, says he owes his fighting spirit to many people, including his father, Bhakisisa Harold Nxasana, who was a trade unionist in the clothing industry.
The older Nxasana, he says, was regularly detained by police at the family's home in Umlazi. On his release the house would be filled with inspiring visitors like anti-apartheid lawyer Mlungisi Griffiths Mxenge and political activist Rick Turner, both of whom were later assassinated, allegedly by apartheid security forces.
His mother, Toti Clotilda Nxasana, a teacher, mostly raised the family single-handedly, sometimes with financial help from his father's prominent friends.
The Richard Mdluli saga
In early 2011 the police's suspended crime intelligence head, Richard Mdluli, was arrested and charged with various crimes, including murder, intimidation, attempted murder, kidnapping, assault with intent to do grievous bodily harm and defeating the ends of justice.
Later the same year he was arrested again and charged with further counts of fraud, corruption, theft and money laundering. This was after he was sensationally accused of looting the police secret service account for his personal benefit.
The charges against him were withdrawn, but the Pretoria High Court ruled recently that the National Prosecuting Authority (NPA) should reinstate the charges. The NPA has launched an urgent application for leave to appeal that judgment.
Last month the police's specialist unit, the Hawks, laid a criminal charge against the NPA's specialised commercial crimes unit head, Lawrence Mrwebi, for defeating the ends of justice by dropping the corruption charges against Mdluli. – Glynnis Underhill
Source: Mail & Guardian
Thursday, October 17, 2013
Marikana funding case hints at larger problems with gaining access to justice
Most South Africans do not have effective access to justice. Without adequate legal representation, which few people can afford, not many litigants or criminal defendants will truly savour the sweet taste of justice. While banks, other large corporations, the very wealthy and organs of state will have the funds to employ an army of lawyers to exploit every legal loophole and to pursue every legal argument to win their case, most ordinary persons of moderate means will not. Unless the legal system is substantially reformed or the state pumps billions of rands into the Legal Aid system, this will not change – despite the quixotic court victory of the survivors of the Marikana massacre to legal representation at state expense.
The Marikana massacre, in which the South African Police Service (SAPS) killed 34 striking mine workers, may well turn out to have been a watershed moment in South African politics. From where I sit, it looks suspiciously as if the ruling elite (ab)used its control of the SAPS (or its political access to those who control the SAPS) to teach miners taking part in a violent and unprotected strike a “lesson”, because these striking miners threatened its financial and class interests. As a result, 34 striking and protesting miners were killed by the SAPS and more than 78 people were injured.
The Farlam Commission of Inquiry into the massacre, and the events that led up to it, may not come to the same conclusion. Commissions of Inquiry – even Commissions that do a good job – are usually better at determining the small truths than at uncovering the larger political truths of a tragic event like this. It is also not yet clear to what extent the alleged SAPS cover-up of the event and the possible protection of political principals and mine company executives will succeed.
This does not mean that the work done by the Farlam Commission is not important. Like the Truth and Reconciliation Commission it might uncover at least part of the truth, creating a factual matrix within which, over time, we will come to understand the political significance of the events on 16 August 2012. For that reason it is essential that the Commission must be seen to be acting fairly: if its findings are not trusted by everyone, it will be difficult to rely on these findings as a springboard for more searching analysis of the political import of the Marikana massacre.
The Commission’s legitimacy was threatened by the withdrawal of the legal teams representing the families of the killed miners as well as of the injured and arrested miners because of a dispute about the funding of the lawyers of the injured and arrested miners (led by Adv. Dali Mpofu). It therefore came as a great relief when the North Gauteng High Court (in a legally daring judgment by Makgoka J) in the case of Magidiwana and Another v President of the Republic of South Africa and Others ordered Legal Aid SA to fund Adv. Mpofu and his team.
I am delighted that Legal Aid SA has now agreed to fund Adv. Mpofu’s team. However, Legal Aid SA may still appeal the judgment because of the potentially far-reaching consequences the judgment poses to the continued financial viability of Legal Aid SA and it will not at all be surprising if such an appeal succeeds.
The bulk of the judgment focuses on the right of surviving miners to be represented by legal representatives and does an admirable job of showing why section 34 of the Constitution – which states that everyone has the right to have any dispute that can be resolved by the application of law decided in a fair public hearing – entitles miners to such legal representation.
What the judgment fails to do convincingly, in my opinion, is to show that this right must translate into a right to have those lawyers funded at state expense through Legal Aid SA.
As Legal Aid SA eventually conceded, its CEO does have the general discretion to fund the lawyers of interested parties who appear before a Commission of Inquiry. In fact, Legal Aid SA funded the lawyers of families of the deceased miners in accordance with this general discretion. The question is whether its decision to fund the lawyers representing the families of deceased miners (but not the injured and arrested miners) could be declared unconstitutional on the basis that it was irrational to fund the former but not the latter.
The court found that the injured and arrested miners did have a right to state funded legal representation in general, given their substantial and direct interest in the outcome of the commission; their vulnerability and financial position; the complexity of the proceedings and the capacity of the applicants to represent themselves; the procedures adopted by the commission; the need for an “equality of arms” between the parties; and the potential consequences of the findings and recommendations of the commission for the injured and arrested miners.
In a wonderful passage that could easily apply to the vast majority of litigants and accused persons of modest means who need legal representation in South Africa, the court stated:
Moreover, the court pointed out that the SAPS legal team is said to comprise five advocates (three senior counsel and two senior-junior counsel). In addition, the SAPS also use the services of a private firm of attorneys in Rustenburg, instead of State Attorney. Furthermore, the Minister of Police, whose interests should ordinarily coincide with those of SAPS, for some reason maintains a separate legal team on a so-called “watching brief” at the Commission (a fact that raises its own set of questions about the possible political involvement in the events of 16 August 2012).
According to the court, the State parties’ legal representation costs approximately R2 million to R3 million per month.
The judgment therefore concludes that considerations of fairness and the need for “equality of arms” between the parties require the state to fund the legal representatives of the miners. The interests of justice and the rule of law would be undermined by a failure to fund their lawyers.
It would be difficult to argue with the court that it would be fundamentally unfair for one party to be represented by lawyers to the cost of up to R3 million a month while another party with a direct interest in the outcome of the Commission have no legal representation at all. After all, those involved in the killing and injuring of the miners are represented by an army of lawyers, ever alert to protect the interest of their clients, who would obviously like to pin the blame for the massacre on the miners themselves in order to absolve the SAPS and its political principal from any blame. It seems extremely unfair that the one side is so well protected while one of the other parties is not.
However, apart from the profound political importance of the case, this situation is not fundamentally different from that faced daily by many litigants or potential litigants who wish to go to court to enforce their legal rights or to challenge the abuse of power or the flouting of the law by big banks, other large corporations, wealthy individuals or the state. Legal Aid SA very seldom provides funding for such litigants due to an acute shortage of Legal Aid funds. It is mandated by its rules and by the Constitution to fund lawyers for indigent criminal defendants “if substantial injustice would otherwise result”, but the Constitution does not explicitly impose a duty on the state (and hence Legal Aid SA) to fund civil matters (nor matters relating to Commissions of Inquiry).
Because of a lack of funds to pay good lawyers capable of taking on the “big boys” (and the difficulty of securing the services of such lawyers, given the financial interests many lawyers have in representing the “big boys” instead), ordinary people – both poor people and middle class people – often face insurmountable hurdles in securing justice in court.
There are no quick fix solutions to secure better access to justice for most South Africans. It would help if the state pumped additional billions of rands into the legal aid system – but that is not going to happen. Funds are needed for other “important” state matters – like upgrading the private residence of the president.
Establishing a system in which recent law graduates do one year of community service – similar to medical graduates – to assist indigent litigants may also help to secure better access to justice, but that would require a gargantuan administrative effort from the Department of Justice. The Department currently probably does not have the financial and human resources to pull this off successfully.
Simplifying legal rules and moving away from the absurdly rigid application of these rules by some courts, will also help. Many procedural rules unnecessary complicate litigation and increase costs – often to the advantage of those litigants with the deepest pockets and hence the best lawyers. It goes without saying that litigants without lawyers are often unfairly disadvantaged by these rules or are precluded from benefiting from access to the legal system at all because of their lack of knowledge of the rules.
