Chaotic record-keeping in the North and South Gauteng High Courts -- the country's busiest -- seriously impede the public's access to information.
Court files go missing, apparently owing to theft in some instances and carelessness in others.
Incorrect numbering and insufficient labelling of names in some cases muddle the system.
And, in sensitive cases, files appear to have been removed from their folders and therefore withheld from members of the public and the media.
The number of cases in the country's busiest court, South Gauteng, has nearly doubled over the past three years -- from 35 000 in 2007 to about 65 000 in 2010 -- but the number of administrative staff has not kept pace.
In an interview for a position at the South Gauteng High Court in April this year, then senior counsel, now Judge Sharise Weiner, told the Judicial Services Commission that conditions at the court were "uninhabitable". She pointed to missing court files as a serious problem.
"When I acted on the last occasion, there was a roll of 90 matters in the unopposed motion court and I think there were about 20 files that had gone missing,” she reportedly told the panel.
Judge complained
A year ago, Judge Kathy Satchwell mentioned the issue of missing court files in a Business Day article describing the appalling conditions at the court, including "archives where records lie in no particular order on shelves and sometimes on the floor; a registrar's office where we are daily advised that court files containing pleadings are 'missing'".
She also complained that there was "inadequate and outdated computer technology".
A plan to digitise court files is being implemented, according to justice and constitutional department spokesperson Tlali Tlali, but it is in its infancy at both courts. The project for both courts is worth R42-million.
A scanning system has begun with the emailing of bulk documents -- but only to attorneys. A senior member of the South Gauteng High Court registrar's office told the Mail & Guardian: "Please bear with us while we try and get this scanning process to work properly."
In response to questions about the chaotic filing system and missing documents, Tlali said the workload of the South Gauteng High Court had increased substantially: "In 2007, the turnover was about 35 000 files, in 2010, the turnover was at least 58 000 files.”
A member of the South Gauteng High Court's administrative staff who has to fetch files for court cases told the M&G: "Files just go missing mysteriously. Motion court rolls are supposed to be numerical. My understanding of a numerical roll is that when it starts at one, then the next number is two, then three, and so on till the end. Not here [at this court].
'Any number'
"Here, you start at any number then end at any other number. Parties are incorrectly cited and case numbers are more often than not wrongly typed on the roll. It's usually better to totally ignore the roll and type and number your own roll. Dockets and files go missing and no one says a word."
To fulfil their watchdog role in society, researchers, nongovernmental organisations, members of the public and journalists need access to court records, such as civil and criminal documents, or title deeds, bonds and antenuptial contracts as recorded by the deeds office.
The Promotion of Access to Information Act of 2000 gives the public the right to access public information.
Public records are available to different degrees in different democracies. In the United States, court documents are online, ensuring easier access for the public.
Pacer
The Public Access to Court Electronic Records (Pacer) is an electronic public access service that allows the American public to obtain case and docket information from federal appellate, district and bankruptcy courts.
A public access fee is charged at US8c a page.
There are about one million Pacer users, including attorneys, government agencies, researchers, financial institutions, the media and the general public.
In South Africa, as the justice department plods towards an electronic access system, investigative reporters continue their uphill battle to access documents.
Amabhungane investigative reporter Heidi Swart (see sidebar) has been trying to access documents regarding the application by the public works department to cancel the Pretoria police lease with property developer Roux Shabangu for the past two months.
She visited the North Gauteng High Court on three separate occasions -- September 22, and 28 and October 18 -- and left empty-handed.
Registrar responds
Senior registrar at the North Gauteng High Court Dave Pietersen responded to her story, saying the file in question was not available to the public at that time as the matter had not yet appeared in court.
"The fact that the file was empty might have been [as a result of the fact] that one of the parties had lifted the contents of the court file for various reasons, which they are entitled to do," he said.
Locating a sensitive file is a case in futility
I arrive at the North Gauteng High Court in Pretoria just before the court archives close for the day at 1pm. About 10 people queue at the counter.
I fill in a form with case particulars: case number 52530/2011, an application by the department of public works to cancel a lease with Roux Shabangu. I reach the front after about 20 minutes. A friendly woman takes the form, disappears and returns. It isn't there. There's no file with that number.
I had tried calling the court earlier to make sure that the papers would be there. But archive staff told me that I had to come there in person if I wanted the file. They could not tell me if it was there.
I try again about a week later. This time, I'm sure that the state attorney's office has filed the papers as I phoned them to check. At the archives, about 30 people are queuing. I fill in another form. A friendly staff member comes to me in the queue and takes my form. He promptly returns with the file. I’m delighted. But then I realise it’s empty. He says he does not know where the papers are and refers me to the help desk.
It's illegal to leave the court building with court papers. But I have to go outside to reach the help desk. That's just the way the building is set up. However, the file is empty, so it should be fine.
I exit the building with the file. I am neither stopped nor searched. I enter the building again and go through all the security checks. The file remains undiscovered.
The woman at the help desk looks blankly at the empty file and asks me whether the case has appeared in court yet. "I don't know," I say.
No number
Well, in that case, she cannot help me, she says. There is no way for her to find out where these papers are. I ask her whether there is a number I can phone in future to prevent futile trips. She informs me that there is not.
I dump the empty file on a stack of other files lying unguarded on the counter at the archives.
Take three. This time, my boss, [Amabhungane managing partner] Sam Sole, has phoned Judge President Bernard Ngoepe. Ngoepe has sent an email to the senior court registrar, Dave Pietersen, to fix the problem, lest the public gain the impression that the court is sitting on information that should be available to all.
I make sure I phone Pietersen before I go to court once again. I am hoping that he will agree to keep the file at his office.
Pietersen tells me in no uncertain terms that he has seen the judge president's email but that the folder I am looking for is not a priority for him. I realise that he will not assist me.
Desperate
This does not bode well. However, I am desperate to get the file, so I head back to court, hoping to find it in the archives.
