Speech by the DA's Shadow Minister of Justice, Glynnis Breytenbach MP during the budget vote debate on Justice, Parliament, July 15 2014:Our state institutions need to be rescued
South Africa has, if not the strongest, then one of the strongest constitutional legislative frameworks in the world. It is designed to ensure that all our citizens live in safety and security, and that everyone is equal before the law. It is these principles that should guide the criminal justice cluster in the performance of their duties, guided always by the prescripts of the Constitution and the principle of the Rule of Law.
However, this has not been done successfully or at all, and the web of terror that crime throws over South Africa is so strong and far-reaching that every South African has been constrained by it in some way. The lives of many committed and talented South Africans have been lost. Many are deeply traumatised. We have become suspicious of our fellow citizens and distrusting of the institutions that are supposed to keep us safe.
This has a negative effect on the fight against crime in general, and the fight against corruption in particular. This in turn has a disastrous effect on the economy and investment. International investors are hesitant to invest where they believe that they may have no recourse, where they have little faith in the ability of the legal framework to offer adequate protection. A knock-on effect is the high unemployment rate, and the inability to create jobs and employ particularly young people and young graduates.
The 2007 Cabinet adopted a so-called seven-point plan to review and revamp the Criminal Justice System. This, very briefly, was designed to address the most serious shortcomings of the Criminal Justice System, and was to create an effective and efficient so-called Integrated Criminal Justice System. We now find ourselves in mid-2014, and no closer to achieving even the most modest of the goals set out in that plan. Seven years of planning, budgeting and promises of implementation have left us nowhere. Billions have been spent by the Department of Justice and the Criminal Justice Cluster in pursuit of these goals, with very little or nothing to show for it.
This year, again, in his overview of the proposed budget, Minister Masutha refers to these goals, how they will be pursued and achieved and how much will be spent in the pursuit thereof. And this year, again, there can be no realistic expectation of any success in this regard.
The National Prosecuting Authority (NPA) is an important player in the Criminal Justice Cluster, and the institution upon which the achievement of these goals largely rests, is in disarray. It has been without a permanent head for long periods, and the ensuing chaos is as a direct result of this. Acting heads, who by their very nature are directionless, and unsuitable appointments have wreaked havoc on a once strong and dependable institution. This is, of course, the direct result of unabashed and undisguised political meddling in the affairs of the National Prosecuting Authority, and the Criminal Justice Cluster as a whole.
The National Prosecuting Authority is an institution that should have no dirty linen to wash, let alone to be washed in public. Yet week after week we see it lurch from one damaging scandal to the next. Its reputation is in tatters. It is constantly in the news, and never for the right reasons. The public at large has no faith in the organization to fulfill even its most basic mandate, and a budget of billions annually sees no real improvement in its daily functions. Millions are wasted on litigation for poor or no reasons.
The hapless Koki Mpshe was appointed after the inexcusable firing of Vusi Pikoli, solely to facilitate the withdrawal of the corruption and other charges against the President. The appointment of the wholly unsuitable Menzi Simelane was defended to the doors of the Constitutional Court, the equally unsuitable Nomcgobo Jiba was rushed up the corporate ladder in order to be able to replace him, and to oversee the continued stonewalling surrounding the spy tapes saga and the protection of Richard Mdluli, astonishingly even in the face of various court judgements. Under pressure from various sources, the President, having had plenty of time to apply his mind, appointed Mxolisi Nxasana, only to institute an enquiry into his fitness to hold office ten months later, and only after he called for the spy tapes and related documents and re-instituted the charges against Richard Mdluli. It takes no great amount of intelligence to glean the golden thread in this sad tale.
The only sensible thing to do now is for the President to widen the still to be announced terms of reference of the Commission to include an enquiry into the behaviour of other senior managers, notably Adv Jiba and Adv Mrwebi. Both were severely criticized in judgements in the High Court and the Supreme Court of Appeal. The top structure of the National Prosecuting Authority needs to be cleaned out so that those who remain can get on with the core business of the organization.
The Special Investigating Unit (SIU) has not fared much better than the National Prosecuting Authority. Beset by leadership issues the Special Investigating Unit has largely failed to fulfill its proclaimed goals, despite a year on year increase in its budget. Many investigations have dragged on for years, and appear to be nowhere near completion. The Bosasa matter has been live for more than 5 years now, still with no end in sight, and the Head, Adv Soni, admitted last week before the Portfolio Committee that he could give no indication as to when the Nkandla investigation and report would be finalized and placed before the President.
Despite the importance of and public interest in the matter, the Special Investigating Unit only managed to gain access to the premises at Nkandla on 3 July 2014. Adv Soni declined to say who was responsible for the delay, despite the parties involved being legally obliged to co-operate with him. Given the profile of this matter, and the obvious importance and pressure to finalize it, no real progress could be demonstrated, and certainly no will to drive the matter was discernible.
The current presentation before the Portfolio Committee reveals an enormous decrease in cases expected to be finalized, but despite this the Special Investigating Unit felt comfortable to approach Parliament and request an increased budget in order to meet its significantly decreased goals. There can be very little confidence that even these modest goals will be met. Again we see an important component in the Criminal Justice Cluster being reduced to a somewhat embarrassing ineffectiveness due to overt political meddling.
The office of the public protector is a chapter 9 institution and an independent body reporting to Parliament, whose mandate is being followed and fulfilled, but is clearly under fire due to the independence being exhibited. The Public Protector herself is vilified, accused of overreaching her mandate, accused of playing politics and the target of severe personal criticism from certain limited sources, simply because she refuses to bow to political pressure and refuses to allow political interference in the institution, which derives its independence from the Constitution.
Again, the thread of political interference in these institutions is glaring, and the attack on the independence of the Criminal Justice Cluster is palpable.
No amount of budget increases will fix this. No amount of money is going to make these institutions effective in the face of such interference. The interference must stop. And it is our duty, the duty of this fifth Parliament, to all those citizens who voted for us to sit here, to make it stop, and to work towards making the Criminal Justice Cluster effective and efficient, in order to fulfill the role it is enjoined to fill by the Constitution. If we allow the Rule of Law to be eroded any further, we will find it impossible to regain the lost ground.
The great Russian author, Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn wrote: " in keeping silent about evil, in burying it so deep within us that no sign of it appears on the surface, we are implanting it, and it will rise up a thousand fold in the future. When we neither punish nor reproach evildoers, we are not simply protecting their trivial old age, we are thereby ripping the foundations of justice from beneath new generations."
We are tired. We want justice now. Sikathele manje. Sifuna ukulunga.
Issued by the DA, July 15 2014
Source: Politicsweb
Showing posts with label Criminal Justice. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Criminal Justice. Show all posts
Wednesday, July 16, 2014
Sunday, February 2, 2014
The politics of Mohammed Morsi's trial
The trial of Mohammed Morsi is a political trial designed by the Egyptian authorities to disgrace, delegitimise and dispose of the Muslim Brotherhood from the Egyptian political landscape. In a seminal study widely regarded as the most definitive account of the political trial, the Frankfurt school jurist Otto Kirchheimer regarded the political trial as a strategic mobilisation of the devices of law and justice to attain political ends.
"The classic political trial", Kirchheimer argued, is one in which the regime "attempt[s] to incriminate its foe's public behaviour with a view to evicting him from the political scene". Morsi's trial is a classic political trial designed to evict Morsi and his movement from the Egyptian political space.
Political trials are inevitable consequences of revolutions. From the English and French revolutions the 17th and 18th century to the Chinese and Iranian revolutions in the 20th century, the courtroom provided a convenient space for a ritualised elimination of former regimes.
Courts are mobilised not so much to eliminate the defunct regimes but to clarify, rationalise, justify and finally authenticate the revolution in an act of judgment. This is what is at work in Morsi's trial - the use of the courtroom to validate and authenticate a contested revolution. The court is not concerned with the determination of guilt and innocence so much as the rationalisation and justification of the events of July 3, 2013.
A revolution, not a coup d'etat?