But because of the formalistic legal culture – often inculcated and perpetuated by untransformed legal training provided at Law Schools – and because lawyers often benefit financially from the complicated and formalistic legal rules, there seems to be little appetite among elites in the legal profession to champion the streamlining and simplification of procedural rules.
It is judged against this background that the ultimate decision of the court in the Marikana case gets to look a bit shaky. This is so, not because it would have been fair to deny the injured and arrested miners legal representation at state expense, but because it is not clear that the decision of Legal Aid SA not to fund the lawyers can be said to have been irrational, given its many other commitments and the almost infinite demands on its limited funds.
Legal Aid SA provided three reasons for funding the legal team representing the families of the killed miners but not the legal team of the injured and arrested miners. First it claimed that the former group had a “substantial, proximate, and material interest in the outcome of the commission” to a degree that the latter did not. Second, it claimed that the latter group’s interests would be adequately protected by labour unions, NUM and AMCU. Third, it claimed that due to budgetary constraints it could not fund both parties.
The court (seemingly confusing or conflating the requirements for legality contained in section 1 of the Constitution and the test for a breach of section 9(1) of the Constitution) affirmed, correctly, that the exercise of public power by the executive and other functionaries should not be irrational. The court, more controversially, concluded that the refusal by Legal Aid SA to provide legal aid to the injured and arrested miners was not rationally related to the purpose of the Legal Aid Act, (as far as I can tell) because it found that this was not done to pursue a legitimate purpose.
The court did not really explain why this was the case. If the purpose of the decision was to manage Legal Aid SA’s funds properly, it is unclear why it would be irrational for Legal Aid SA to fund the one group but not the other. There is also clearly a difference in the position between the two groups: the loved ones of one group were killed, while the members of the other group are still alive.
Rationality review does not allow the court to set aside a decision of a public body because that body acted unwisely or because another decision would have resulted in a fairer outcome. It only allows the court to interfere if it can be shown that there was no rational reason for its decision: in other words, when the decision is arbitrary or capricious. In this case one can argue about the wisdom of the Legal Aid SA decision, but I am not sure one can say with confidence that it was irrational. To hold otherwise would have potentially catastrophic consequences for the financial viability of Legal Aid SA.
Despite the shaky legal argumentation, the judgment must be welcomed. Hopefully the clear injustice illustrated by the case may well spark a broader debate about the lack of access to justice and about what steps can be taken by the government and by the legal profession to provide ordinary people with a better chance to access the skills of competent lawyers.
Source: Constitutionally Speaking
The Marikana massacre, in which the South African Police Service (SAPS) killed 34 striking mine workers, may well turn out to have been a watershed moment in South African politics. From where I sit, it looks suspiciously as if the ruling elite (ab)used its control of the SAPS (or its political access to those who control the SAPS) to teach miners taking part in a violent and unprotected strike a “lesson”, because these striking miners threatened its financial and class interests. As a result, 34 striking and protesting miners were killed by the SAPS and more than 78 people were injured.
The Farlam Commission of Inquiry into the massacre, and the events that led up to it, may not come to the same conclusion. Commissions of Inquiry – even Commissions that do a good job – are usually better at determining the small truths than at uncovering the larger political truths of a tragic event like this. It is also not yet clear to what extent the alleged SAPS cover-up of the event and the possible protection of political principals and mine company executives will succeed.
This does not mean that the work done by the Farlam Commission is not important. Like the Truth and Reconciliation Commission it might uncover at least part of the truth, creating a factual matrix within which, over time, we will come to understand the political significance of the events on 16 August 2012. For that reason it is essential that the Commission must be seen to be acting fairly: if its findings are not trusted by everyone, it will be difficult to rely on these findings as a springboard for more searching analysis of the political import of the Marikana massacre.
The Commission’s legitimacy was threatened by the withdrawal of the legal teams representing the families of the killed miners as well as of the injured and arrested miners because of a dispute about the funding of the lawyers of the injured and arrested miners (led by Adv. Dali Mpofu). It therefore came as a great relief when the North Gauteng High Court (in a legally daring judgment by Makgoka J) in the case of Magidiwana and Another v President of the Republic of South Africa and Others ordered Legal Aid SA to fund Adv. Mpofu and his team.
I am delighted that Legal Aid SA has now agreed to fund Adv. Mpofu’s team. However, Legal Aid SA may still appeal the judgment because of the potentially far-reaching consequences the judgment poses to the continued financial viability of Legal Aid SA and it will not at all be surprising if such an appeal succeeds.
The bulk of the judgment focuses on the right of surviving miners to be represented by legal representatives and does an admirable job of showing why section 34 of the Constitution – which states that everyone has the right to have any dispute that can be resolved by the application of law decided in a fair public hearing – entitles miners to such legal representation.
What the judgment fails to do convincingly, in my opinion, is to show that this right must translate into a right to have those lawyers funded at state expense through Legal Aid SA.
As Legal Aid SA eventually conceded, its CEO does have the general discretion to fund the lawyers of interested parties who appear before a Commission of Inquiry. In fact, Legal Aid SA funded the lawyers of families of the deceased miners in accordance with this general discretion. The question is whether its decision to fund the lawyers representing the families of deceased miners (but not the injured and arrested miners) could be declared unconstitutional on the basis that it was irrational to fund the former but not the latter.
The court found that the injured and arrested miners did have a right to state funded legal representation in general, given their substantial and direct interest in the outcome of the commission; their vulnerability and financial position; the complexity of the proceedings and the capacity of the applicants to represent themselves; the procedures adopted by the commission; the need for an “equality of arms” between the parties; and the potential consequences of the findings and recommendations of the commission for the injured and arrested miners.
In a wonderful passage that could easily apply to the vast majority of litigants and accused persons of modest means who need legal representation in South Africa, the court stated:
The fact that they [the miners] are poor should never be a basis to summarily dismiss their potential substantial prejudice. It is unthinkable and deeply offensive to basic fairness and the rule of law in a democratic state that the poor and vulnerable be left to their own devices, in a manner that will deny them exercise of their constitutional right in terms of s. 34 of the Constitution.
Moreover, the court pointed out that the SAPS legal team is said to comprise five advocates (three senior counsel and two senior-junior counsel). In addition, the SAPS also use the services of a private firm of attorneys in Rustenburg, instead of State Attorney. Furthermore, the Minister of Police, whose interests should ordinarily coincide with those of SAPS, for some reason maintains a separate legal team on a so-called “watching brief” at the Commission (a fact that raises its own set of questions about the possible political involvement in the events of 16 August 2012).
According to the court, the State parties’ legal representation costs approximately R2 million to R3 million per month.
The judgment therefore concludes that considerations of fairness and the need for “equality of arms” between the parties require the state to fund the legal representatives of the miners. The interests of justice and the rule of law would be undermined by a failure to fund their lawyers.
It would be difficult to argue with the court that it would be fundamentally unfair for one party to be represented by lawyers to the cost of up to R3 million a month while another party with a direct interest in the outcome of the Commission have no legal representation at all. After all, those involved in the killing and injuring of the miners are represented by an army of lawyers, ever alert to protect the interest of their clients, who would obviously like to pin the blame for the massacre on the miners themselves in order to absolve the SAPS and its political principal from any blame. It seems extremely unfair that the one side is so well protected while one of the other parties is not.
However, apart from the profound political importance of the case, this situation is not fundamentally different from that faced daily by many litigants or potential litigants who wish to go to court to enforce their legal rights or to challenge the abuse of power or the flouting of the law by big banks, other large corporations, wealthy individuals or the state. Legal Aid SA very seldom provides funding for such litigants due to an acute shortage of Legal Aid funds. It is mandated by its rules and by the Constitution to fund lawyers for indigent criminal defendants “if substantial injustice would otherwise result”, but the Constitution does not explicitly impose a duty on the state (and hence Legal Aid SA) to fund civil matters (nor matters relating to Commissions of Inquiry).
Because of a lack of funds to pay good lawyers capable of taking on the “big boys” (and the difficulty of securing the services of such lawyers, given the financial interests many lawyers have in representing the “big boys” instead), ordinary people – both poor people and middle class people – often face insurmountable hurdles in securing justice in court.
There are no quick fix solutions to secure better access to justice for most South Africans. It would help if the state pumped additional billions of rands into the legal aid system – but that is not going to happen. Funds are needed for other “important” state matters – like upgrading the private residence of the president.