Again, I grab a form and fall into line at the archive. A man calls some of us to the back into the archive room. Amid swearing and sweating, the man scratches through rows of files. There is a rough numerical order to the files but it is not an exact science. He sends me back outside. When he resurfaces he hands me my form, along with a similar form.
"Your file is not here. Call these people. They took it last."
I look at the second form. I don't know who “Jolandi” is, but I am relieved to have a name and a number.
Then I realise that Jolandi may have returned the file by now. Which would mean it could be anywhere in the twilight zone between her office and the court archives.
Looking for the registrar's office, I get lost. I knock on an open door. The man at the desk seems annoyed. I explain. He says there are two other offices that may have the file. "Would you just come and have a look at this?" he asks, pointing at his computer screen. I fix his MS Word table.
Be persistent
Delighted, he finally makes eye contact. He advises me that I should be persistent when I go to those two offices because sometimes they just don't feel like helping.
Just then I notice that the man at the archives was mistaken. Jolandi doesn’t have my file after all. The file she requested has a different case number. I give up. There's always tomorrow. And the next day. And the next. -- Heidi Swart
Source: Mail & Guardian
Showing posts with label Lady Justice. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Lady Justice. Show all posts
Friday, November 11, 2011
Wednesday, August 31, 2011
Albright crowns city with new peace institute
Princess Margriet of the Netherlands and former US Secretary of
State Madeleine Albright were among high-profile guests attending the
ceremony for the launch of the Institute for Global Justice in The Hague
- International City of Peace and Justice.
The new Institute will become an independent knowledge centre in the field of international law, peace, security and social and economic development.
The Hague Institute for Global Justice (IGJ) aims to give concrete answers to international questions on issues where the lack of law and justice could lead to political, military, social or economic instability and inequality.
Authoritative top institute
Critics say the € 17.45 million made available by the government of the Netherlands last year for the foundation of the Institute for Global Justice could have been better invested in expanding existing institutes in the city. But Maria van der Hoeven, former Minister for Economic Affairs, said the IGJ will be an authoritative top institute in the field of peace, justice, security and development, making a vital contribution to the promotion of international justice."The foundation of the Institute is totally in line with the government’s vision for the international reinforcement of the Randstad conurbation. We must strengthen what is already strong internationally. The IGJ will promote the profile of The Hague as an international city. In economic terms, this is welcome as it will boost the city’s appeal as a business base. Furthermore, it will have an economic spin-off for the city", van der Hoeven said.
The Institute aims to synthesise the most innovative knowledge from national and international sources, by mobilising various disciplines, actors and geographic and cultural perspectives.
The Hague: base for new knowledge
Mayor Jozias van Aartsen said the IGJ will provide The Hague with an institute of global importance. "The strength of the existing institutes in The Hague relating to peace, justice, security and development will be combined and reinforced through the IGJ. The Hague will become the base for new knowledge, products and services that can provide a solution to the complex problems facing the world", said van Artsen.By assembling the best multidisciplinary knowledge and expertise that the world has to offer, The Hague Institute for Global Justice says it seeks to acquire a strong international competitive position.
Source: The Hague
Wednesday, August 17, 2011
Dikgang Moseneke: It's not about what the ANC want
On his release Moseneke, who had studied law and politics through Unisa while in prison, pursued a career in law. He practised as an advocate in the Pretoria Bar before he joined the private sector, where he held high-profile positions. For his part Zuma, who informally taught himself to read and write, became a career politician and government MEC. Both had taken part in the drafting of the new democratic constitution they would later be expected to uphold in their different capacities.
Zuma was central in delivering the violence-prone IFP to the transitional negotiation table that led to the adoption of the Constitution. While practising law, Moseneke took part in the technical drafting committee. Once the interim constitution was adopted and Moseneke had left the Bar, then-president Nelson Mandela persuaded him to leave his lucrative plum business career for the high court as a judge. Moseneke was among a few black judges expected to uproot the apartheid era jurisprudence and build a new one based on the new Constitution.
The Constitution of which the drafting had united Moseneke and Zuma, had also become a source of the necessary separation as part of the division of powers between the judiciary, executive and parliament. Enter then-president Thabo Mbeki, who appointed Zuma as his deputy and Moseneke as deputy to Chief Justice Pius Langa. This meant Zuma and Moseneke held similarly powerful positions respectively in the executive and judiciary.
Zuma later became head of the executive with the power to appoint a chief justice. When Justice Langa retired, he appointed Justice Sandile Ngcobo, who was due to retire from the court, overlooking Moseneke. Ngcobo delivered his last judgment on Thursday last week after his own court had earlier dismissed as unconstitutional Zuma's attempts to extend his term of office. Zuma was very comfortable with Ngcobo. Ngcobo had ruled favourably in cases crucial to Zuma's political life.
When the Constitutional Court found valid Scorpions search-and-seizure warrants on Zuma's lawyers, Ngcobo was the only dissenting voice. When the court found that the government was duty-bound to establish an independent anti-corruption unit, Ngcobo dissented. Now that Ngcobo has retired, the legal fraternity has been anxious about whether Zuma would appoint Moseneke, with whom he appears to disagree in his judgments and political thought.
Yesterday, Zuma nominated for the chief justice post Judge Mogoeng Mogoeng, a lay preacher, who joined the Constitutional Court in 2009. At the heart of Zuma's decision to overlook Moseneke are the remarks he made a few years ago shortly after Zuma's Polokwane victory, that he would spend his tenure in the judiciary serving the people of South Africa - "it's not about what the ANC want".
Zuma reacted angrily to the comments, as he believed, quite wrongly, they were oppositionist to the ANC. The political furore the statement caused was followed by a meeting between ANC Deputy President Kgalema Montlanthe, Moseneke and Langa, who was still in office. After the meeting, preceded by claims that judges were "counter-revolutionary", the ANC issued a statement, saying it was satisfied with Moseneke's explanation. According to Motlanthe the meeting concluded that Moseneke's statement was misunderstood as he sought merely to stress judicial independence from all political parties. Motlanthe later told a gathering in Cape Town the ANC accepted Moseneke's explanation.