The rhetoric of law and order, terrorism, and national security are all smokescreens for the power struggle between the Muslim Brotherhood and the military-backed regime. Beneath the rhetoric of terrorism and national security, there are the unfathomable purposes of history and power - a history of a botched revolution; conflicting accounts of what happened on 3 July 2013 (a coup d'etat, a counter-revolution or a second revolution); and the violence and crackdown that followed. The trial reduces these complex historico-political events into an either - or binary proposition that fits the self-referential logic of law.
The charges against Morsi and others - "incitement to violence" and "conspiracy to commit terrorism" - are charges carefully chosen to serve as fulcrums - narrative anchors in which to ground the regime's pedagogic stunts. The trial provides the event - the stage, the language, and the choreography - that lends bodily form, as Alexis De Tocqueville once noted, to the pedagogic enterprise.
As a truth-bearing platform with superior ability of image formation and saturation, the trial gives juridical reality and an appearance of neutrality and objectivity to the narrative of the state.
Within its own self-referential logic, the trial weighs the charges, assigns blame and attributes responsibility for the events alleged by the prosecution. It does not take account of the political and historical war that rages just beneath the invocation of its discourses. The objections of Morsi and his co-accused regarding the coup d'etat, the violence of the military, and the criminal origin of the regime are incompatible with "how the law thinks". For the purpose of criminal law, these are "objection[s] that cannot be heard": They do not signify within law's logic, its rationality, and modes of thought.
Order legitimation and power rationalisation
The immediate purpose of the trial is two-fold. Firstly, the trial is the most effective silencing device: By delegating the matter to a sympathetic judiciary, the regime silences all forms of criticism while it neutralises the political field from its adversary. Secondly, and perhaps most importantly, the trial has the aim of rationalising and justifying the coup d'etat by retroactively situating Morsi's defeat within a broader historical, political and moral narrative.
Using its truth-bearing discourses that allow it to create images that can neither be effaced nor rectified, the trial rationalises and justifies the power of the military regime. By presenting the adversary in the worst possible moral and political light, the trial both elaborates and consolidates a historico-political thesis in the image of the military and its civilian elites. What matters is not the validity or meaningfulness of the image so much as its effectiveness.
By accusing and judging the defendants for these crimes, the regime has a didactic goal that far exceeds the elimination of the Muslim Brotherhood: It aims to create a generative politico-historical thesis and an enduring image capable of instilling fear, prudence and obedience in potential foes. By projecting and amplifying a terrorist image of Morsi and his movement in the courtroom, a site of truth and justice supposedly elevated from the expediency of power and politics, the trial vindicates and authenticates a historico-political thesis in the image of the regime.
'I am your president. You have no legitimacy'
However, trials are not chess games that go according to pre-arranged rules. They can denaturalise, as to expose its flimsy facade of legality. In exercising the authority to judge its enemies, it submits itself to the accusation of its adversaries and the judgment of history. Just as the state uses the devices of law as political weapons, Morsi too can turn to these weapons.
The device is not equally available to the state and Morsi, but the deliberative framework of the trial and the principle of calling to account means that the defendant has a speaking position from which he can give an account of himself and the charges. Indeed, if Morsi's first day in court is any indication to go by, his trial could well be the trial of the military regime.
In his first court appearance, Morsi rejected the legitimacy and the authority of the court to try him. He argues that he is "the legitimate president" of the republic and accuses the military of a coup and treason. He challenges the court to justify how an illegal action - a coup d'etat - gives rise to a legal right that enables the criminals to judge an elected president: "This coup is a crime and treasonous, and the court is held responsible for it."
Morsi's defence will ask questions the prosecutor and the court cannot answer legally: According to what law, according to what rule of judgment and principle of justice do the courts and the social order they serve exercise the right to judge and punish an elected president? For Morsi and his supporters, "This is a military coup whose leaders must be put on trial in accordance with the constitution."
If an elected president can be called to the court to account for these acts, what of the military leaders who committed a treasonous offense? In other words, can the military bring Morsi to the court without calling the Revolution to the court? It is this question that law is ultimately incapable of answering without sliding into the abyss, to its origin in self-help. It is also here that the disjuncture between law and revolutions becomes most manifest, exposing the government and its courts to the judgement of history.
Regardless of how the court frames and ultimately settles these destabilising questions, Morsi's trial brings both the military and the revolution into the courtroom. The narratives and the verdict leave behind traces or remainders that cannot be integrated, or contained by the trial. It is this remainder, this excess, that exceeds the trial's ability to conceal and suppress, that returns to haunt Egypt and unsettle it from within.
Awol K Allo is a Fellow in Human Rights at the London School of Economics and Political Science.
The views expressed in this article are the author's own and do not necessarily reflect Al Jazeera's editorial policy.
Source: Al Jazeera
"The classic political trial", Kirchheimer argued, is one in which the regime "attempt[s] to incriminate its foe's public behaviour with a view to evicting him from the political scene". Morsi's trial is a classic political trial designed to evict Morsi and his movement from the Egyptian political space.
Political trials are inevitable consequences of revolutions. From the English and French revolutions the 17th and 18th century to the Chinese and Iranian revolutions in the 20th century, the courtroom provided a convenient space for a ritualised elimination of former regimes.
Courts are mobilised not so much to eliminate the defunct regimes but to clarify, rationalise, justify and finally authenticate the revolution in an act of judgment. This is what is at work in Morsi's trial - the use of the courtroom to validate and authenticate a contested revolution. The court is not concerned with the determination of guilt and innocence so much as the rationalisation and justification of the events of July 3, 2013.
A revolution, not a coup d'etat?
The rhetoric of law and order, terrorism, and national security are all smokescreens for the power struggle between the Muslim Brotherhood and the military-backed regime. Beneath the rhetoric of terrorism and national security, there are the unfathomable purposes of history and power - a history of a botched revolution; conflicting accounts of what happened on 3 July 2013 (a coup d'etat, a counter-revolution or a second revolution); and the violence and crackdown that followed. The trial reduces these complex historico-political events into an either - or binary proposition that fits the self-referential logic of law.
The charges against Morsi and others - "incitement to violence" and "conspiracy to commit terrorism" - are charges carefully chosen to serve as fulcrums - narrative anchors in which to ground the regime's pedagogic stunts. The trial provides the event - the stage, the language, and the choreography - that lends bodily form, as Alexis De Tocqueville once noted, to the pedagogic enterprise.
As a truth-bearing platform with superior ability of image formation and saturation, the trial gives juridical reality and an appearance of neutrality and objectivity to the narrative of the state.
Within its own self-referential logic, the trial weighs the charges, assigns blame and attributes responsibility for the events alleged by the prosecution. It does not take account of the political and historical war that rages just beneath the invocation of its discourses. The objections of Morsi and his co-accused regarding the coup d'etat, the violence of the military, and the criminal origin of the regime are incompatible with "how the law thinks". For the purpose of criminal law, these are "objection[s] that cannot be heard": They do not signify within law's logic, its rationality, and modes of thought.
Order legitimation and power rationalisation
The immediate purpose of the trial is two-fold. Firstly, the trial is the most effective silencing device: By delegating the matter to a sympathetic judiciary, the regime silences all forms of criticism while it neutralises the political field from its adversary. Secondly, and perhaps most importantly, the trial has the aim of rationalising and justifying the coup d'etat by retroactively situating Morsi's defeat within a broader historical, political and moral narrative.
Using its truth-bearing discourses that allow it to create images that can neither be effaced nor rectified, the trial rationalises and justifies the power of the military regime. By presenting the adversary in the worst possible moral and political light, the trial both elaborates and consolidates a historico-political thesis in the image of the military and its civilian elites. What matters is not the validity or meaningfulness of the image so much as its effectiveness.
By accusing and judging the defendants for these crimes, the regime has a didactic goal that far exceeds the elimination of the Muslim Brotherhood: It aims to create a generative politico-historical thesis and an enduring image capable of instilling fear, prudence and obedience in potential foes. By projecting and amplifying a terrorist image of Morsi and his movement in the courtroom, a site of truth and justice supposedly elevated from the expediency of power and politics, the trial vindicates and authenticates a historico-political thesis in the image of the regime.