Establishing a system in which recent law graduates do one year of community service – similar to medical graduates – to assist indigent litigants may also help to secure better access to justice, but that would require a gargantuan administrative effort from the Department of Justice. The Department currently probably does not have the financial and human resources to pull this off successfully.
Simplifying legal rules and moving away from the absurdly rigid application of these rules by some courts, will also help. Many procedural rules unnecessary complicate litigation and increase costs – often to the advantage of those litigants with the deepest pockets and hence the best lawyers. It goes without saying that litigants without lawyers are often unfairly disadvantaged by these rules or are precluded from benefiting from access to the legal system at all because of their lack of knowledge of the rules.
But because of the formalistic legal culture – often inculcated and perpetuated by untransformed legal training provided at Law Schools – and because lawyers often benefit financially from the complicated and formalistic legal rules, there seems to be little appetite among elites in the legal profession to champion the streamlining and simplification of procedural rules.
It is judged against this background that the ultimate decision of the court in the Marikana case gets to look a bit shaky. This is so, not because it would have been fair to deny the injured and arrested miners legal representation at state expense, but because it is not clear that the decision of Legal Aid SA not to fund the lawyers can be said to have been irrational, given its many other commitments and the almost infinite demands on its limited funds.
Legal Aid SA provided three reasons for funding the legal team representing the families of the killed miners but not the legal team of the injured and arrested miners. First it claimed that the former group had a “substantial, proximate, and material interest in the outcome of the commission” to a degree that the latter did not. Second, it claimed that the latter group’s interests would be adequately protected by labour unions, NUM and AMCU. Third, it claimed that due to budgetary constraints it could not fund both parties.
The court (seemingly confusing or conflating the requirements for legality contained in section 1 of the Constitution and the test for a breach of section 9(1) of the Constitution) affirmed, correctly, that the exercise of public power by the executive and other functionaries should not be irrational. The court, more controversially, concluded that the refusal by Legal Aid SA to provide legal aid to the injured and arrested miners was not rationally related to the purpose of the Legal Aid Act, (as far as I can tell) because it found that this was not done to pursue a legitimate purpose.
The court did not really explain why this was the case. If the purpose of the decision was to manage Legal Aid SA’s funds properly, it is unclear why it would be irrational for Legal Aid SA to fund the one group but not the other. There is also clearly a difference in the position between the two groups: the loved ones of one group were killed, while the members of the other group are still alive.
Rationality review does not allow the court to set aside a decision of a public body because that body acted unwisely or because another decision would have resulted in a fairer outcome. It only allows the court to interfere if it can be shown that there was no rational reason for its decision: in other words, when the decision is arbitrary or capricious. In this case one can argue about the wisdom of the Legal Aid SA decision, but I am not sure one can say with confidence that it was irrational. To hold otherwise would have potentially catastrophic consequences for the financial viability of Legal Aid SA.
Despite the shaky legal argumentation, the judgment must be welcomed. Hopefully the clear injustice illustrated by the case may well spark a broader debate about the lack of access to justice and about what steps can be taken by the government and by the legal profession to provide ordinary people with a better chance to access the skills of competent lawyers.
Source: Constitutionally Speaking
Friday, August 30, 2013
Zuma appoints new NPA head
President Jacob Zuma has appointed Mxolisi Nxasana as the new national director of public prosecutions, says the presidency.
Nxasana, from the KwaZulu-Natal division of the high court, would start his new role on October 1, spokesperson Mac Maharaj said in a statement.
"Nxasana currently practises as an attorney with a wealth of experience in criminal litigation, coupled with his having occupied senior positions in the legal profession – including the chairpersonship of the KwaZulu-Natal Law Society," said Maharaj.
The NPA has been without a permanent chief since November 2011, after Menzi Simelane's appointment was declared invalid.
Simelane's appointment as NPA boss was deemed "inconsistent with the Constitution and invalid" as Zuma did not apply his mind in the decision.
Simelane, who Zuma placed on paid leave after the decision, was appointed NPA boss in 2009 after the 2008 Ginwala inquiry severely criticised him.
The inquiry, which investigated the fitness of former NPA head Vusi Pikoli's ability to hold office, labelled Simelane's evidence before the inquiry as "contradictory and without basis in fact or in law" and blamed him for suppressing a disclosure of information. – Sapa
Source: Mail & Guardian
Nxasana, from the KwaZulu-Natal division of the high court, would start his new role on October 1, spokesperson Mac Maharaj said in a statement.
"Nxasana currently practises as an attorney with a wealth of experience in criminal litigation, coupled with his having occupied senior positions in the legal profession – including the chairpersonship of the KwaZulu-Natal Law Society," said Maharaj.
The NPA has been without a permanent chief since November 2011, after Menzi Simelane's appointment was declared invalid.
Simelane's appointment as NPA boss was deemed "inconsistent with the Constitution and invalid" as Zuma did not apply his mind in the decision.
Simelane, who Zuma placed on paid leave after the decision, was appointed NPA boss in 2009 after the 2008 Ginwala inquiry severely criticised him.
The inquiry, which investigated the fitness of former NPA head Vusi Pikoli's ability to hold office, labelled Simelane's evidence before the inquiry as "contradictory and without basis in fact or in law" and blamed him for suppressing a disclosure of information. – Sapa
Source: Mail & Guardian
Tuesday, August 20, 2013
Spying on political foes is an abuse of resources
THE latest intrigues about the abuse of intelligence services are not just tragic, they pose a serious risk to our democracy. Successive governments under both presidents Thabo Mbeki and Jacob Zuma have involved our national intelligence services in fighting battles within the African National Congress (ANC). In Mbeki’s term the issue was that of his perceived rivals — Mathews Phosa, Tokyo Sexwale and Cyril Ramaphosa — being accused of plotting against him.
Then we had Zuma, the presidential candidate, getting access to national intelligence information to discredit his corruption charges as a political plot to prevent his ascent to the Presidency.
The latest saga extends the abuse to include perceived threats to the government by citizens who are seen as critics of the governing party, or its competitors in the next election. Citizens who are seen as critics are labelled agents of foreign, western powers. The risks this abuse poses to our democracy is significant enough for us as citizens to stand up and demand a stop to it.
First, the national intelligence services should be fully engaged in assessing the real risks to the security of the state — not that of the governing party. Our borders are insecure and our natural resources are being destroyed, as evidenced by the more than 500 rhinos killed this year alone by syndicates who act with impunity. Foreigners stream into our country without any restraint because of poor border policing. There are issues of crime intelligence to stem violent crime — especially in poor communities — that should be priorities instead of political intrigues.
Second, the quality of the intelligence reports themselves speak of lack of professionalism. How does it happen that our intelligence services do not know about the nature of the National Endowment for Democracy and its office holders? How can we feel safe with such blatant lack of knowledge about international affairs?
Third, the political culture that sees no distinction between the governing party, the president, the government and the state is a threat to the pillars of our constitutional democracy of human dignity, equality and freedom. Ours is a multi-party democracy that should encourage the freedom of association, expression and the free flow of ideas. The discrediting of citizens as agents of foreign powers violates their rights and undermines their responsibilities as active citizens who should hold those in public office accountable. Criminalising political competition poses a serious risk to our democracy.
Fourth, the abuse of national intelligence also undermines our international standing as a constitutional democracy on a continent that, with a few notable exceptions, has yet to demonstrate its capacity to sustain vibrant competitive multi-party democracies. The difficulties of running competitive credible elections and transitions from one party to another on our continent arise from the unwillingness of incumbent governing parties to accept the possibility of change.
We have seen it in Kenya’s 2007-08 elections. We saw it in Zimbabwe’s successive elections culminating in this year’s elections that could not be described by Southern African Development Community election monitors as "free and fair" but "free and peaceful." "Free and fair" is apparently too high a bar to reach. We seem to settle for only being grateful that there was peace. Are we, as African citizens, content to lower the bar when it comes to our expectations of the conduct of those in political office?
South African citizens opted for a constitutional democracy because we want to aim high. We believed — and still do — that our country is capable of becoming a great society in every sense of that word. Ours was to be a place that would be known for its respect for human dignity, promotion of equality of all in the law and freedom for all. Invading the privacy of citizens to pursue party political interests goes against the very spirit of our freedom struggle and the ideals that so many of our heroes of the struggle fought and died for.