Zuma's overlooking of Moseneke - which in itself is not legally wrong but politically naive - will have interesting implications. Firstly, if Zuma's problem lies in Moseneke's judicial philosophy of non-deference to the executive, then tough luck to him. Judging by his recent comments about judges who overturn legis-lation passed by Parliament, it makes sense that he liked Ngcobo's executive deference approach. But appointing Mogoeng is unlikely to change the court's philosophical posture. The present political context, in which unconstitutional laws are being proposed and corruption runs rampant, obviously has a psychological effect on the judiciary, who could feel constitutionally obliged to stop the malaise. Zuma's gripe will remain personal and petty rather than substantive. It won't swing the court's activism stance. Not now. The edifice of jurisprudence will take decades to undo.
Secondly, appointing anyone less experienced than Moseneke in Constitutional Court matters and in running of the court itself, means Moseneke remains a towering figure in that court.
Thirdly, avoiding Moseneke means despite his claims that he follows in the footsteps of Madiba, Zuma is unable to be reconciliatory. He is unable to rise above personal petty political bitterness triggered by a misunderstanding which was explained to the satisfaction of his own party.
Fourthly, it means Zuma places high premium not on who is well qualified for the top job, but on who he is politically comfortable with. This also places an unfair burden on Mogoeng because public perception would have a certain narrow political expectation of him. He will have to continue to defer to the executive. It has paid dividends, unless he works to prove a point.
Fifthly, it means Zuma has forgotten the bigger political contribution Moseneke made in the struggle against apartheid simply because Moseneke appears to be too independent for his liking.
Finally, it also means that Zuma would rather work with the Freedom Front and National Party ministers, sharing cabinet secrets with them, than trust a well-qualified freedom fighter with whom he once shared the prison for a noble cause.
Mkhabela - editor of Sowetan
Source: Sowetan
Friday, August 5, 2011
Chief justice appointment to be delayed
President Jacob Zuma said he will delay the appointment of a new chief justice as "it was a crucial decision impacting on the lives of South Africans". Zuma was addressing high-level media owners at a summit in Irene, Pretoria, on Friday morning. He explained that delaying the appointment of the new chief justice would allow him to "give greater effect to the provisions of section 174(3) of the Constitution". He would also need more time for "meaningful consultation with leaders of political parties and the Judicial Service Commission".
Chief Justice Sandile Ncgobo steps down on the August 14 when his 12-year term as a constitutional court judge expires. The presidency had previously said a new chief justice would be appointed by August 15. Zuma assured South Africans that the delay "would not adversely affect the actions of the judiciary". Zuma slammed the media for "misrepresenting" his decision to extend Ngcobo's term, which last week was found to be unconstitutional. The media made out that a "crime had been committed" and the constitution "undermined" when he enacted Section 8(a) of the Judges Remuneration Act of 2001 to extend Ngcobo's term. Zuma defended his decision by arguing that he had granted the extension in terms of an existing law that was "passed by Parliament, unanimously, 10 years ago".
Zuma finally broke the government's silence on the Public Protector's report into the controversial police leases that were found to be improper and invalid. He welcomed Public Protector Thuli Madonsela's findings and said he had written today to Max Sisulu, the Speaker of Parliament to outline his response. Madonsela's report showed the actions of Public Works Minister Gwen Mahlangu-Nkabinde and National Police Commissioner Bheki Cele amounted to maladministration when the department of public works awarded businessman Roux Shabangu leases to house the South African Police Service (SAPS) in the Sanlam-Middestad building in Pretoria and the Transnet Towers in Durban. He used the opportunity to promise South Africans that the government was taking corruption seriously and was "making steady progress in taking forward this fight". Zuma said the Special Investigations Unit was investigating problems with the awarding of government tenders to the value of R10-billion and tender conflicts of interest worth R5-billion. "The SIU was also working closely to investigate procurement irregularities in 33 police stations worth R330-million".
Zuma emphasised that the government did respect media freedom saying "media, government and society had a responsibility to strive to develop free and independent media", adding that "diversity and transformation" in the media also needed to be promoted.
Source: Mail & Guardian
Chief Justice Sandile Ncgobo steps down on the August 14 when his 12-year term as a constitutional court judge expires. The presidency had previously said a new chief justice would be appointed by August 15. Zuma assured South Africans that the delay "would not adversely affect the actions of the judiciary". Zuma slammed the media for "misrepresenting" his decision to extend Ngcobo's term, which last week was found to be unconstitutional. The media made out that a "crime had been committed" and the constitution "undermined" when he enacted Section 8(a) of the Judges Remuneration Act of 2001 to extend Ngcobo's term. Zuma defended his decision by arguing that he had granted the extension in terms of an existing law that was "passed by Parliament, unanimously, 10 years ago".
Zuma finally broke the government's silence on the Public Protector's report into the controversial police leases that were found to be improper and invalid. He welcomed Public Protector Thuli Madonsela's findings and said he had written today to Max Sisulu, the Speaker of Parliament to outline his response. Madonsela's report showed the actions of Public Works Minister Gwen Mahlangu-Nkabinde and National Police Commissioner Bheki Cele amounted to maladministration when the department of public works awarded businessman Roux Shabangu leases to house the South African Police Service (SAPS) in the Sanlam-Middestad building in Pretoria and the Transnet Towers in Durban. He used the opportunity to promise South Africans that the government was taking corruption seriously and was "making steady progress in taking forward this fight". Zuma said the Special Investigations Unit was investigating problems with the awarding of government tenders to the value of R10-billion and tender conflicts of interest worth R5-billion. "The SIU was also working closely to investigate procurement irregularities in 33 police stations worth R330-million".