'I am your president. You have no legitimacy'
However, trials are not chess games that go according to pre-arranged rules. They can denaturalise, as to expose its flimsy facade of legality. In exercising the authority to judge its enemies, it submits itself to the accusation of its adversaries and the judgment of history. Just as the state uses the devices of law as political weapons, Morsi too can turn to these weapons.
The device is not equally available to the state and Morsi, but the deliberative framework of the trial and the principle of calling to account means that the defendant has a speaking position from which he can give an account of himself and the charges. Indeed, if Morsi's first day in court is any indication to go by, his trial could well be the trial of the military regime.
In his first court appearance, Morsi rejected the legitimacy and the authority of the court to try him. He argues that he is "the legitimate president" of the republic and accuses the military of a coup and treason. He challenges the court to justify how an illegal action - a coup d'etat - gives rise to a legal right that enables the criminals to judge an elected president: "This coup is a crime and treasonous, and the court is held responsible for it."
Morsi's defence will ask questions the prosecutor and the court cannot answer legally: According to what law, according to what rule of judgment and principle of justice do the courts and the social order they serve exercise the right to judge and punish an elected president? For Morsi and his supporters, "This is a military coup whose leaders must be put on trial in accordance with the constitution."
If an elected president can be called to the court to account for these acts, what of the military leaders who committed a treasonous offense? In other words, can the military bring Morsi to the court without calling the Revolution to the court? It is this question that law is ultimately incapable of answering without sliding into the abyss, to its origin in self-help. It is also here that the disjuncture between law and revolutions becomes most manifest, exposing the government and its courts to the judgement of history.
Regardless of how the court frames and ultimately settles these destabilising questions, Morsi's trial brings both the military and the revolution into the courtroom. The narratives and the verdict leave behind traces or remainders that cannot be integrated, or contained by the trial. It is this remainder, this excess, that exceeds the trial's ability to conceal and suppress, that returns to haunt Egypt and unsettle it from within.
Awol K Allo is a Fellow in Human Rights at the London School of Economics and Political Science.
The views expressed in this article are the author's own and do not necessarily reflect Al Jazeera's editorial policy.
Source: Al Jazeera
Zuma buys time for Hawks
President Jacob Zuma and some of his ministers have asked the Constitutional Court for another 18 months to fix the legislation governing the Hawks, the unit that is meant to fight serious organised crime in South Africa.
Zuma, Justice Minister Jeff Radebe and Police Minister Nathi Mthethwa have indicated that they will appeal an order by the Western Cape High Court that found the act governing the Hawks still allows for too much political interference. This means the uncertainty over the Hawks, which replaced the Scorpions, will now drag into its sixth year. The Constitutional Court originally declared the act unconstitutional in 2011.
The current case follows the Western Cape High Court’s ruling in December, in favour of the Helen Suzman Foundation, which found that the police’s updated act was still unconstitutional.
The court ruled that adequate mechanisms to prevent political interference in the Hawks were still lacking.
The court gave Parliament a year to rectify this, but Zuma and his ministers have argued that this is not enough time. In court papers filed at the Constitutional Court, Zuma and his ministers ask that Parliament should be given 18 months to fix the legislation. This because “amendment is complex” and because “the period afforded to Parliament coincides with an imminent national election”.
A source familiar with the Hawks said the unit was demoralised and had lost some of its best investigative capacity from the days of the Scorpions. City Press has previously reported on the disagreement and the incoherence that has been caused by confusion over the fate of the unit.
The Helen Suzman Foundation has asked the court to confirm the order of constitutional invalidity. It is also asking the Constitutional Court to declare further sections of the act unconstitutional. One of the sections it is referring to includes a provision that empowers the minister to do “integrity testing” of Hawks members, which the foundation believes is an intimidation tactic. It believes this could include the bugging of Hawks officers’ phones.
Source: City Press
Zuma, Justice Minister Jeff Radebe and Police Minister Nathi Mthethwa have indicated that they will appeal an order by the Western Cape High Court that found the act governing the Hawks still allows for too much political interference. This means the uncertainty over the Hawks, which replaced the Scorpions, will now drag into its sixth year. The Constitutional Court originally declared the act unconstitutional in 2011.
The current case follows the Western Cape High Court’s ruling in December, in favour of the Helen Suzman Foundation, which found that the police’s updated act was still unconstitutional.
The court ruled that adequate mechanisms to prevent political interference in the Hawks were still lacking.
The court gave Parliament a year to rectify this, but Zuma and his ministers have argued that this is not enough time. In court papers filed at the Constitutional Court, Zuma and his ministers ask that Parliament should be given 18 months to fix the legislation. This because “amendment is complex” and because “the period afforded to Parliament coincides with an imminent national election”.
A source familiar with the Hawks said the unit was demoralised and had lost some of its best investigative capacity from the days of the Scorpions. City Press has previously reported on the disagreement and the incoherence that has been caused by confusion over the fate of the unit.
The Helen Suzman Foundation has asked the court to confirm the order of constitutional invalidity. It is also asking the Constitutional Court to declare further sections of the act unconstitutional. One of the sections it is referring to includes a provision that empowers the minister to do “integrity testing” of Hawks members, which the foundation believes is an intimidation tactic. It believes this could include the bugging of Hawks officers’ phones.
Source: City Press
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
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, March 28, 2013
McBride wins appeal against drunk driving conviction
The high court in Pretoria on Thursday concluded he was not guilty on all charges.
"The appeal against conviction on both counts is upheld," Judges Cynthia Pretorius and Lettie Molopa-Sethosa said in their written judgment.
"The appellant is found not guilty on all charges and is discharged."
McBride was arrested in 2006 after crashing his official car on the R511 following a Christmas party.
Earlier this month, the two judges reserved judgment in McBride's appeal against his conviction, as well as his five-year jail sentence.
In September 2011, a Pretoria regional magistrate sentenced McBride to two years imprisonment for driving under the influence of alcohol and an effective three years imprisonment for attempting to obstruct the course of justice.
Under the influence
Initially three of McBride's colleagues made statements supporting his version that he had not been drunk and did not leave the scene of the accident to evade justice.
However, five months later they testified that he had been heavily under the influence of alcohol and systematically set about covering this up with their assistance.
In his appeal, McBride argued the three former colleagues had themselves been intimidated into changing their story. They were under investigation by the Organised Crime Unit (OCU) in a separate attempted murder matter and had been offered indemnity in exchange for statements against him.
McBride had previously clashed with the OCU. About a month before his colleagues changed their statements, he had written to the South African Police Service asking them to initiate an investigation into the possible involvement of some members of the OCU in cash-in-transit crimes.
In Thursday's judgment, Pretorius and Molopa-Sethosa wrote there was clear evidence that OCU members had manipulated the testimony of the three.
Describing the three as "self-confessed liars", the judges said the magistrate had erred in finding their testimony credible.
There were "several strange aspects" to McBride's behaviour after the accident, such as trying to get medical certificates from a variety of doctors and driving to Durban to see a doctor.
The state had not proved its case beyond a reasonable doubt, the judges concluded. "Although the appellant's action after the accident is suspect, it is not possible to draw the inference that the appellant was driving under the influence of intoxicating alcohol at the time beyond a reasonable doubt." – Sapa
Source: Mail & Guardian
"The appeal against conviction on both counts is upheld," Judges Cynthia Pretorius and Lettie Molopa-Sethosa said in their written judgment.
"The appellant is found not guilty on all charges and is discharged."
McBride was arrested in 2006 after crashing his official car on the R511 following a Christmas party.
Earlier this month, the two judges reserved judgment in McBride's appeal against his conviction, as well as his five-year jail sentence.
In September 2011, a Pretoria regional magistrate sentenced McBride to two years imprisonment for driving under the influence of alcohol and an effective three years imprisonment for attempting to obstruct the course of justice.
Under the influence
Initially three of McBride's colleagues made statements supporting his version that he had not been drunk and did not leave the scene of the accident to evade justice.
However, five months later they testified that he had been heavily under the influence of alcohol and systematically set about covering this up with their assistance.
In his appeal, McBride argued the three former colleagues had themselves been intimidated into changing their story. They were under investigation by the Organised Crime Unit (OCU) in a separate attempted murder matter and had been offered indemnity in exchange for statements against him.