Abuse of intelligence services is a serious form of corruption and a wasteful expenditure of resources that should be building schools and homes, running efficient and effective health services and protecting citizens from crime. We as citizens need to stand firm against the erosion of our constitutional democracy and insist on holding those responsible accountable. Our society deserves better.
It is up to each one of us to stand together to defend and promote integrity in public service. It is in our hands to stop this abuse.
Source: Business Day
Then we had Zuma, the presidential candidate, getting access to national intelligence information to discredit his corruption charges as a political plot to prevent his ascent to the Presidency.
The latest saga extends the abuse to include perceived threats to the government by citizens who are seen as critics of the governing party, or its competitors in the next election. Citizens who are seen as critics are labelled agents of foreign, western powers. The risks this abuse poses to our democracy is significant enough for us as citizens to stand up and demand a stop to it.
First, the national intelligence services should be fully engaged in assessing the real risks to the security of the state — not that of the governing party. Our borders are insecure and our natural resources are being destroyed, as evidenced by the more than 500 rhinos killed this year alone by syndicates who act with impunity. Foreigners stream into our country without any restraint because of poor border policing. There are issues of crime intelligence to stem violent crime — especially in poor communities — that should be priorities instead of political intrigues.
Second, the quality of the intelligence reports themselves speak of lack of professionalism. How does it happen that our intelligence services do not know about the nature of the National Endowment for Democracy and its office holders? How can we feel safe with such blatant lack of knowledge about international affairs?
Third, the political culture that sees no distinction between the governing party, the president, the government and the state is a threat to the pillars of our constitutional democracy of human dignity, equality and freedom. Ours is a multi-party democracy that should encourage the freedom of association, expression and the free flow of ideas. The discrediting of citizens as agents of foreign powers violates their rights and undermines their responsibilities as active citizens who should hold those in public office accountable. Criminalising political competition poses a serious risk to our democracy.
Fourth, the abuse of national intelligence also undermines our international standing as a constitutional democracy on a continent that, with a few notable exceptions, has yet to demonstrate its capacity to sustain vibrant competitive multi-party democracies. The difficulties of running competitive credible elections and transitions from one party to another on our continent arise from the unwillingness of incumbent governing parties to accept the possibility of change.
We have seen it in Kenya’s 2007-08 elections. We saw it in Zimbabwe’s successive elections culminating in this year’s elections that could not be described by Southern African Development Community election monitors as "free and fair" but "free and peaceful." "Free and fair" is apparently too high a bar to reach. We seem to settle for only being grateful that there was peace. Are we, as African citizens, content to lower the bar when it comes to our expectations of the conduct of those in political office?
South African citizens opted for a constitutional democracy because we want to aim high. We believed — and still do — that our country is capable of becoming a great society in every sense of that word. Ours was to be a place that would be known for its respect for human dignity, promotion of equality of all in the law and freedom for all. Invading the privacy of citizens to pursue party political interests goes against the very spirit of our freedom struggle and the ideals that so many of our heroes of the struggle fought and died for.
Abuse of intelligence services is a serious form of corruption and a wasteful expenditure of resources that should be building schools and homes, running efficient and effective health services and protecting citizens from crime. We as citizens need to stand firm against the erosion of our constitutional democracy and insist on holding those responsible accountable. Our society deserves better.
It is up to each one of us to stand together to defend and promote integrity in public service. It is in our hands to stop this abuse.
Source: Business Day
Friday, July 5, 2013
The new myth of a rising Africa
AFRICA’S image and that of her people has often been the subject of heated debate in media circles. More often, the narrative that has shaped the image of this vast and populous continent is by others for Africans.
For long, the continent has been viewed by foreigners as a photo-opportunity to illustrate victimhood and desperation. Images of emaciated children, with pot-bellies, fending off flies from their faces and women with flat breasts due to hunger are all meant to depict the degree of helplessness that characterises the lives of the people of this continent.
The African continent in this old narrative is stark in a vicious cycle of poverty and conflict with no end in sight.
This old narrative viewed as stereotyping Africans has of late come under challenge from proponents of the new narrative who seek to give positive trends and underlying successes by Africans. Evangelists of the new narrative are usually Africans writing their own discourse for their own people.
The new narrative aims to articulate the history, vision, philosophy and aspirations of Africans, who for long, claims to have been inaccurately portrayed in the media on the global stage. By so doing, Africans define themselves as opposed to being defined by others; they shape their story contrary to having it shaped by others; and articulate their agenda to be heard on the international arena.
Proponents of the new narrative have been energised by the story of the “rising” Africa backed by Western institutions like the International Monetary Fund (IMF), which projects that growth south of the Sahara is expected to surge to 6,1 % in 2014, well ahead of the global average of 4%. As The Economist’s piece pointed out recently: “Over the past decade, six of the 10 fastest growing countries were African.” The list of some of the so-called fastest growing African economies is headed by Angola, Congo, Ethiopia, Lesotho, Malawi, Nigeria, Rwanda and Tanzania.
How far have Africans been able to articulate their narrative and how loud are their voices? To what extent is the international audience prepared to listen to this new narrative and has it changed Africa’s image? The new narrative can only hold if Africans become self-sufficient and be able to sustain themselves without depending on others for survival. Africa’s dependence on foreign aid has not helped in her quest to articulate this new narrative.
Over the past 60 years, Dambisa Moyo notes, Africa received at least US$1 trillion of development-related aid from developed countries. This figure amounts to roughly US$50 billion of international assistance being received by Africa each year. Ethiopia, which is heralded as one “rising” African state, has more than 90% of her annual budget made up of donor funding. The same also applies to Malawi whose economy is unsustainable without foreign aid yet the two countries are paraded in international media as African success stories.
Most African leaders attend to international conferences not to contribute to discussions carried out at such forums, but to beg for aid which rarely reach its recipients. Given this disturbing scenario, it therefore means the agenda pursued by most African states is dictated by foreigners (donors) since he who pays the piper calls the tune.
Africa’s voice can only be heard and listened to when she is able to stand on her own without need for support from outsiders. Since when have beggars been privileged to become choosers and to influence policy on the international arena? Dependence on foreign aid chokes Africa’s voice, thus robbing her of influence which makes her narrative weak.
The continent’s misery to an extent is self-inflicting although external forces play a part in complicating the situation. Most African governments are corrupt and the practice deprives the continent of the much-needed revenue to uplift its people’s lives.
A study by the African Development Bank (AfBD) and the Global Financial Integrity, reveals that from 1980-2009, Africa has lost US$1,2 trillion to US$1,4 trillion in illicit financial outflows, or dirty money, like corruption, tax evasion, bribes and other criminal challenges.
This figure, as Obadia Ndaba argues, is more than three times the total amount of foreign aid received in the same period. It therefore implies that Africa does not necessarily need foreign aid if she manages her resources properly. The same AfDB report says that South Africa, Africa’s largest economy, has lost US$170 billion in net resources over a period of 30 years in illicit outflows.
Nigeria, Africa’s second largest economy, is reported to have lost over US$400 billion to oil corruption alone since independence in 1960 from another report in 2012. South Africa lost US$103 million in the fiscal year 2011-2012, up from US$38,5 million in 2001-2010, according to The Real State of the Nation report by the government.
Zimbabwe’s Parliamentary Committee on Mines and Energy recently reported to parliament recently that millions of dollars in royalties paid by diamond firms in eastern Zimbabwe have disappeared.
One firm, Mbada Diamonds, which works with in partnership government, says it has paid US$293 million in taxes over four years, but Treasury is reported to have just received US$80 million in total during the 2011-2012 period, with the remainder unaccounted for.
The chairperson of the parliamentary committee, Edward Chindori-Chininga, mysteriously died in a road accident less than a week after tabling the findings of the committee in what many suspect to be elimination by those involved in the murky world of diamond dealings.
The resource drain from Africa over the past 30 years, Professor Mthuli Ncube, chief economist and vice-president of the AfDB argues, is almost equivalent to Africa’s GDP and is holding back Africa’s lift-off.
This spiral web of corruption sucks the continent’s wealth, leaving her unable to sustain the livelihood of her people, but reduces them to beggars. Once they are reduced to paupers, they are robbed of a voice and influence at home and on the international stage which in turn influences their ability to articulate their issues.
The narrative of a rising Africa might suit a clique of the African elite and Western chief executive officers, but it won’t do anything to improve the lives of ordinary Africans.