Zuma emphasised that the government did respect media freedom saying "media, government and society had a responsibility to strive to develop free and independent media", adding that "diversity and transformation" in the media also needed to be promoted.
Source: Mail & Guardian
Thursday, December 16, 2010
Analysis: Zuma vs Zapiro is possibly much more than just another court case
What does the SA prez possibly stand to gain from what seems like a case he is bound to lose? But looked at through the eyes of his supporters maybe – just maybe – it’s not about this specific case at all, but about the little media legislation they are so desperate to push through.
Even by our standards, in the third quarter of 2008 South Africa was another country. Thabo Mbeki was running things, technically, and merrily ignoring requests to attend ANC national executive committee meetings because he was meeting minor Chinese dignitaries. Julius Malema was too busy living to suggest killing for anyone, and Jacob Zuma was addressed as just plain mister. The main political action of the day had been a Mail & Guardian headline in which Gwede Mantashe had labelled some Constitutional Court judges as “counter-revolutionaries”. The political slogan was about “political solutions” to legal problems. Turns out those slogans were right in the end.
The reason we bring this up, is that this was all before the Nicolson Judgment. No legal person put their neck out and predicted Zuma would win that case, but the ANC was on a roll. They were going all out for Zuma. Heck, even Zwelinzima Vavi loved him at the time. In this context Zapiro published that cartoon. At the time, it seemed the ANC was literally ganging up against the judiciary. The wagons were being circled.
It was a pretty normal Sunday though when I first saw the cartoon. It literally took my breath away. It was so good, so funny, hit the nail on the head, and yes, it was offensive. In a way, that was probably the point. At the time, it seemed as if something offensive was imminent and Zapiro had found a way to capture that. But I couldn’t resist calling the ANC and asking what they felt. Jessie Duarte was their spokeswoman at the time. I remember the conversation clearly - she had seen it, she was a little angry about it, and hell yes, she’d say something about it, on tape. As always, she gave a good soundbite, and I filed it for the next morning’s Eyewitness News bulletins. It seemed a minor story.
The next morning, it ran on the 6am bulletin, and suddenly the world went into overdrive. Callers, outrage, laughter, anger, frustration, the usual stuff of talk radio, just at a much higher level. The fact is the cartoon had summed up the emotion of the time. It wouldn’t have been so powerful otherwise. It called a spade a spade and perhaps that’s why so many people were so angry.
Now it looks as if we’re going to have a nice big national argument about this cartoon again. And there are times when I wonder if I did the right thing in phoning Duarte. I’m not saying this cartoon wouldn’t have been a big thing otherwise. I just wonder if this is really an argument for which we as a country are ready.
You may think I’m being slightly alarmist. After all, the law is clearly on Zapiro’s side. We would be very surprised if any judge in the country saw things Zuma’s way. The Human Rights Commission (which has a few people on it who know their way around the ANC’s deployment committee) have already ruled in favour of Zapiro. There’s the defence of opinion, of satire and of course, freedom of speech. There’s even the old defence of “jest”, which makes us wonder if you’re allowed to be hugely insulting to a politician, so long as it’s funny. Which would mean to call Julius Malema ugly might be illegal, but to suggest he laughed like a stuffed hyena may not.
But all of this could be missing the point. The fact is this national argument about the limits of freedom of speech is not going to be won on the iPads of the chatterati. It’s not even about what they think. It’s a battle that will be fought in Esselen Park, at Luthuli House, and crucially, at ANC branch meetings. Those meetings are not occupied by people who worry too much about the legal definition of offense. They are more likely to be angered afresh by the cartoon.
We’ve argued for some time now that the media has not presented its case well on this score. That for many people in this country it could appear that newspapers and websites and radio stations simply offend because they can, that they really are controlled by people who want to offend the democratically elected leaders of this country. Imagine how you might feel if someone drew Nelson Mandela with something as rude as that showerhead. Now imagine being a Zuma supporter and seeing that piece of brass literally four times a week.
Now your leader is suing. He’s doing what he thinks he should. But then he loses. And, in your view, that means there’s a problem with the law. And possibly with the judges as well. How can it be that someone can be so rude, so deliberately offensive to the president? Surely you should respect the president of your country? So then it’s obvious that the way to fix this is to bring in the media appeals tribunal.
You may think we’re being a little paranoid. But this case has the potential to be far more damaging than a simple little legal skirmish. It’s easy to see it being used to whip up popular sentiment against the commercial media. We should all watch it very carefully indeed. Happy 2011.
Source: Daily Maverick
Even by our standards, in the third quarter of 2008 South Africa was another country. Thabo Mbeki was running things, technically, and merrily ignoring requests to attend ANC national executive committee meetings because he was meeting minor Chinese dignitaries. Julius Malema was too busy living to suggest killing for anyone, and Jacob Zuma was addressed as just plain mister. The main political action of the day had been a Mail & Guardian headline in which Gwede Mantashe had labelled some Constitutional Court judges as “counter-revolutionaries”. The political slogan was about “political solutions” to legal problems. Turns out those slogans were right in the end.
The reason we bring this up, is that this was all before the Nicolson Judgment. No legal person put their neck out and predicted Zuma would win that case, but the ANC was on a roll. They were going all out for Zuma. Heck, even Zwelinzima Vavi loved him at the time. In this context Zapiro published that cartoon. At the time, it seemed the ANC was literally ganging up against the judiciary. The wagons were being circled.
It was a pretty normal Sunday though when I first saw the cartoon. It literally took my breath away. It was so good, so funny, hit the nail on the head, and yes, it was offensive. In a way, that was probably the point. At the time, it seemed as if something offensive was imminent and Zapiro had found a way to capture that. But I couldn’t resist calling the ANC and asking what they felt. Jessie Duarte was their spokeswoman at the time. I remember the conversation clearly - she had seen it, she was a little angry about it, and hell yes, she’d say something about it, on tape. As always, she gave a good soundbite, and I filed it for the next morning’s Eyewitness News bulletins. It seemed a minor story.