McBride had previously clashed with the OCU. About a month before his colleagues changed their statements, he had written to the South African Police Service asking them to initiate an investigation into the possible involvement of some members of the OCU in cash-in-transit crimes.
In Thursday's judgment, Pretorius and Molopa-Sethosa wrote there was clear evidence that OCU members had manipulated the testimony of the three.
Describing the three as "self-confessed liars", the judges said the magistrate had erred in finding their testimony credible.
There were "several strange aspects" to McBride's behaviour after the accident, such as trying to get medical certificates from a variety of doctors and driving to Durban to see a doctor.
The state had not proved its case beyond a reasonable doubt, the judges concluded. "Although the appellant's action after the accident is suspect, it is not possible to draw the inference that the appellant was driving under the influence of intoxicating alcohol at the time beyond a reasonable doubt." – Sapa
Source: Mail & Guardian
Thursday, September 6, 2012
4,900 detectives not trained for job
PARLIAMENT has heard that almost 5,000 members of the detectives division in the South African Police Service (SAPS) have not been trained to occupy the jobs they currently do. This was revealed by SAPS senior management during a parliamentary dialogue on detective services that was convened by the portfolio committee on police in Cape Town yesterday.
Senior officials from the department of justice and constitutional development also told MPs how incompetent detectives were in dealing with investigations and gathering evidence at crime scenes.
Major-General Charles Johnson of the detective services division said while his unit had more than 23,000 detectives in its employ, more than 4,900 were not trained to do detective work. Johnson blamed the lack of training on a shortage of trainers, relevant technology and funds.
Chief director of court services in the department of justice, Pieter du Rand, said poor detective work was the main reason for low conviction rates because the SAPS often presented weak cases. He said thousands of investigators were not trained to handle basic detective work and evidence gathering.
"People come from police service backgrounds, they are not properly trained in how to deal with crime scene investigation, how to deal with the normal detective type of things ... so that justice is done," said Du Rand.
DA MP Dianne Kohler Barnard said because of the apparent poor capacity of the SAPS detectives unit, it was clear that police were "raping crime scenes". "It's the inevitable outcome of the extreme lack of training."
Acting committee chairman and ANC MP Annelize van Wyk said legislative interventions were needed to ensure proper training and promotion.
Johan Burger, a senior policing researcher from the Institute for Security Studies, said what was worrying was that detectives also seemed to be overworked. He said given the crime levels, a single detective handled a 100 investigations on average.
Source: The Sowetan
Senior officials from the department of justice and constitutional development also told MPs how incompetent detectives were in dealing with investigations and gathering evidence at crime scenes.
Major-General Charles Johnson of the detective services division said while his unit had more than 23,000 detectives in its employ, more than 4,900 were not trained to do detective work. Johnson blamed the lack of training on a shortage of trainers, relevant technology and funds.
Chief director of court services in the department of justice, Pieter du Rand, said poor detective work was the main reason for low conviction rates because the SAPS often presented weak cases. He said thousands of investigators were not trained to handle basic detective work and evidence gathering.
"People come from police service backgrounds, they are not properly trained in how to deal with crime scene investigation, how to deal with the normal detective type of things ... so that justice is done," said Du Rand.
DA MP Dianne Kohler Barnard said because of the apparent poor capacity of the SAPS detectives unit, it was clear that police were "raping crime scenes". "It's the inevitable outcome of the extreme lack of training."
Acting committee chairman and ANC MP Annelize van Wyk said legislative interventions were needed to ensure proper training and promotion.
Johan Burger, a senior policing researcher from the Institute for Security Studies, said what was worrying was that detectives also seemed to be overworked. He said given the crime levels, a single detective handled a 100 investigations on average.
Source: The Sowetan
Monday, September 3, 2012
Marikana murder charge withdrawal: the first glimmer of sanity
The NPA seems to have regained a small sprinkling of sanity – it looks like the charges of murder against 270 protesting Lonmin miners will be withdrawn. Yet a number of so-called experts and scholars are still claiming, although feebly, that the charge could have held water. Let’s not kid ourselves – the law is perfectly clear.
The decision by the National Prosecuting Authority (NPA) preliminary to withdraw charges of murder against 270 Marikana miners for the killing of 34 of their colleagues by the police was the only remotely rational course of action to take. It is probably too late to save the NPA from becoming the laughing stock of most South Africans and people across the rest of the world, but the decision seems like a glimmer of rationality in a sea of madness.
Yet it is more than surprising that the NPA is maintaining its original decision to charge the miners was legally sound. It’s like a child denying that he ate his mother’s chocolate cake when he has chocolate icing smeared all over his face. Even more surprising is that a legal academic from Wits has argued that, theoretically at least, the miners could be convicted of murder under the common purpose doctrine.
According to these defenders of the NPA, the decision was legally sound because the state would only have to prove that the miners were present at the scene of the killing and aware of an attack on the police; that the miners intended to associate with those attacking the police and had manifested their sharing of the common purpose by some act; and lastly that the miners had the intent, in the form of dolus eventualis, by showing the miners foresaw the (reasonable) possibility that someone may be killed by the actions of those in the crowd who provoked the police to shoot and kill some of them.
Could these views have been animated by a blinding animosity towards the miners; or by a fear of the protesting (black) hordes; or by an unexamined belief that the miners deserved to be punished collectively because one or more persons who took part in the strike had allegedly killed two police officers? Or have those who made this decision to prosecute or defended it – even if only on theoretical grounds – not studied the relevant legal materials properly?
The leading Criminal Law textbooks (quoted approvingly by the Constitutional Court in its judgment on the common purpose doctrine) illustrate that the doctrine is used to impute the criminal conduct of some members of a group to the whole group who had the common purpose to commit a crime. Burchell and Milton define the doctrine as follows:
Similarly, the other Criminal Law guru, Snyman, points out in his textbook that:
This means that the 270 miners could only be convicted of murder if the conduct of one of its members could be shown to have caused the death of the 34 miners and if all the other requirements for common purpose had been met. Given the fact that the police actually shot the 34 miners, it is unclear how the conduct of any of the miners could have cause the death of their comrades.
For a successful prosecution, the state would have to prove that the miners made common purpose with the police with the intention to have their fellow workers killed. It is only where the miners can be shown to have had a common purpose with the police that the conduct of the police (who actually killed the miners) could be imputed to them. As none of the miners actually killed anyone on the day of the massacre, it would help little to prove they had a common purpose to protest or even to attack the police, because none of them were involved in the killing of the 34 miners.
That is why the Constitutional Court confirmed in the Thebus case that a group of people who are not co-perpetrators could only be found guilty of a crime with assistance of the common purpose doctrine if they were aware the crime was being committed and must have intended to make common cause with those who were actually perpetrating the crime. The crime in this case being the killing of 34 miners by the police, it would be impossible to prove that the miners made common purpose with the police to kill their fellow miners.
In any case, even if this was not so, and even if the state only had to prove that the miners acted with a common purpose with one another by walking in a group towards the police and that this led to the shooting that killed 34 of their comrades, the state would never have been able to prove the involvement of the 270 miners in this common purpose. As the Constitutional Court warned, it is the
How would the state ever prove that the 270 actively associated with the one person in the crowd who allegedly shot at the police? Merely being proven to have been in the crowd might have been sufficient to be convicted of murder by one of the members of the crowd during the Apartheid years, but those days are long gone. The Constitutional Court decision makes this abundantly clear. More is required now, and the state would never have been able to meet this more stringent evidentiary burden.
But apart from the evidentiary problems, there is still the problem that none of the miners had actually set out to kill their comrades. Neither had any of the miners killed any of their comrades. The police did that.
To overcome this problem, those who argue that the decision to charge the miners with murder was legally plausible say that all the miners could be guilty of murder if one of them had shot at the police because the person who shot at the police could be found guilty of murder and his guilt could be ascribed to all of them via the common purpose doctrine. But this argument conflates the requirements for common purpose with the requirements for intention.