The image of an African man with a mobile phone does not in any way reflect a rising Africa at a time the continent grapples with rising unemployment, deplorable living conditions, with the majority of the population living on less than a dollar in a day.
It is a narrative peddled by the African elite and their foreign partners who benefit from the discourse at the expense of ordinary Africans.
Poor governance compound Africa’s plethora of problems. In spite of the continent’s vast economic wealth, the continent is still the poorest on the planet.
The African Progress Panel, headed by former United Nations secretary-general Kofi Annan, reveals that secret mining deals and financial transfers, corruption and weak leadership, have immensely contributed to the impoverishment of the continent. The report gave the example of the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC), which is estimated to possess in excess of US$24 trillion under its soil, but is reported to be the poorest country in the world according to the UN Human Development Index.
According to the same report, the DRC lost US$1,4 billion in secret deals as well as from five underpriced ventures involving top government officials in partnership with foreigners.
The report noted that “the figure was equivalent to double DRC’s health and education budgets combined”.
The African Progress Panel’s 2013 African Progress Report at the World Economic Forum on Africa in Cape Town recently concluded that Africa is losing more through illicit financial outflows than it receives in aid and foreign direct investment.
Foreigners collude with the African elite to drain the continent’s wealth taking advantage of weak and corrupt regimes through trade mispricing, misrepresentation of export and import values along other illicit outflows costing the continent US$38,4 billion and US$25 billion respectively between 2008 and 2010.
Foreign companies operating in Africa are also involved in this plunder of the continent’s resources. As noted by the report, “activities of these companies are characterised by extensive use of offshore registered and low tax jurisdictions”, and that “these arrangements come with weak public disclosure and extensive opportunities for tax evasion”.
The myth of Africa’s rise, peddled by the African elite and their foreign collaborators, comes from a straightforward interpretation of high growth rates and increased foreign investments in parts of the continent, without taking into consideration the continent’s dependence on the extractive industry as opposed to manufacturing.
In The Myth of Africa’s Rise, Rick Rowden highlights how Africa’s rising evangelists “don’t mention manufacturing, or its disturbing absence, in Africa”.
A recent UN report shows that manufacturing has stagnated across most of Africa and has even regressed in 23 African countries. As Patrick Smith, editor of Africa Confidential argues, “there is a lack of value added on the African side”.
Parselelo Kantai observes “what is happening on the continent is a new era of massive extraction, catalysed mostly by Chinese domestic demands”.
The continuous looting of Africa’s wealth by outsiders in collaboration with the African elite will continue for generations and as long as the trend is not stopped, Africa will remain poor.
Muchayi is a political analyst who can be contacted on wmuchayi@gmail.com
Source: Zimbabwe independent
For long, the continent has been viewed by foreigners as a photo-opportunity to illustrate victimhood and desperation. Images of emaciated children, with pot-bellies, fending off flies from their faces and women with flat breasts due to hunger are all meant to depict the degree of helplessness that characterises the lives of the people of this continent.
The African continent in this old narrative is stark in a vicious cycle of poverty and conflict with no end in sight.
This old narrative viewed as stereotyping Africans has of late come under challenge from proponents of the new narrative who seek to give positive trends and underlying successes by Africans. Evangelists of the new narrative are usually Africans writing their own discourse for their own people.
The new narrative aims to articulate the history, vision, philosophy and aspirations of Africans, who for long, claims to have been inaccurately portrayed in the media on the global stage. By so doing, Africans define themselves as opposed to being defined by others; they shape their story contrary to having it shaped by others; and articulate their agenda to be heard on the international arena.
Proponents of the new narrative have been energised by the story of the “rising” Africa backed by Western institutions like the International Monetary Fund (IMF), which projects that growth south of the Sahara is expected to surge to 6,1 % in 2014, well ahead of the global average of 4%. As The Economist’s piece pointed out recently: “Over the past decade, six of the 10 fastest growing countries were African.” The list of some of the so-called fastest growing African economies is headed by Angola, Congo, Ethiopia, Lesotho, Malawi, Nigeria, Rwanda and Tanzania.
How far have Africans been able to articulate their narrative and how loud are their voices? To what extent is the international audience prepared to listen to this new narrative and has it changed Africa’s image? The new narrative can only hold if Africans become self-sufficient and be able to sustain themselves without depending on others for survival. Africa’s dependence on foreign aid has not helped in her quest to articulate this new narrative.
Over the past 60 years, Dambisa Moyo notes, Africa received at least US$1 trillion of development-related aid from developed countries. This figure amounts to roughly US$50 billion of international assistance being received by Africa each year. Ethiopia, which is heralded as one “rising” African state, has more than 90% of her annual budget made up of donor funding. The same also applies to Malawi whose economy is unsustainable without foreign aid yet the two countries are paraded in international media as African success stories.
Most African leaders attend to international conferences not to contribute to discussions carried out at such forums, but to beg for aid which rarely reach its recipients. Given this disturbing scenario, it therefore means the agenda pursued by most African states is dictated by foreigners (donors) since he who pays the piper calls the tune.
Africa’s voice can only be heard and listened to when she is able to stand on her own without need for support from outsiders. Since when have beggars been privileged to become choosers and to influence policy on the international arena? Dependence on foreign aid chokes Africa’s voice, thus robbing her of influence which makes her narrative weak.
The continent’s misery to an extent is self-inflicting although external forces play a part in complicating the situation. Most African governments are corrupt and the practice deprives the continent of the much-needed revenue to uplift its people’s lives.
A study by the African Development Bank (AfBD) and the Global Financial Integrity, reveals that from 1980-2009, Africa has lost US$1,2 trillion to US$1,4 trillion in illicit financial outflows, or dirty money, like corruption, tax evasion, bribes and other criminal challenges.
This figure, as Obadia Ndaba argues, is more than three times the total amount of foreign aid received in the same period. It therefore implies that Africa does not necessarily need foreign aid if she manages her resources properly. The same AfDB report says that South Africa, Africa’s largest economy, has lost US$170 billion in net resources over a period of 30 years in illicit outflows.
Nigeria, Africa’s second largest economy, is reported to have lost over US$400 billion to oil corruption alone since independence in 1960 from another report in 2012. South Africa lost US$103 million in the fiscal year 2011-2012, up from US$38,5 million in 2001-2010, according to The Real State of the Nation report by the government.
Zimbabwe’s Parliamentary Committee on Mines and Energy recently reported to parliament recently that millions of dollars in royalties paid by diamond firms in eastern Zimbabwe have disappeared.
One firm, Mbada Diamonds, which works with in partnership government, says it has paid US$293 million in taxes over four years, but Treasury is reported to have just received US$80 million in total during the 2011-2012 period, with the remainder unaccounted for.
The chairperson of the parliamentary committee, Edward Chindori-Chininga, mysteriously died in a road accident less than a week after tabling the findings of the committee in what many suspect to be elimination by those involved in the murky world of diamond dealings.
The resource drain from Africa over the past 30 years, Professor Mthuli Ncube, chief economist and vice-president of the AfDB argues, is almost equivalent to Africa’s GDP and is holding back Africa’s lift-off.
This spiral web of corruption sucks the continent’s wealth, leaving her unable to sustain the livelihood of her people, but reduces them to beggars. Once they are reduced to paupers, they are robbed of a voice and influence at home and on the international stage which in turn influences their ability to articulate their issues.
The narrative of a rising Africa might suit a clique of the African elite and Western chief executive officers, but it won’t do anything to improve the lives of ordinary Africans.
The image of an African man with a mobile phone does not in any way reflect a rising Africa at a time the continent grapples with rising unemployment, deplorable living conditions, with the majority of the population living on less than a dollar in a day.
It is a narrative peddled by the African elite and their foreign partners who benefit from the discourse at the expense of ordinary Africans.
Poor governance compound Africa’s plethora of problems. In spite of the continent’s vast economic wealth, the continent is still the poorest on the planet.
The African Progress Panel, headed by former United Nations secretary-general Kofi Annan, reveals that secret mining deals and financial transfers, corruption and weak leadership, have immensely contributed to the impoverishment of the continent. The report gave the example of the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC), which is estimated to possess in excess of US$24 trillion under its soil, but is reported to be the poorest country in the world according to the UN Human Development Index.
According to the same report, the DRC lost US$1,4 billion in secret deals as well as from five underpriced ventures involving top government officials in partnership with foreigners.