The next morning, it ran on the 6am bulletin, and suddenly the world went into overdrive. Callers, outrage, laughter, anger, frustration, the usual stuff of talk radio, just at a much higher level. The fact is the cartoon had summed up the emotion of the time. It wouldn’t have been so powerful otherwise. It called a spade a spade and perhaps that’s why so many people were so angry.
Now it looks as if we’re going to have a nice big national argument about this cartoon again. And there are times when I wonder if I did the right thing in phoning Duarte. I’m not saying this cartoon wouldn’t have been a big thing otherwise. I just wonder if this is really an argument for which we as a country are ready.
You may think I’m being slightly alarmist. After all, the law is clearly on Zapiro’s side. We would be very surprised if any judge in the country saw things Zuma’s way. The Human Rights Commission (which has a few people on it who know their way around the ANC’s deployment committee) have already ruled in favour of Zapiro. There’s the defence of opinion, of satire and of course, freedom of speech. There’s even the old defence of “jest”, which makes us wonder if you’re allowed to be hugely insulting to a politician, so long as it’s funny. Which would mean to call Julius Malema ugly might be illegal, but to suggest he laughed like a stuffed hyena may not.
But all of this could be missing the point. The fact is this national argument about the limits of freedom of speech is not going to be won on the iPads of the chatterati. It’s not even about what they think. It’s a battle that will be fought in Esselen Park, at Luthuli House, and crucially, at ANC branch meetings. Those meetings are not occupied by people who worry too much about the legal definition of offense. They are more likely to be angered afresh by the cartoon.
We’ve argued for some time now that the media has not presented its case well on this score. That for many people in this country it could appear that newspapers and websites and radio stations simply offend because they can, that they really are controlled by people who want to offend the democratically elected leaders of this country. Imagine how you might feel if someone drew Nelson Mandela with something as rude as that showerhead. Now imagine being a Zuma supporter and seeing that piece of brass literally four times a week.
Now your leader is suing. He’s doing what he thinks he should. But then he loses. And, in your view, that means there’s a problem with the law. And possibly with the judges as well. How can it be that someone can be so rude, so deliberately offensive to the president? Surely you should respect the president of your country? So then it’s obvious that the way to fix this is to bring in the media appeals tribunal.
You may think we’re being a little paranoid. But this case has the potential to be far more damaging than a simple little legal skirmish. It’s easy to see it being used to whip up popular sentiment against the commercial media. We should all watch it very carefully indeed. Happy 2011.
Source: Daily Maverick
Tuesday, December 14, 2010
Zuma sues Zapiro, Avusa for R5m
The cartoon, depicting Zuma preparing to rape Lady Justice, was published on September 7 2008. The president, who was acquitted of a rape charge in 2006, was shown loosening his trousers while African National Congress Youth League leader Julius Malema, Congress of South African Trade Unions general secretary Zwelinzima Vavi, South African Communist Party general secretary Blade Nzimande and ANC secretary general Gwede Mantashe look on, saying: "Go for it, boss."
The president said the cartoon was degrading and left him feeling humiliated. He was demanding R4-million from Avusa, Makhanya and Shapiro and a further R1-million for damaging his reputation. The presidency did not want to comment to the Times and was not immediately available when the South African Press Association sought comment on Tuesday morning. Sunday Times attorney Eric van der Berg said the lawsuit was unexpected. "We are surprised to receive this almost two years down the track. That is all we have to say at this stage."
Sunday Times editor Ray Hartley said it was "sad" that a political figure "can sue over a cartoon". Shapiro told the Times that he "fully" stood behind his cartoon and the views expressed in it. "I will not allow the president to intimidate me," he said.
In June, the South African Human Rights Commission found that the cartoon did not constitute hate speech, unfair discrimination or a violation of any human right enshrined in the Constitution. The commission dismissed a complaint by the Young Communist League and its national secretary, Buti Manamela, that Shapiro defamed Zuma or violated his right to dignity in the cartoon. The commission found that the cartoon expressed a level of "free, open, robust and even unrestrained criticism of politicians by a journalist" and had stimulated "valuable political debate". "Although the SAHRC finds the cartoon and the words used in relation thereto probably offensive and distasteful, same falls short of and does not constitute hate speech, unfair discrimination under Promotion of Equality and the Prevention of Unfair Discrimination Act or a violation of any fundamental human right contained in the Constitution," the commission's finding read.
Source: Mail & Guardian
PS: This action by President Jacob Zuma has been said to have been instituted to draw attention away from another matter. This other matter is possibly his refusal to disclose findings on whether South African constitutional judges found the Zimbabwe election to be fair and free - which may or may not demonstrate a measure of complicity by the South African President (past and present) with Robert Mugabe.
Why has it taken Jacob Zuma more that two years to bring such a claim? Here is a copy of an article (published on 9 September 2008) about the cartoon "Rape of Lady Justice"
Friday, June 25, 2010
Zapiro's Zuma rape cartoon cleared
The SA Human Rights Commission (Sahrc) has found a Zapiro cartoon depicting President Jacob Zuma about to rape "Lady Justice" did not constitute hate speech, unfair discrimination or a violation of any human right enshrined in the Constitution, the Mail&Guardian reported on Friday.
The commission dismissed a complaint on the cartoon lodged by the Young Communist League and its national secretary Buti Manamela, that cartoonist Jonathan Shapiro had defamed Zuma or violated his right to dignity in the cartoon, published in the Sunday Times in September 2008. It depicted Zuma undoing his trousers while alliance leaders hold down the woman.
They found that it expressed a level of free, open, robust and even unrestrained criticism of politicians by a journalist and had stimulated valuable political debate. "Although the SAHRC finds the cartoon and the words used in relation thereto probably offensive and distasteful, same falls short of and does not constitute hate speech, unfair discrimination under Promotion of Equality and the Prevention of Unfair Discrimination Act or a violation of any fundamental human right contained in the Constitution," the commission's finding reads.