Those who defend the NPA (as well as the NPA itself) wrongly invoke the 1981 judgment of the Appellate Division in S v Nhlapo and Another, where a guard was shot and killed – possibly by a fellow guard – in a gun battle with robbers. The court stated that the robbers – who were ready to use their guns to overpower the guards – must have reasonably foreseen that someone could get killed in the robbery and therefore possessed the necessary intention for murder (in the form of dolus eventualis). The court therefore convicted the robbers of the murder of the guard – even though the state had not proven that any of them shot the guard.
The problem is that this scenario is entirely different from what the police claimed happened at Marikana. The Nhlapo case did not deal with the common purpose doctrine because all the robbers were co-perpetrators: they all had guns, were prepared to use them, and then reasonably foresaw that someone would be killed. The actions of one robber were not imputed to other robbers via the common purpose doctrine: they were all charged because they had taken part in the shootout. Their actions caused the death of the guard and they reasonably foresaw that it could.
But the actions of all 270 miners did not cause the death of the 34 victims. At most, the actions of one miner who shot at the police could arguably be said to have caused the death of others. To hold otherwise would be to criminalise the behaviour of every member of a crowd of protestors, where the behaviour of one of the protestors might have contributed to the death of someone and where that protestor had reasonably foreseen the possibility that his actions would lead to the death. It would, in effect, abolish most of the requirements for criminal liability for anyone taking part in a protest march and would be so invasive not only of the right to protest freely but also of the right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty, that it would undermine the very essence of our Bill of Rights.
Unlike those robbers, all of the 270 miners were not armed with guns. They had not all taken part in a shooting match with the police. They were not co-perpetrators going out to overpower the police. Arguably, one of those in their midst had a gun and shot at the police. They could therefore not have been guilty of murder because they had no intention to kill their comrades. To hold otherwise would be to use the common purpose doctrine in a situation for which it has not been designed and for which has not (and never will be) approved by our courts.
In any case, even if this was not so, no court in South Africa is ever going to find that the miners should reasonably have foreseen the possibility that the police would start shooting at them with live ammunition and would kill 34 of their comrades because one among them had a firearm.
We live in a democracy. We have a right to expect the police to obey the law and use minimum force, as they are required to do by the Police Act. We cannot and should not ever accept that it is reasonable to foresee that the police would use maximum force and would shoot and kill 34 protestors because one of them happened to have been armed with a gun. For a court to hold otherwise would be for it to hold that it is reasonable for the police at best to be untrained, bumbling, and bizarrely incompetent or, at worst, to be malicious, vengeful, law-breaking thugs.
It is a pity that some in the NPA seem to have forgotten (or might never have noticed) that we indeed live in a democracy now, and that we can reasonably expect the police to obey the law.
Source: Constitutionally Speaking
The decision by the National Prosecuting Authority (NPA) preliminary to withdraw charges of murder against 270 Marikana miners for the killing of 34 of their colleagues by the police was the only remotely rational course of action to take. It is probably too late to save the NPA from becoming the laughing stock of most South Africans and people across the rest of the world, but the decision seems like a glimmer of rationality in a sea of madness.
Yet it is more than surprising that the NPA is maintaining its original decision to charge the miners was legally sound. It’s like a child denying that he ate his mother’s chocolate cake when he has chocolate icing smeared all over his face. Even more surprising is that a legal academic from Wits has argued that, theoretically at least, the miners could be convicted of murder under the common purpose doctrine.
According to these defenders of the NPA, the decision was legally sound because the state would only have to prove that the miners were present at the scene of the killing and aware of an attack on the police; that the miners intended to associate with those attacking the police and had manifested their sharing of the common purpose by some act; and lastly that the miners had the intent, in the form of dolus eventualis, by showing the miners foresaw the (reasonable) possibility that someone may be killed by the actions of those in the crowd who provoked the police to shoot and kill some of them.
Could these views have been animated by a blinding animosity towards the miners; or by a fear of the protesting (black) hordes; or by an unexamined belief that the miners deserved to be punished collectively because one or more persons who took part in the strike had allegedly killed two police officers? Or have those who made this decision to prosecute or defended it – even if only on theoretical grounds – not studied the relevant legal materials properly?
The leading Criminal Law textbooks (quoted approvingly by the Constitutional Court in its judgment on the common purpose doctrine) illustrate that the doctrine is used to impute the criminal conduct of some members of a group to the whole group who had the common purpose to commit a crime. Burchell and Milton define the doctrine as follows:
Where two or more people agree to commit a crime or actively associate in a joint unlawful enterprise, each will be responsible for specific criminal conduct committed by one of their number which falls within their common design. Liability arises from their ‘common purpose’ to commit the crime.
Similarly, the other Criminal Law guru, Snyman, points out in his textbook that:
the essence of the doctrine is that if two or more people, having a common purpose to commit a crime, act together in order to achieve that purpose, the conduct of each of them in the execution of that purpose is imputed to the others.
This means that the 270 miners could only be convicted of murder if the conduct of one of its members could be shown to have caused the death of the 34 miners and if all the other requirements for common purpose had been met. Given the fact that the police actually shot the 34 miners, it is unclear how the conduct of any of the miners could have cause the death of their comrades.
For a successful prosecution, the state would have to prove that the miners made common purpose with the police with the intention to have their fellow workers killed. It is only where the miners can be shown to have had a common purpose with the police that the conduct of the police (who actually killed the miners) could be imputed to them. As none of the miners actually killed anyone on the day of the massacre, it would help little to prove they had a common purpose to protest or even to attack the police, because none of them were involved in the killing of the 34 miners.
That is why the Constitutional Court confirmed in the Thebus case that a group of people who are not co-perpetrators could only be found guilty of a crime with assistance of the common purpose doctrine if they were aware the crime was being committed and must have intended to make common cause with those who were actually perpetrating the crime. The crime in this case being the killing of 34 miners by the police, it would be impossible to prove that the miners made common purpose with the police to kill their fellow miners.
In any case, even if this was not so, and even if the state only had to prove that the miners acted with a common purpose with one another by walking in a group towards the police and that this led to the shooting that killed 34 of their comrades, the state would never have been able to prove the involvement of the 270 miners in this common purpose. As the Constitutional Court warned, it is the
duty of every trial court, when applying the doctrine of common purpose, to exercise the utmost circumspection in evaluating the evidence against each accused person. A collective approach to determining the actual conduct or active association of an individual accused has many evidentiary pitfalls. The trial court must seek to determine, in respect of each accused person, the location, timing, sequence, duration, frequency and nature of the conduct alleged to constitute sufficient participation or active association and its relationship, if any, to the criminal result and to all other pre-requisites of guilt. Whether or not active association has been appropriately established will depend upon the factual context of each case.
How would the state ever prove that the 270 actively associated with the one person in the crowd who allegedly shot at the police? Merely being proven to have been in the crowd might have been sufficient to be convicted of murder by one of the members of the crowd during the Apartheid years, but those days are long gone. The Constitutional Court decision makes this abundantly clear. More is required now, and the state would never have been able to meet this more stringent evidentiary burden.
But apart from the evidentiary problems, there is still the problem that none of the miners had actually set out to kill their comrades. Neither had any of the miners killed any of their comrades. The police did that.
To overcome this problem, those who argue that the decision to charge the miners with murder was legally plausible say that all the miners could be guilty of murder if one of them had shot at the police because the person who shot at the police could be found guilty of murder and his guilt could be ascribed to all of them via the common purpose doctrine. But this argument conflates the requirements for common purpose with the requirements for intention.
Those who defend the NPA (as well as the NPA itself) wrongly invoke the 1981 judgment of the Appellate Division in S v Nhlapo and Another, where a guard was shot and killed – possibly by a fellow guard – in a gun battle with robbers. The court stated that the robbers – who were ready to use their guns to overpower the guards – must have reasonably foreseen that someone could get killed in the robbery and therefore possessed the necessary intention for murder (in the form of dolus eventualis). The court therefore convicted the robbers of the murder of the guard – even though the state had not proven that any of them shot the guard.