The report noted that “the figure was equivalent to double DRC’s health and education budgets combined”.
The African Progress Panel’s 2013 African Progress Report at the World Economic Forum on Africa in Cape Town recently concluded that Africa is losing more through illicit financial outflows than it receives in aid and foreign direct investment.
Foreigners collude with the African elite to drain the continent’s wealth taking advantage of weak and corrupt regimes through trade mispricing, misrepresentation of export and import values along other illicit outflows costing the continent US$38,4 billion and US$25 billion respectively between 2008 and 2010.
Foreign companies operating in Africa are also involved in this plunder of the continent’s resources. As noted by the report, “activities of these companies are characterised by extensive use of offshore registered and low tax jurisdictions”, and that “these arrangements come with weak public disclosure and extensive opportunities for tax evasion”.
The myth of Africa’s rise, peddled by the African elite and their foreign collaborators, comes from a straightforward interpretation of high growth rates and increased foreign investments in parts of the continent, without taking into consideration the continent’s dependence on the extractive industry as opposed to manufacturing.
In The Myth of Africa’s Rise, Rick Rowden highlights how Africa’s rising evangelists “don’t mention manufacturing, or its disturbing absence, in Africa”.
A recent UN report shows that manufacturing has stagnated across most of Africa and has even regressed in 23 African countries. As Patrick Smith, editor of Africa Confidential argues, “there is a lack of value added on the African side”.
Parselelo Kantai observes “what is happening on the continent is a new era of massive extraction, catalysed mostly by Chinese domestic demands”.
The continuous looting of Africa’s wealth by outsiders in collaboration with the African elite will continue for generations and as long as the trend is not stopped, Africa will remain poor.
Muchayi is a political analyst who can be contacted on wmuchayi@gmail.com
Source: Zimbabwe independent
Saturday, June 22, 2013
Agang launch: Nkandla, Guptas, Arms Deal - Ramphele criticises government
"The leaders of this current government set an appalling example that others follow ... They seem to think they are beyond the reach of the law," Agang SA leader Mamphela Ramphele said on Saturday at the Tshwane Events Centre.
"One by one they have systematically attacked the very foundations of our constitutional democracy, the judicial system, the freedom of the press, accountability of government and the human rights of all citizens."
She said the arrogance of the current government was "breathtaking". It was acting with impunity and abusing "the resources of the state for the enrichment of a party, themselves and their friends".
"The arms deal, Nkandla, the Guptas, the list of these abuses goes on and on," she said to a cheering crowd.
The former activist and businessperson was welcomed by cheers from the crowd who arrived to support her new party.
More than a thousand people, mostly dressed in white T-shirts with Agang SA printed on them, listened intently and cheered as Ramphele spoke about problems facing South Africa.
For the past five months Ramphele visited communities around the country listening to people's concerns.
"We are here to begin the restoration of the promise of our great nation and to offer the hope of a better future for South Africa," she told the crowd.
"There is a desperate need for change."
Leaders failed to deliver
After nearly 20 years, the country's leaders failed to deliver on the promise of freedom, she said. Adding that it was too long to wait for jobs, education and healthcare.
Ramphele said the country had reached a crossroads.
"I for one do not want to think about where we will be in five years time unless we change course. Imagine five more years of corruption," she said as the crowd shouted "no".
"Imagine five more years of young people being lost from the education system and the economy. Five more years of millions of people entering the workforce but not having jobs. Five more years of non-functioning hospitals and clinics."
However, the country had potential and it was this, according to Ramphele, which inspired her at the age of 65 to enter South African politics and start Agang SA.
During Ramphele's speech the mostly youthful crowd, started shouting "enough is enough".
She introduced her campaign team calling them world-class.
Nkosinathi Solomon, who joined Agang from Absa, was the campaign director.
Also on the team were Dr Mills Soko, director of policy, from the University of Cape Town's graduate school of business, Thabo Leshilo, a former Sowetan editor as director of communications, Zohra Dawood as director of fundraising and Rorisang Tshabalala as deputy director of field management.
Elective conference
Ramphele also announced that Vanessa Hani, former South African Communist Party leader Chris Hani's daughter, would join her team to focus on mobilising women as part of the field management team.
Moeketsi Mosola joined as political director and would lead the creation of the party's political leadership.
Ramphele said Agang would hold an elective conference towards the end of the year.
"There are many experienced parliamentarians and battle hardened activists who will join our national and provincial leadership in the coming months," she said.
"We will strike a balance between old hands and many new faces." – Sapa
Source: Mail & Guardian
"One by one they have systematically attacked the very foundations of our constitutional democracy, the judicial system, the freedom of the press, accountability of government and the human rights of all citizens."
She said the arrogance of the current government was "breathtaking". It was acting with impunity and abusing "the resources of the state for the enrichment of a party, themselves and their friends".
"The arms deal, Nkandla, the Guptas, the list of these abuses goes on and on," she said to a cheering crowd.
The former activist and businessperson was welcomed by cheers from the crowd who arrived to support her new party.
More than a thousand people, mostly dressed in white T-shirts with Agang SA printed on them, listened intently and cheered as Ramphele spoke about problems facing South Africa.
For the past five months Ramphele visited communities around the country listening to people's concerns.
"We are here to begin the restoration of the promise of our great nation and to offer the hope of a better future for South Africa," she told the crowd.
"There is a desperate need for change."
Leaders failed to deliver
After nearly 20 years, the country's leaders failed to deliver on the promise of freedom, she said. Adding that it was too long to wait for jobs, education and healthcare.
Ramphele said the country had reached a crossroads.
"I for one do not want to think about where we will be in five years time unless we change course. Imagine five more years of corruption," she said as the crowd shouted "no".
"Imagine five more years of young people being lost from the education system and the economy. Five more years of millions of people entering the workforce but not having jobs. Five more years of non-functioning hospitals and clinics."
However, the country had potential and it was this, according to Ramphele, which inspired her at the age of 65 to enter South African politics and start Agang SA.
During Ramphele's speech the mostly youthful crowd, started shouting "enough is enough".
She introduced her campaign team calling them world-class.
Nkosinathi Solomon, who joined Agang from Absa, was the campaign director.
Also on the team were Dr Mills Soko, director of policy, from the University of Cape Town's graduate school of business, Thabo Leshilo, a former Sowetan editor as director of communications, Zohra Dawood as director of fundraising and Rorisang Tshabalala as deputy director of field management.
Elective conference
Ramphele also announced that Vanessa Hani, former South African Communist Party leader Chris Hani's daughter, would join her team to focus on mobilising women as part of the field management team.
Moeketsi Mosola joined as political director and would lead the creation of the party's political leadership.
Ramphele said Agang would hold an elective conference towards the end of the year.
"There are many experienced parliamentarians and battle hardened activists who will join our national and provincial leadership in the coming months," she said.
"We will strike a balance between old hands and many new faces." – Sapa
Source: Mail & Guardian
Sunday, May 5, 2013
McBride 'heavily indebted' and must find a job
Former Ekurhuleni metro police chief Robert McBride is "heavily indebted" and needs to start looking for a job, according to a report.
"I owe lots of people money," McBride told City Press. "I had to sell lots of my things. Fortunately some of my family, friends and comrades assisted me."
McBride spent R1.7-million on legal fees.
On Friday, the state lost its bid to appeal against McBride's acquittal on charges of drunken driving and attempting to obstruct justice.
The high court in Pretoria ruled on Friday the state had not raised any question of law that the Supreme Court of Appeal should consider.
McBride was arrested in 2006 after crashing his official car on the R511 near Hartbeespoort Dam following a Christmas party.
Pretoria regional magistrate Peet Johnson in September 2011 sentenced him to five years' imprisonment, but he appealed to the high court in Pretoria. Judges Cynthia Pretorius and Lettie Malopa-Setshosa acquitted him in March this year, on the grounds the state had not proved its case beyond a reasonable doubt, despite McBride's "strange" behaviour. They set aside McBride's five-year prison sentence.
The state applied for leave to appeal against the ruling on various technical grounds. City Press reported McBride felt vindicated, but angry. "It's good to win, especially when you know it's a personal issue against you and not a matter of law," he was quoted as saying.