Manamela and the league found it depicted Zuma as a rapist, was distasteful, deplorable and bordered on defamation of character. But, Zapiro believed Zuma and the others depicted in the cartoon had threatened the justice system. In a written submission to the commission, Zapiro argued he was exercising his right to freedom of expression.
He said Malema had threatened to kill for Zuma if the case relating to his corruption charges went ahead. Vavi, depicted in the cartoon, had echoed Malema's pledge and Mantashe said there would be anarchy if the case continued. Judges of the Constitutional Court were also called "counter-revolutionary".
Shapiro felt that the "very real intimidation of the judiciary and of individual judges" justified his use of the metaphor.
The commission said it was common knowledge that Zuma's allies in the tripartite alliance were calling for a political solution to Zuma's corruption charges and that Shapiro had acted with bona fide artistic creativity, in the public interest. The right to freedom of expression therefore outweighed Zuma's right to dignity.
Manamela said the league welcomed the findings, "particularly where it concedes that the cartoon was offensive and distasteful". But, they still believed he could have expressed himself in a way less offensive to Zuma and other alliance leaders.
Source: IoL
The commission dismissed a complaint on the cartoon lodged by the Young Communist League and its national secretary Buti Manamela, that cartoonist Jonathan Shapiro had defamed Zuma or violated his right to dignity in the cartoon, published in the Sunday Times in September 2008. It depicted Zuma undoing his trousers while alliance leaders hold down the woman.
They found that it expressed a level of free, open, robust and even unrestrained criticism of politicians by a journalist and had stimulated valuable political debate. "Although the SAHRC finds the cartoon and the words used in relation thereto probably offensive and distasteful, same falls short of and does not constitute hate speech, unfair discrimination under Promotion of Equality and the Prevention of Unfair Discrimination Act or a violation of any fundamental human right contained in the Constitution," the commission's finding reads.
Manamela and the league found it depicted Zuma as a rapist, was distasteful, deplorable and bordered on defamation of character. But, Zapiro believed Zuma and the others depicted in the cartoon had threatened the justice system. In a written submission to the commission, Zapiro argued he was exercising his right to freedom of expression.
He said Malema had threatened to kill for Zuma if the case relating to his corruption charges went ahead. Vavi, depicted in the cartoon, had echoed Malema's pledge and Mantashe said there would be anarchy if the case continued. Judges of the Constitutional Court were also called "counter-revolutionary".
Shapiro felt that the "very real intimidation of the judiciary and of individual judges" justified his use of the metaphor.
The commission said it was common knowledge that Zuma's allies in the tripartite alliance were calling for a political solution to Zuma's corruption charges and that Shapiro had acted with bona fide artistic creativity, in the public interest. The right to freedom of expression therefore outweighed Zuma's right to dignity.
Manamela said the league welcomed the findings, "particularly where it concedes that the cartoon was offensive and distasteful". But, they still believed he could have expressed himself in a way less offensive to Zuma and other alliance leaders.
Source: IoL
Wednesday, September 10, 2008
Zuma weighs legal action against Zapiro
Jacob Zuma's lawyer has confirmed that the ANC president is considering new legal action against cartoonist Zapiro after his controversial drawing published in a Sunday newspaper this week. The cartoon by Zapiro, whose real name is Jonathan Shapiro, featured Zuma being urged to rape a woman, representing Justice, and being egged on by four senior ANC and tripartite alliance leaders.
This morning Michael Hulley, who is representing Zuma in his corruption case, told the Cape Argus: "I have discussed it with him, but I can't say he's given me firm instructions on how to deal with it." Hulley confirmed that Zuma was still seeking recourse from the courts in a number of different matters against media institutions and individuals - although some had been resolved. "For example, after Polokwane, Mr Zuma and David Bullard met and made their peace," he said.
Zapiro confirmed this morning that previous litigation by Zuma against himself was still pending. "It started at R15-million, but after Polokwane it was changed and lessened to R2-million," he said. Zapiro said he believed Zuma was suing him for defamation and "injury to his dignity".
This was for three cartoons, all three of which Zapiro penned while Zuma was being tried for rape in early 2006 - a charge on which he was eventually acquitted. The first cartoon was the first occasion on which Zapiro featured Zuma with a shower head emerging from his glistening scalp - where it has remained in the cartoonist's work ever since.
Zapiro said the response to his most recent Zuma cartoon had been unprecedented in his personal career, with the matter being covered in international media and an interview with the BBC this morning. "I've had some pretty huge responses, but nothing has come close to this," he said.
Source: IoL
This morning Michael Hulley, who is representing Zuma in his corruption case, told the Cape Argus: "I have discussed it with him, but I can't say he's given me firm instructions on how to deal with it." Hulley confirmed that Zuma was still seeking recourse from the courts in a number of different matters against media institutions and individuals - although some had been resolved. "For example, after Polokwane, Mr Zuma and David Bullard met and made their peace," he said.
Zapiro confirmed this morning that previous litigation by Zuma against himself was still pending. "It started at R15-million, but after Polokwane it was changed and lessened to R2-million," he said. Zapiro said he believed Zuma was suing him for defamation and "injury to his dignity".
This was for three cartoons, all three of which Zapiro penned while Zuma was being tried for rape in early 2006 - a charge on which he was eventually acquitted. The first cartoon was the first occasion on which Zapiro featured Zuma with a shower head emerging from his glistening scalp - where it has remained in the cartoonist's work ever since.
Zapiro said the response to his most recent Zuma cartoon had been unprecedented in his personal career, with the matter being covered in international media and an interview with the BBC this morning. "I've had some pretty huge responses, but nothing has come close to this," he said.
Source: IoL
Monday, September 8, 2008
On Zuma, Zapiro and that cartoon….