The problem is that this scenario is entirely different from what the police claimed happened at Marikana. The Nhlapo case did not deal with the common purpose doctrine because all the robbers were co-perpetrators: they all had guns, were prepared to use them, and then reasonably foresaw that someone would be killed. The actions of one robber were not imputed to other robbers via the common purpose doctrine: they were all charged because they had taken part in the shootout. Their actions caused the death of the guard and they reasonably foresaw that it could.
But the actions of all 270 miners did not cause the death of the 34 victims. At most, the actions of one miner who shot at the police could arguably be said to have caused the death of others. To hold otherwise would be to criminalise the behaviour of every member of a crowd of protestors, where the behaviour of one of the protestors might have contributed to the death of someone and where that protestor had reasonably foreseen the possibility that his actions would lead to the death. It would, in effect, abolish most of the requirements for criminal liability for anyone taking part in a protest march and would be so invasive not only of the right to protest freely but also of the right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty, that it would undermine the very essence of our Bill of Rights.
Unlike those robbers, all of the 270 miners were not armed with guns. They had not all taken part in a shooting match with the police. They were not co-perpetrators going out to overpower the police. Arguably, one of those in their midst had a gun and shot at the police. They could therefore not have been guilty of murder because they had no intention to kill their comrades. To hold otherwise would be to use the common purpose doctrine in a situation for which it has not been designed and for which has not (and never will be) approved by our courts.
In any case, even if this was not so, no court in South Africa is ever going to find that the miners should reasonably have foreseen the possibility that the police would start shooting at them with live ammunition and would kill 34 of their comrades because one among them had a firearm.
We live in a democracy. We have a right to expect the police to obey the law and use minimum force, as they are required to do by the Police Act. We cannot and should not ever accept that it is reasonable to foresee that the police would use maximum force and would shoot and kill 34 protestors because one of them happened to have been armed with a gun. For a court to hold otherwise would be for it to hold that it is reasonable for the police at best to be untrained, bumbling, and bizarrely incompetent or, at worst, to be malicious, vengeful, law-breaking thugs.
It is a pity that some in the NPA seem to have forgotten (or might never have noticed) that we indeed live in a democracy now, and that we can reasonably expect the police to obey the law.
Source: Constitutionally Speaking
Friday, August 24, 2012
Politicking among police
Concerns over the politicisation of the criminal justice system were first raised over the Mbeki administration's investigation of Jacob Zuma.
Now, under a Zuma presidency, concern has congealed into dread as his appointments to the prosecution service have injected political poison into the state's most sensitive independent organs.
First came the appointment of the hopelessly compromised Menzi Simelane as national director of public prosecutions. Then came Willem Heath's return to the Special Investigating Unit. His political agenda was so transparent he blurted it out in the media and had to go.
Next was Lawrence Mrwebi, chosen to head the Specialised Commercial Crime unit. Mrwebi is a fallible man who had been deeply embroiled in efforts to shut down the Scorpions.
In December last year, when Simelane was beginning to test his leash, the Supreme Court of Appeal declared his appointment invalid, allowing Zuma to appoint a stand-in candidate arguably as deeply partial as Heath: Nomgcobo Jiba.
In 2007 Jiba was suspended for her role in trying to procure the arrest of then-Gauteng Scorpions boss Gerrie Nel. Richard Mdluli came to her defence, alleging she had been assisting police with an intelligence-driven investigation of the Scorpions. The justice minister weighed in to query her case and after Zuma took power she was reinstated.
Intelligence
Since December last year, Jiba and Mrwebi have acted like a tag team to take on politically sensitive cases. In the Mdluli case, Mrwebi ordered the withdrawal of fraud charges, relying, in part, on undisclosed "intelligence".
Jiba followed that punch with the suspension of prosecutor Glynnis Breytenbach, who wanted to pursue charges against Mdluli and was central to a politically sensitive investigation of alleged fraud in the acquisition of mining rights at Sishen. Next came the withdrawal of charges against Zuma backers and KwaZulu-Natal MECs Mike Mabuyakhulu and Peggy Nkonyeni in the "amigos" corruption case.
Today we report on further damaging allegations of Mrwebi's meddling in a case whose implications are as yet obscure. All we know is the man Mrwebi allegedly tried to protect is someone whose business it was to know the dirty secrets of the National Prosecuting Authority's provincial office.
The poison is now at the heart of the system.
Source: Mail & Guardian
Now, under a Zuma presidency, concern has congealed into dread as his appointments to the prosecution service have injected political poison into the state's most sensitive independent organs.
First came the appointment of the hopelessly compromised Menzi Simelane as national director of public prosecutions. Then came Willem Heath's return to the Special Investigating Unit. His political agenda was so transparent he blurted it out in the media and had to go.
Next was Lawrence Mrwebi, chosen to head the Specialised Commercial Crime unit. Mrwebi is a fallible man who had been deeply embroiled in efforts to shut down the Scorpions.
In December last year, when Simelane was beginning to test his leash, the Supreme Court of Appeal declared his appointment invalid, allowing Zuma to appoint a stand-in candidate arguably as deeply partial as Heath: Nomgcobo Jiba.
In 2007 Jiba was suspended for her role in trying to procure the arrest of then-Gauteng Scorpions boss Gerrie Nel. Richard Mdluli came to her defence, alleging she had been assisting police with an intelligence-driven investigation of the Scorpions. The justice minister weighed in to query her case and after Zuma took power she was reinstated.
Intelligence
Since December last year, Jiba and Mrwebi have acted like a tag team to take on politically sensitive cases. In the Mdluli case, Mrwebi ordered the withdrawal of fraud charges, relying, in part, on undisclosed "intelligence".
Jiba followed that punch with the suspension of prosecutor Glynnis Breytenbach, who wanted to pursue charges against Mdluli and was central to a politically sensitive investigation of alleged fraud in the acquisition of mining rights at Sishen. Next came the withdrawal of charges against Zuma backers and KwaZulu-Natal MECs Mike Mabuyakhulu and Peggy Nkonyeni in the "amigos" corruption case.
Today we report on further damaging allegations of Mrwebi's meddling in a case whose implications are as yet obscure. All we know is the man Mrwebi allegedly tried to protect is someone whose business it was to know the dirty secrets of the National Prosecuting Authority's provincial office.
The poison is now at the heart of the system.
Source: Mail & Guardian
Tuesday, July 31, 2012
Perspectives on international criminal justice in Africa, robust discussion on understanding Africa's position
On Wednesday 4 July and Thursday 5 July we organised two meetings on international criminal justice in Africa. Discussions underlined African concerns about some aspects of international criminal justice. As a follow up, THIGJ and the Institute for Security Studies (ISS) will collaborate to further develop a project addressing some of the issues.
THIGJ hosted a workshop on African perspectives on international criminal justice which was part of the Peace and Justice project of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and the municipality of The Hague. Willem van Genugten and Anton du Plessis (Institute for Security Studies) highlighted the complexities of international criminal justice and African perspectives on this matter. Debate among prominent practitioners in the field of international law focused mainly on (the impact of) the overlap between law, politics and power, as well as on the victims of international crimes and their expectations of what international criminal justice can do.
On Thursday 5 July, two eminent speakers elaborated on the issues addressed the previous day and discussed the challenges and consequences of the expansion of the African Court as well as the African Unions position on universal jurisdiction and immunity. The ensuing robust discussion underlined African concerns about some aspects of international criminal justice and revealed that issues such as how to balance law and politics, how to address the uneven landscape of international criminal justice or how to deal with the expansion of the African Court need further consideration after the seminar. As a follow up to the workshop, THIGJ and ISS will collaborate to further develop a project addressing some of these issues.
Source: The Hague Institute for Global Justice (THIGJ)
THIGJ hosted a workshop on African perspectives on international criminal justice which was part of the Peace and Justice project of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and the municipality of The Hague. Willem van Genugten and Anton du Plessis (Institute for Security Studies) highlighted the complexities of international criminal justice and African perspectives on this matter. Debate among prominent practitioners in the field of international law focused mainly on (the impact of) the overlap between law, politics and power, as well as on the victims of international crimes and their expectations of what international criminal justice can do.