"But despite the judges' findings of police manipulation and evidence fabrication, there seems to be a lack of interest in the real issue behind the whole saga – the involvement of the South African Police Service in violent crime." – Sapa
Source: Mail & Guardian
"I owe lots of people money," McBride told City Press. "I had to sell lots of my things. Fortunately some of my family, friends and comrades assisted me."
McBride spent R1.7-million on legal fees.
On Friday, the state lost its bid to appeal against McBride's acquittal on charges of drunken driving and attempting to obstruct justice.
The high court in Pretoria ruled on Friday the state had not raised any question of law that the Supreme Court of Appeal should consider.
McBride was arrested in 2006 after crashing his official car on the R511 near Hartbeespoort Dam following a Christmas party.
Pretoria regional magistrate Peet Johnson in September 2011 sentenced him to five years' imprisonment, but he appealed to the high court in Pretoria. Judges Cynthia Pretorius and Lettie Malopa-Setshosa acquitted him in March this year, on the grounds the state had not proved its case beyond a reasonable doubt, despite McBride's "strange" behaviour. They set aside McBride's five-year prison sentence.
The state applied for leave to appeal against the ruling on various technical grounds. City Press reported McBride felt vindicated, but angry. "It's good to win, especially when you know it's a personal issue against you and not a matter of law," he was quoted as saying.
"But despite the judges' findings of police manipulation and evidence fabrication, there seems to be a lack of interest in the real issue behind the whole saga – the involvement of the South African Police Service in violent crime." – Sapa
Source: Mail & Guardian
Friday, April 26, 2013
The Secret of the Seven Sisters
On August 28, 1928, in the Scottish highlands, began the secret story of oil.
Three men had an appointment at Achnacarry Castle - a Dutchman, an American and an Englishman.
The Dutchman was Henry Deterding, a man nicknamed the Napoleon of Oil, having exploited a find in Sumatra. He joined forces with a rich ship owner and painted Shell salesman and together the two men founded Royal Dutch Shell.
The American was Walter C. Teagle and he represents the Standard Oil Company, founded by John D. Rockefeller at the age of 31 - the future Exxon. Oil wells, transport, refining and distribution of oil - everything is controlled by Standard oil.
The Englishman, Sir John Cadman, was the director of the Anglo-Persian oil Company, soon to become BP. On the initiative of a young Winston Churchill, the British government had taken a stake in BP and the Royal Navy switched its fuel from coal to oil. With fuel-hungry ships, planes and tanks, oil became "the blood of every battle".
The new automobile industry was developing fast, and the Ford T was selling by the million. The world was thirsty for oil, and companies were waging a merciless contest but the competition was making the market unstable.
That August night, the three men decided to stop fighting and to start sharing out the world's oil. Their vision was that production zones, transport costs, sales prices - everything would be agreed and shared. And so began a great cartel, whose purpose was to dominate the world, by controlling its oil.
Four others soon joined them, and they came to be known as the Seven Sisters - the biggest oil companies in the world.
EPISODE 1: DESERT STORMS
In the first episode, we travel across the Middle East, through both time and space.
Since that notorious meeting at Achnacarry Castle on August 28, 1928, they have never ceased to plot, to plan and to scheme.
Throughout the region's modern history, since the discovery of oil, the Seven Sisters have sought to control the balance of power.
They have supported monarchies in Iran and Saudi Arabia, opposed the creation of OPEC, profiting from the Iran-Iraq war, leading to the ultimate destruction of Saddam Hussein and Iraq.
The Seven Sisters were always present, and almost always came out on top.
EPISODE 2: THE BLACK EL DORADO
At the end of the 1960s, the Seven Sisters, the major oil companies, controlled 85 percent of the world's oil reserves. Today, they control just 10 percent.
New hunting grounds are therefore required, and the Sisters have turned their gaze towards Africa. With peak oil, wars in the Middle East, and the rise in crude prices, Africa is the oil companies' new battleground.
But the real story, the secret story of oil, begins far from Africa.
In their bid to dominate Africa, the Sisters installed a king in Libya, a dictator in Gabon, fought the nationalisation of oil resources in Algeria, and through corruption, war and assassinations, brought Nigeria to its knees.
Oil may be flowing into the holds of huge tankers, but in Lagos, petrol shortages are chronic.
The country's four refineries are obsolete and the continent's main oil exporter is forced to import refined petrol - a paradox that reaps fortunes for a handful of oil companies.
Encouraged by the companies, corruption has become a system of government - some $50bn are estimated to have 'disappeared' out of the $350bn received since independence.
But new players have now joined the great oil game.
China, with its growing appetite for energy, has found new friends in Sudan, and the Chinese builders have moved in. Sudan's President Omar al-Bashir is proud of his co-operation with China - a dam on the Nile, roads, and stadiums.
In order to export 500,000 barrels of oil a day from the oil fields in the South - China financed and built the Heglig pipeline connected to Port Sudan - now South Sudan's precious oil is shipped through North Sudan to Chinese ports.
In a bid to secure oil supplies out of Libya, the US, the UK and the Seven Sisters made peace with the once shunned Colonel Muammar Gaddafi, until he was killed during the Libyan uprising of 2011, but the flow of Libyan oil remains uninterrupted.
In need of funds for rebuilding, Libya is now back to pumping more than a million barrels of oil per day. And the Sisters are happy to oblige.
EPISODE 3: THE DANCING BEAR
In the Caucasus, the US and Russia are vying for control of the region. The great oil game is in full swing. Whoever controls the Caucasus and its roads, controls the transport of oil from the Caspian Sea.
Tbilisi, Erevan and Baku - the three capitals of the Caucasus. The oil from Baku in Azerbaijan is a strategic priority
for all the major companies.
From the fortunes of the Nobel family to the Russian revolution, to World War II, oil from the Caucasus and the Caspian has played a central role. Lenin fixated on conquering the Azeri capital Baku for its oil, as did Stalin and Hitler.
On his birthday in 1941, Adolf Hitler received a chocolate and cream birthday cake, representing a map. He chose the slice with Baku on it.
On June 22nd 1941, the armies of the Third Reich invaded Russia. The crucial battle of Stalingrad was the key to the road to the Caucasus and Baku’s oil, and would decide the outcome of the war.
Stalin told his troops: "Fighting for one’s oil is fighting for one’s freedom."
After World War II, President Nikita Krushchev would build the Soviet empire and its Red Army with revenues from the USSR’s new-found oil reserves.
Decades later, oil would bring that empire to its knees, when Saudi Arabia and the US would conspire to open up the oil taps, flood the markets, and bring the price of oil down to $13 per barrel. Russian oligarchs would take up the oil mantle, only to be put in their place by their president, Vladimir Putin, who knows that oil is power.
The US and Putin‘s Russia would prop up despots, and exploit regional conflicts to maintain a grip on the oil fields of the Caucusus and the Caspian.
But they would not have counted on the rise of a new, strong and hungry China, with an almost limitless appetite for oil and energy. Today, the US, Russia and China contest the control of the former USSR’s fossil fuel reserves, and the supply routes. A three-handed match, with the world as spectators, between three ferocious beasts – The American eagle, the Russian bear, and the Chinese dragon.
EPISODE 4: A TIME FOR LIES
Peak oil – the point in time at which the highest rate of oil extraction has been reached, and after which world production will start decline. Many geologists and the International Energy Agency say the world's crude oil output reached its peak in 2006.
But while there may be less oil coming out of the ground, the demand for it is definitely on the rise.
The final episode of this series explores what happens when oil becomes more and more inaccessible, while at the same time, new powers like China and India try to fulfill their growing energy needs.
And countries like Iran, while suffering international sanctions, have welcomed these new oil buyers, who put business ahead of lectures on human rights and nuclear ambitions.
At the same time, oil-producing countries have had enough with the Seven Sisters controlling their oil assets. Nationalisation of oil reserves around the world has ushered in a new generation of oil companies all vying for a slice of the oil pie.
These are the new Seven Sisters:
Saudi Arabia's Saudi Aramco, the largest and most sophisticated oil company in the world; Russia's Gazprom, a company that Russia's President Vladimir Putin wrested away from the oligarchs; The China National Petroleum Corporation (CNPC), which, along with its subsidiary, Petrochina, is the world's secnd largest company in terms of market value; The National Iranian Oil Company, which has a monopoly on exploration, extraction, transportation and exportation of crude oil in Iran – OPEC's second largest oil producer after Saudi Arabia; Venezuela's PDVSA, a company the late president Hugo Chavez dismantled and rebuilt into his country's economic engine and part of his diplomatic arsenal; Brazil's Petrobras, a leader in deep water oil production, that pumps out 2 million barrels of crude oil a day; and Malaysia's Petronas - Asia's most profitable company in 2012.