I have always been a great fan of the cartoonist, Zapiro. He is intelligent, moral and brave – something one cannot say about too many people in South Africa. I am also not easily shocked and believe politicians generally deserve to be ridiculed and mocked. It is when people – especially politicians – start thinking they are beyond mocking and take themselves too seriously that trouble usually starts.
But when I saw his cartoon in the Sunday Times yesterday, I found myself wondering whether Zapiro had not gone too far and had perhaps not done something immoral and ethically deeply problematic.
Of course I agree with Zapiro that some of those ANC leaders who have been championing Zuma’s cause, have acted in a scandalous and despicable manner. I also agree that Zuma – through his silence – has aided and abetted some in the ANC in their very dangerous and immoral behaviour.
Perhaps one could still argue that a cartoonist may use the metaphor of rape in his cartoons to address a situation that he sees as dangerous and immoral – although I am not a woman and have never been raped, so maybe I am not the best one to judge this point. The metaphor of rape is definitely a powerful one – especially in a country like South Africa where so many woman have been and continue to be raped.
But I do wonder whether by using the metaphor of rape, Zapiro is not cheapening the horror of rape and – given our deeply patriarchal and sexist society – is not helping to desensitize us to this scourge. In a society where many men still see woman as something to be owned, I worry that this kind of cartoon might somehow send a signal to some men that rape is not such a bad thing.
In this cartoon Zapiro uses rape as a metaphor, of course, and he is using the horror that most ordinary decent people have of rape to make a very powerful point about the immorality of Zuma and his backers. But human beings are strange creatures – do we not become desensitized to a horror if we are exposed to it for long enough?
And what about the horrid sexists who might also be fans of Jacob Zuma? Is there not a danger that they will leer over this cartoon and somehow find it exciting or funny?
Lastly, the cartoon will be read in the context of Mr Zuma’s rape trial. Every single person who sees it will remember that Zuma was charged with rape and will make some connection between that charge and this cartoon.
But Zuma was acquitted in his rape trial. Although he said some very sexists and stupid things during his trial and although his supporters behaved appallingly outside the court, we have to respect the fact that he was acquitted because it shows our respect for the judiciary which, Zapiro suggests, Zuma’s supporters do not always show.
By depicting Zuma as a rapist – even in metaphoric terms – is Zapiro not disrespecting the decision by the court and planting the thought in our heads that maybe Zuma is a rapist after all? Is Zapiro in that way not undermining respect for the very judiciary he is purportedly defending by suggesting subliminally that Zuma should have been convicted?
I do not think there are easy answers to these questions. Maybe I am being prudish or overtly sensitive? I remain in two minds myself.
But perhaps we all have a duty when we engage in the public discourse to do so in a way that is not going to fan the flames of sexism, hate and violence. Maybe, just maybe, Zapiro overstepped the boundary in this case.
Source: Pierre de Vos: Constitutionally Speaking
But when I saw his cartoon in the Sunday Times yesterday, I found myself wondering whether Zapiro had not gone too far and had perhaps not done something immoral and ethically deeply problematic.
Of course I agree with Zapiro that some of those ANC leaders who have been championing Zuma’s cause, have acted in a scandalous and despicable manner. I also agree that Zuma – through his silence – has aided and abetted some in the ANC in their very dangerous and immoral behaviour.
Perhaps one could still argue that a cartoonist may use the metaphor of rape in his cartoons to address a situation that he sees as dangerous and immoral – although I am not a woman and have never been raped, so maybe I am not the best one to judge this point. The metaphor of rape is definitely a powerful one – especially in a country like South Africa where so many woman have been and continue to be raped.
But I do wonder whether by using the metaphor of rape, Zapiro is not cheapening the horror of rape and – given our deeply patriarchal and sexist society – is not helping to desensitize us to this scourge. In a society where many men still see woman as something to be owned, I worry that this kind of cartoon might somehow send a signal to some men that rape is not such a bad thing.
In this cartoon Zapiro uses rape as a metaphor, of course, and he is using the horror that most ordinary decent people have of rape to make a very powerful point about the immorality of Zuma and his backers. But human beings are strange creatures – do we not become desensitized to a horror if we are exposed to it for long enough?
And what about the horrid sexists who might also be fans of Jacob Zuma? Is there not a danger that they will leer over this cartoon and somehow find it exciting or funny?
Lastly, the cartoon will be read in the context of Mr Zuma’s rape trial. Every single person who sees it will remember that Zuma was charged with rape and will make some connection between that charge and this cartoon.
But Zuma was acquitted in his rape trial. Although he said some very sexists and stupid things during his trial and although his supporters behaved appallingly outside the court, we have to respect the fact that he was acquitted because it shows our respect for the judiciary which, Zapiro suggests, Zuma’s supporters do not always show.
By depicting Zuma as a rapist – even in metaphoric terms – is Zapiro not disrespecting the decision by the court and planting the thought in our heads that maybe Zuma is a rapist after all? Is Zapiro in that way not undermining respect for the very judiciary he is purportedly defending by suggesting subliminally that Zuma should have been convicted?
I do not think there are easy answers to these questions. Maybe I am being prudish or overtly sensitive? I remain in two minds myself.
But perhaps we all have a duty when we engage in the public discourse to do so in a way that is not going to fan the flames of sexism, hate and violence. Maybe, just maybe, Zapiro overstepped the boundary in this case.
Source: Pierre de Vos: Constitutionally Speaking
Zapiro speaks out
Cartoonist Jonathan Shapiro on Monday defended his controversial cartoon of Jacob Zuma preparing to rape justice, saying he thought "very, very carefully" before doing it. The African National Congress and its tripartite alliance partners have condemned the cartoon as disgusting, while ANC secretary general Gwede Mantashe labelled it racist.
The cartoon, published in the Sunday Times under Shapiro's pen-name Zapiro, shows a blindfolded female figure labelled "justice system", being pinned down by Zuma's political allies. The ANC president is depicted in the cartoon unzipping his pants, while Mantashe urges him: "Go for it, boss!"