On Thursday 5 July, two eminent speakers elaborated on the issues addressed the previous day and discussed the challenges and consequences of the expansion of the African Court as well as the African Unions position on universal jurisdiction and immunity. The ensuing robust discussion underlined African concerns about some aspects of international criminal justice and revealed that issues such as how to balance law and politics, how to address the uneven landscape of international criminal justice or how to deal with the expansion of the African Court need further consideration after the seminar. As a follow up to the workshop, THIGJ and ISS will collaborate to further develop a project addressing some of these issues.
Source: The Hague Institute for Global Justice (THIGJ)
Thursday, May 31, 2012
In South Africa the Rule of Law Does not Apply to the Political Elite
There is little disagreement that corruption is a serious problem facing South Africa. Unfortunately, various indicators suggest that the problem is getting worse. The annual Transparency Corruptions Perceptions Index is a useful measure of whether corruption is getting better or worse in 182 countries worldwide. Ten points indicate the absence of perceptions of corruption, while 0 means that the country is entirely corrupt. On this scale, in 2011 New Zealand scored closest to ten with a score of 9,5, while Somalia was rated as the most corrupt country in the world with a score of 1. The 2011 index reveals that South Africa registered its lowest score to date of 4,1 points when compared with our highest rating of 5,1 in 2007. Worryingly, we have dropped from 54th place in 2010 to 64th place in 2012 on the world rankings. The surveys from Afrobarometer – a public opinion survey focusing on Africa – have also shown that South Africans are increasingly concerned about corruption. While in 2008, 15% of adults thought that corruption was ‘an important national issue’, by 2011 this had increased to 29%.
In October 2011, the head of the Special Investigating Unit (SIU), Willie Hofmeyr, told the National Assembly Portfolio Committee on Justice and Constitutional Development that corruption involving government procurement was costing South Africa as much as R30 billion each year. To place this in perspective, this amount of money could increase the annual budget of the Department of Basic Education by 20%, the Department of Health by 25% or the entire criminal justice system by 30%. In short, if taxpayers’ money were not being stolen by, or with the connivance of, corrupt government officials and politicians, all South Africans could benefit from substantially more schools, hospitals and police stations staffed with better-paid doctors, teachers and police officers.
It is then fortunate that, officially at least, the government has identified corruption as a serious challenge and has set itself the objective of reducing corruption so as to ‘boost investor trust and willingness to invest in the country’. Towards this end it set the goal of prosecuting and convicting a hundred individuals that are suspected to have corruptly acquired assets worth more than R5 million by 2014. To achieve this the government has established the Anti-Corruption Task Team to coordinate the activities of various investigation agencies and the National Prosecution Authority (NPA). Although Hofmeyr pointed out earlier this year that at least 26 individuals meeting the government’s targeted profile are before the courts on corruption charges, its overall target is too ambitious given the handful of successful convictions achieved in the past few years.
The question is, why is the problem of corruption so large and damaging to South Africa if there is an official government policy to reduce it? The answer lies in examining the extent to which there is political will to take appropriate action against the most politically powerful and connected people.
When an ordinary citizen is alleged to have committed a crime such as corruption, the South African Police Service (SAPS) will identify that person as a suspect in a criminal matter. The SAPS will then use its legally provided investigative powers and resources to gather any evidence that will allow the suspect to be criminally charged and brought before a court. The suspect is given various rights and is entitled to having lawyers test the evidence so as to ensure that it is indeed correct and that the he/she is not being falsely accused. If the evidence is found wanting suspects will be acquitted and if not, may find themselves convicted and sent to prison.
It is the unfortunate reality that politically connected individuals are being protected from criminal justice processes. When Police Commissioner General Bheki Cele was found by the Public Protector to have engaged in conduct that was ‘improper, unlawful and amounted to maladministration’, he was not subjected to a criminal investigation. Rather, his friend and the person who appointed him to his post, President Jacob Zuma, appointed a board of inquiry to look into allegations of corruption and wrongdoing. However, unlike a police investigation, the board of inquiry could not subpoena witnesses, or access cellphone records and bank statements, as was the case in the investigation against convicted ex-SAPS Commissioner Jackie Selebi. The inquiry had no investigative powers and therefore could only consider evidence provided to it by willing parties. The recently leaked inquiry report therefore raised more questions than answers and apparently recommended that a full criminal investigation be undertaken into the matter. If Zuma implements this recommendation, it will be the first example of a senior politically connected person at a national level being subject to such an investigation under his administration.
Disturbing allegations emerged as a result of various investigations by the Directorate for Priority Crimes Investigations Unit (also known as the Hawks), that the Head of SAPS Crime Intelligence, Lieutenant-General Richard Mdluli, and his close colleagues were implicated in a range of crimes including murder, rape, kidnapping, intimidation and wide-scale corruption. It is alleged that the Minister of Police halted all investigations into Mdluli and ordered that he be reinstated. Mdluli was irregularly appointed to his position after a cabinet ministers’ meeting two months after Zuma was sworn in as the President of South Africa. It has been alleged that this was because of Mdluli’s willingness to use his position to support Zuma to stay in power. Indeed, Mdluli has written letters to Zuma that state as much.
That the current acting SAPS National Commissioner Nhlanhla Sibusiso Mkhwanazi has recently re-suspended Mdluli is seen by many as a bold move to reject political interference in police matters, a move that could cost him his position. Current criminal investigations into Mdluli by the Hawks appear to have been taken despite political interference.
More recently we have read of allegations that the Minister of Police, Nathi Mthethwa, irregularly benefited from the Secret Service Account of the SAPS Crime Intelligence Division when R195 581.40 was used for renovations to his private residence. If this allegation is true, it may amount to unlawful conduct as the funds in this account consist of taxpayers’ money to be used for crime intelligence work only. The Minister of Police has denied that he benefited from the Secret Service Account and stated that he had asked the Auditor-General (AG) to investigate. As is the case with the board of inquiry into Cele, the AG does not undertake its work with the intention of gathering evidence to support or refute allegations of misconduct or criminality. Therefore the Minister is safe in the knowledge that he will not automatically be facing any criminal sanction from the AG’s investigation into the allegations against him. All the AG will be able to find with regards to wrongdoing is that money was misspent and recommend that further investigations be undertaken – a recommendation that could be ignored by the Minister, to whom the AG will report on this matter.
If politically connected individuals cannot be held accountable for criminal activity through the criminal justice system, there is little incentive for them to stop engaging in corruption and the problem will continue to worsen. Unfortunately, this appears to be happening as there is no political will to subject politically connected people at the highest levels of government to the criminal justice system when there are allegations of wrongdoing. So no matter how many ordinary people the government throws in jail, our country will continue to suffer the negative effects of corruption of state resources being used to benefit a handful of individuals.
Source: ISS
In October 2011, the head of the Special Investigating Unit (SIU), Willie Hofmeyr, told the National Assembly Portfolio Committee on Justice and Constitutional Development that corruption involving government procurement was costing South Africa as much as R30 billion each year. To place this in perspective, this amount of money could increase the annual budget of the Department of Basic Education by 20%, the Department of Health by 25% or the entire criminal justice system by 30%. In short, if taxpayers’ money were not being stolen by, or with the connivance of, corrupt government officials and politicians, all South Africans could benefit from substantially more schools, hospitals and police stations staffed with better-paid doctors, teachers and police officers.
It is then fortunate that, officially at least, the government has identified corruption as a serious challenge and has set itself the objective of reducing corruption so as to ‘boost investor trust and willingness to invest in the country’. Towards this end it set the goal of prosecuting and convicting a hundred individuals that are suspected to have corruptly acquired assets worth more than R5 million by 2014. To achieve this the government has established the Anti-Corruption Task Team to coordinate the activities of various investigation agencies and the National Prosecution Authority (NPA). Although Hofmeyr pointed out earlier this year that at least 26 individuals meeting the government’s targeted profile are before the courts on corruption charges, its overall target is too ambitious given the handful of successful convictions achieved in the past few years.
The question is, why is the problem of corruption so large and damaging to South Africa if there is an official government policy to reduce it? The answer lies in examining the extent to which there is political will to take appropriate action against the most politically powerful and connected people.