Mainly state-owned, the new Seven Sisters control a third of the world's oil and gas production, and more than a third of the world's reserves. The old Seven Sisters, by comparison, produce a tenth of the world's oil, and control only three percent of the reserves.
The balance has shifted.
Source: Al Jazeera
Three men had an appointment at Achnacarry Castle - a Dutchman, an American and an Englishman.
The Dutchman was Henry Deterding, a man nicknamed the Napoleon of Oil, having exploited a find in Sumatra. He joined forces with a rich ship owner and painted Shell salesman and together the two men founded Royal Dutch Shell.
The American was Walter C. Teagle and he represents the Standard Oil Company, founded by John D. Rockefeller at the age of 31 - the future Exxon. Oil wells, transport, refining and distribution of oil - everything is controlled by Standard oil.
The Englishman, Sir John Cadman, was the director of the Anglo-Persian oil Company, soon to become BP. On the initiative of a young Winston Churchill, the British government had taken a stake in BP and the Royal Navy switched its fuel from coal to oil. With fuel-hungry ships, planes and tanks, oil became "the blood of every battle".
The new automobile industry was developing fast, and the Ford T was selling by the million. The world was thirsty for oil, and companies were waging a merciless contest but the competition was making the market unstable.
That August night, the three men decided to stop fighting and to start sharing out the world's oil. Their vision was that production zones, transport costs, sales prices - everything would be agreed and shared. And so began a great cartel, whose purpose was to dominate the world, by controlling its oil.
Four others soon joined them, and they came to be known as the Seven Sisters - the biggest oil companies in the world.
EPISODE 1: DESERT STORMS
In the first episode, we travel across the Middle East, through both time and space.
We waged the Iran-Iraq war and I say we waged it, because one country had to be used to destroy the other.
- Xavier Houzel, an oil trader
Since that notorious meeting at Achnacarry Castle on August 28, 1928, they have never ceased to plot, to plan and to scheme.
Throughout the region's modern history, since the discovery of oil, the Seven Sisters have sought to control the balance of power.
They have supported monarchies in Iran and Saudi Arabia, opposed the creation of OPEC, profiting from the Iran-Iraq war, leading to the ultimate destruction of Saddam Hussein and Iraq.
The Seven Sisters were always present, and almost always came out on top.
EPISODE 2: THE BLACK EL DORADO
At the end of the 1960s, the Seven Sisters, the major oil companies, controlled 85 percent of the world's oil reserves. Today, they control just 10 percent.
New hunting grounds are therefore required, and the Sisters have turned their gaze towards Africa. With peak oil, wars in the Middle East, and the rise in crude prices, Africa is the oil companies' new battleground.
Everybody thought there could be oil in Sudan but nobody knew anything. It was revealed through exploration by the American company Chevron, towards the end of the 70s. And that was the beginning of the second civil war, which went on until 2002. It lasted for 19 years and cost a million and a half lives and the oil business was at the heart of it.
- Gerard Prunier, a historian
But the real story, the secret story of oil, begins far from Africa.
In their bid to dominate Africa, the Sisters installed a king in Libya, a dictator in Gabon, fought the nationalisation of oil resources in Algeria, and through corruption, war and assassinations, brought Nigeria to its knees.
Oil may be flowing into the holds of huge tankers, but in Lagos, petrol shortages are chronic.
The country's four refineries are obsolete and the continent's main oil exporter is forced to import refined petrol - a paradox that reaps fortunes for a handful of oil companies.
Encouraged by the companies, corruption has become a system of government - some $50bn are estimated to have 'disappeared' out of the $350bn received since independence.
But new players have now joined the great oil game.
China, with its growing appetite for energy, has found new friends in Sudan, and the Chinese builders have moved in. Sudan's President Omar al-Bashir is proud of his co-operation with China - a dam on the Nile, roads, and stadiums.
In order to export 500,000 barrels of oil a day from the oil fields in the South - China financed and built the Heglig pipeline connected to Port Sudan - now South Sudan's precious oil is shipped through North Sudan to Chinese ports.
In a bid to secure oil supplies out of Libya, the US, the UK and the Seven Sisters made peace with the once shunned Colonel Muammar Gaddafi, until he was killed during the Libyan uprising of 2011, but the flow of Libyan oil remains uninterrupted.
In need of funds for rebuilding, Libya is now back to pumping more than a million barrels of oil per day. And the Sisters are happy to oblige.
EPISODE 3: THE DANCING BEAR
In the Caucasus, the US and Russia are vying for control of the region. The great oil game is in full swing. Whoever controls the Caucasus and its roads, controls the transport of oil from the Caspian Sea.
Tbilisi, Erevan and Baku - the three capitals of the Caucasus. The oil from Baku in Azerbaijan is a strategic priority
for all the major companies.
From the fortunes of the Nobel family to the Russian revolution, to World War II, oil from the Caucasus and the Caspian has played a central role. Lenin fixated on conquering the Azeri capital Baku for its oil, as did Stalin and Hitler.
On his birthday in 1941, Adolf Hitler received a chocolate and cream birthday cake, representing a map. He chose the slice with Baku on it.
On June 22nd 1941, the armies of the Third Reich invaded Russia. The crucial battle of Stalingrad was the key to the road to the Caucasus and Baku’s oil, and would decide the outcome of the war.
Stalin told his troops: "Fighting for one’s oil is fighting for one’s freedom."
After World War II, President Nikita Krushchev would build the Soviet empire and its Red Army with revenues from the USSR’s new-found oil reserves.
Decades later, oil would bring that empire to its knees, when Saudi Arabia and the US would conspire to open up the oil taps, flood the markets, and bring the price of oil down to $13 per barrel. Russian oligarchs would take up the oil mantle, only to be put in their place by their president, Vladimir Putin, who knows that oil is power.
The US and Putin‘s Russia would prop up despots, and exploit regional conflicts to maintain a grip on the oil fields of the Caucusus and the Caspian.
But they would not have counted on the rise of a new, strong and hungry China, with an almost limitless appetite for oil and energy. Today, the US, Russia and China contest the control of the former USSR’s fossil fuel reserves, and the supply routes. A three-handed match, with the world as spectators, between three ferocious beasts – The American eagle, the Russian bear, and the Chinese dragon.
EPISODE 4: A TIME FOR LIES
Peak oil – the point in time at which the highest rate of oil extraction has been reached, and after which world production will start decline. Many geologists and the International Energy Agency say the world's crude oil output reached its peak in 2006.
But while there may be less oil coming out of the ground, the demand for it is definitely on the rise.
The final episode of this series explores what happens when oil becomes more and more inaccessible, while at the same time, new powers like China and India try to fulfill their growing energy needs.
And countries like Iran, while suffering international sanctions, have welcomed these new oil buyers, who put business ahead of lectures on human rights and nuclear ambitions.
At the same time, oil-producing countries have had enough with the Seven Sisters controlling their oil assets. Nationalisation of oil reserves around the world has ushered in a new generation of oil companies all vying for a slice of the oil pie.
These are the new Seven Sisters:
Saudi Arabia's Saudi Aramco, the largest and most sophisticated oil company in the world; Russia's Gazprom, a company that Russia's President Vladimir Putin wrested away from the oligarchs; The China National Petroleum Corporation (CNPC), which, along with its subsidiary, Petrochina, is the world's secnd largest company in terms of market value; The National Iranian Oil Company, which has a monopoly on exploration, extraction, transportation and exportation of crude oil in Iran – OPEC's second largest oil producer after Saudi Arabia; Venezuela's PDVSA, a company the late president Hugo Chavez dismantled and rebuilt into his country's economic engine and part of his diplomatic arsenal; Brazil's Petrobras, a leader in deep water oil production, that pumps out 2 million barrels of crude oil a day; and Malaysia's Petronas - Asia's most profitable company in 2012.
Mainly state-owned, the new Seven Sisters control a third of the world's oil and gas production, and more than a third of the world's reserves. The old Seven Sisters, by comparison, produce a tenth of the world's oil, and control only three percent of the reserves.
The balance has shifted.
Source: Al Jazeera
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)