Shapiro said he "absolutely" refuted the racism charge, and that his record in the struggle years spoke for itself. "There is a very, very pronounced tendency in this country towards exceptionalism, as if our politicians are more sacrosanct than politicians worldwide. That I take issue with," he said. "I really feel strongly that they have to take a hard look at what they are doing and not use the red herring of racism." He said he was not surprised that the cartoon had provoked strong reaction, as the image was "outrageous", and a "very explosive thing". He had thought "very, very carefully" about how women would view it, and before publication sent it to several women friends whose opinion he trusted. Their immediate reaction was one of shock. However they all then said that the cartoon not only showed graphically what was actually happening to the justice system and constitutional principles, but that it contained a second level of criticism on violence against women in a very patriarchal society.
Shapiro said the blindfolded figure of justice was an allegorical figure going back centuries. "The fact that Jacob Zuma has this personal history is his problem," he said.
Zuma, who is president of the ANC, was charged with raping a young woman in 2006, but was found not guilty. Earlier on Monday the ANC, its youth league and the SA Communist Party said in a joint statement that the cartoon was distasteful and "borders on defamation of character". The organisations said the Sunday Times had disguised abuse as press freedom in publishing it. "The cartoon rubbishes the collective integrity of the alliance and constitutes yet another continued violation of the rights and dignity of the ANC president," they said. The organisations said they had never attacked the judiciary, but criticised unfair treatment of Zuma in the normal public discourse of a democracy. "There can, therefore, be no justification for such unwarranted insult on our leadership by the Sunday Times."
Zapiro, they said, had been "consistent in unwarranted attacks on the movement and its leadership". "In a country where we have a serious scourge of fighting violence against women and in particular rape, we need to be very careful how we use the notion and the concept of rape loosely to demonstrate any form of perceived abuse."
Cosatu also expressed disgust at the cartoon, saying it was in extremely bad taste. In his online blog Constitutionally Speaking, University of the Western Cape constitutional law academic Prof Pierre de Vos said on Monday that though he had always been a great fan of Zapiro, he wondered whether the cartoonist had now gone too far and done something "immoral and ethically deeply problematic". He said he agreed with Zapiro that some of the leaders who had been championing Zuma's cause had acted despicably, and that Zuma, through his silence, had abetted them. However he wondered whether by using the metaphor of rape, Zapiro was not "cheapening" the horror of the act and helping to desensitise people.
De Vos also asked whether Shapiro was undermining respect for the judiciary he was purportedly defending, by suggesting subliminally that Zuma should have been convicted in the rape trial. His piece drew a flood of comments from his readers, most of them disagreeing with him. "It is time someone drew attention to the shocking behaviour of these political figureheads and their most avid supporters," wrote Thea Beckman. "We cannot allow a man who believes loyalty to be above the Constitution to take the reins of our country. Well done Zapiro."
Source: IoL
The cartoon, published in the Sunday Times under Shapiro's pen-name Zapiro, shows a blindfolded female figure labelled "justice system", being pinned down by Zuma's political allies. The ANC president is depicted in the cartoon unzipping his pants, while Mantashe urges him: "Go for it, boss!"
Shapiro said he "absolutely" refuted the racism charge, and that his record in the struggle years spoke for itself. "There is a very, very pronounced tendency in this country towards exceptionalism, as if our politicians are more sacrosanct than politicians worldwide. That I take issue with," he said. "I really feel strongly that they have to take a hard look at what they are doing and not use the red herring of racism." He said he was not surprised that the cartoon had provoked strong reaction, as the image was "outrageous", and a "very explosive thing". He had thought "very, very carefully" about how women would view it, and before publication sent it to several women friends whose opinion he trusted. Their immediate reaction was one of shock. However they all then said that the cartoon not only showed graphically what was actually happening to the justice system and constitutional principles, but that it contained a second level of criticism on violence against women in a very patriarchal society.
Shapiro said the blindfolded figure of justice was an allegorical figure going back centuries. "The fact that Jacob Zuma has this personal history is his problem," he said.
Zuma, who is president of the ANC, was charged with raping a young woman in 2006, but was found not guilty. Earlier on Monday the ANC, its youth league and the SA Communist Party said in a joint statement that the cartoon was distasteful and "borders on defamation of character". The organisations said the Sunday Times had disguised abuse as press freedom in publishing it. "The cartoon rubbishes the collective integrity of the alliance and constitutes yet another continued violation of the rights and dignity of the ANC president," they said. The organisations said they had never attacked the judiciary, but criticised unfair treatment of Zuma in the normal public discourse of a democracy. "There can, therefore, be no justification for such unwarranted insult on our leadership by the Sunday Times."
Zapiro, they said, had been "consistent in unwarranted attacks on the movement and its leadership". "In a country where we have a serious scourge of fighting violence against women and in particular rape, we need to be very careful how we use the notion and the concept of rape loosely to demonstrate any form of perceived abuse."
Cosatu also expressed disgust at the cartoon, saying it was in extremely bad taste. In his online blog Constitutionally Speaking, University of the Western Cape constitutional law academic Prof Pierre de Vos said on Monday that though he had always been a great fan of Zapiro, he wondered whether the cartoonist had now gone too far and done something "immoral and ethically deeply problematic". He said he agreed with Zapiro that some of the leaders who had been championing Zuma's cause had acted despicably, and that Zuma, through his silence, had abetted them. However he wondered whether by using the metaphor of rape, Zapiro was not "cheapening" the horror of the act and helping to desensitise people.
De Vos also asked whether Shapiro was undermining respect for the judiciary he was purportedly defending, by suggesting subliminally that Zuma should have been convicted in the rape trial. His piece drew a flood of comments from his readers, most of them disagreeing with him. "It is time someone drew attention to the shocking behaviour of these political figureheads and their most avid supporters," wrote Thea Beckman. "We cannot allow a man who believes loyalty to be above the Constitution to take the reins of our country. Well done Zapiro."
Source: IoL
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)