When an ordinary citizen is alleged to have committed a crime such as corruption, the South African Police Service (SAPS) will identify that person as a suspect in a criminal matter. The SAPS will then use its legally provided investigative powers and resources to gather any evidence that will allow the suspect to be criminally charged and brought before a court. The suspect is given various rights and is entitled to having lawyers test the evidence so as to ensure that it is indeed correct and that the he/she is not being falsely accused. If the evidence is found wanting suspects will be acquitted and if not, may find themselves convicted and sent to prison.
It is the unfortunate reality that politically connected individuals are being protected from criminal justice processes. When Police Commissioner General Bheki Cele was found by the Public Protector to have engaged in conduct that was ‘improper, unlawful and amounted to maladministration’, he was not subjected to a criminal investigation. Rather, his friend and the person who appointed him to his post, President Jacob Zuma, appointed a board of inquiry to look into allegations of corruption and wrongdoing. However, unlike a police investigation, the board of inquiry could not subpoena witnesses, or access cellphone records and bank statements, as was the case in the investigation against convicted ex-SAPS Commissioner Jackie Selebi. The inquiry had no investigative powers and therefore could only consider evidence provided to it by willing parties. The recently leaked inquiry report therefore raised more questions than answers and apparently recommended that a full criminal investigation be undertaken into the matter. If Zuma implements this recommendation, it will be the first example of a senior politically connected person at a national level being subject to such an investigation under his administration.
Disturbing allegations emerged as a result of various investigations by the Directorate for Priority Crimes Investigations Unit (also known as the Hawks), that the Head of SAPS Crime Intelligence, Lieutenant-General Richard Mdluli, and his close colleagues were implicated in a range of crimes including murder, rape, kidnapping, intimidation and wide-scale corruption. It is alleged that the Minister of Police halted all investigations into Mdluli and ordered that he be reinstated. Mdluli was irregularly appointed to his position after a cabinet ministers’ meeting two months after Zuma was sworn in as the President of South Africa. It has been alleged that this was because of Mdluli’s willingness to use his position to support Zuma to stay in power. Indeed, Mdluli has written letters to Zuma that state as much.
That the current acting SAPS National Commissioner Nhlanhla Sibusiso Mkhwanazi has recently re-suspended Mdluli is seen by many as a bold move to reject political interference in police matters, a move that could cost him his position. Current criminal investigations into Mdluli by the Hawks appear to have been taken despite political interference.
More recently we have read of allegations that the Minister of Police, Nathi Mthethwa, irregularly benefited from the Secret Service Account of the SAPS Crime Intelligence Division when R195 581.40 was used for renovations to his private residence. If this allegation is true, it may amount to unlawful conduct as the funds in this account consist of taxpayers’ money to be used for crime intelligence work only. The Minister of Police has denied that he benefited from the Secret Service Account and stated that he had asked the Auditor-General (AG) to investigate. As is the case with the board of inquiry into Cele, the AG does not undertake its work with the intention of gathering evidence to support or refute allegations of misconduct or criminality. Therefore the Minister is safe in the knowledge that he will not automatically be facing any criminal sanction from the AG’s investigation into the allegations against him. All the AG will be able to find with regards to wrongdoing is that money was misspent and recommend that further investigations be undertaken – a recommendation that could be ignored by the Minister, to whom the AG will report on this matter.
If politically connected individuals cannot be held accountable for criminal activity through the criminal justice system, there is little incentive for them to stop engaging in corruption and the problem will continue to worsen. Unfortunately, this appears to be happening as there is no political will to subject politically connected people at the highest levels of government to the criminal justice system when there are allegations of wrongdoing. So no matter how many ordinary people the government throws in jail, our country will continue to suffer the negative effects of corruption of state resources being used to benefit a handful of individuals.
Source: ISS
Monday, April 30, 2012
Global Criminal Justice Fund
Despite grave and persistent rights violations in criminal justice systems around the world, effective reform remains a problem in many countries. The Open Society Global Criminal Justice Fund seeks to strengthen civil society engagement in the protection of the rights of criminal defendants and in confronting the overuse of pretrial detention. The fund supports civil society efforts to build networks, share experience, and identify new strategies for criminal justice reform.
The Global Criminal Justice Fund provides support to national campaigns that combine monitoring, legal defense and advocacy to catalyze new policy debates. The fund also supports linkages between national efforts and international and regional partners to develop centers of expertise, exchange best practices, and explore failures. Priority is given to projects in countries where there are deteriorating conditions of detention and evidence of pervasive discrimination within the system.
Purpose and Priorities
The Global Criminal Justice Fund supports groups based on the following priorities:
Understanding the Scope of the Problem
A lack of access to places of detention and information about detainees poses serious challenges to successful criminal justice reform. Data is needed to design interventions, demand accountability, address problems of coordination within the system, and provide a basis for challenging illegal detention. The fund supports groups to gain access to places of detention, monitor the system, and assess the effectiveness of existing legal aid in order to promote greater accountability and obtain reliable and credible data about the scope and scale of the problem.
Ensuring Access to Justice
By providing assistance to detainees in a systematic manner, such as filing bail applications or providing legal assistance, civil society groups can learn what works in practice and which kinds of interventions might be effective in producing long-term change. The fund supports groups to undertake this kind of engagement in order to identify successful strategies and possible openings for, or barriers to, reform. Where appropriate, the fund also supports litigation on behalf of detainees that challenges unlawful practices.
Making the Case for Reform
Civil society groups must engage with governments to advance meaningful policy change. Where existing government efforts are entirely inadequate, civil society organization must be able to devise strategies to ensure that the rights of criminal defendants are on the government’s reform agenda. The fund supports civil society groups to undertake advocacy efforts either individually or in coalition with other groups to protect the rights of those in detention.
Building Links to Regional and International Debates
The fund supports partners that aim to prioritize the rights of criminal defendants in regional and international debates about rule of law and human rights. By identifying national groups with links to international and regional networks, the fund seeks to increase the profile of criminal justice issues globally while at the same time expanding international partners’ ability to galvanize existing networks and engage in targeted advocacy.
Guidelines
The fund focuses its support on those countries where the need is greatest, and where due process rights intersect with questions of equality and human dignity. The fund works with organizations that can share their experience and build partnerships beyond their own borders in order to contribute to learning and the development of good practice.
Application Process
To apply for a grant from the Open Society Global Criminal Justice Fund, interested organizations should send a two- to three-page concept paper to criminaljustice@osi-dc.org. The paper should include the following:
A brief description of the project goals and planned activities;
Information about the applicant organization and project partners;
An estimated overall budget and timeframe of the project.
The initiative will aim to respond to concept papers within one month of receipt. Selected applicants will be invited to submit a full proposal for consideration.
Source: Open Society Foundations
The Global Criminal Justice Fund provides support to national campaigns that combine monitoring, legal defense and advocacy to catalyze new policy debates. The fund also supports linkages between national efforts and international and regional partners to develop centers of expertise, exchange best practices, and explore failures. Priority is given to projects in countries where there are deteriorating conditions of detention and evidence of pervasive discrimination within the system.
Purpose and Priorities
The Global Criminal Justice Fund supports groups based on the following priorities:
Understanding the Scope of the Problem
A lack of access to places of detention and information about detainees poses serious challenges to successful criminal justice reform. Data is needed to design interventions, demand accountability, address problems of coordination within the system, and provide a basis for challenging illegal detention. The fund supports groups to gain access to places of detention, monitor the system, and assess the effectiveness of existing legal aid in order to promote greater accountability and obtain reliable and credible data about the scope and scale of the problem.
Ensuring Access to Justice
By providing assistance to detainees in a systematic manner, such as filing bail applications or providing legal assistance, civil society groups can learn what works in practice and which kinds of interventions might be effective in producing long-term change. The fund supports groups to undertake this kind of engagement in order to identify successful strategies and possible openings for, or barriers to, reform. Where appropriate, the fund also supports litigation on behalf of detainees that challenges unlawful practices.
Making the Case for Reform
Civil society groups must engage with governments to advance meaningful policy change. Where existing government efforts are entirely inadequate, civil society organization must be able to devise strategies to ensure that the rights of criminal defendants are on the government’s reform agenda. The fund supports civil society groups to undertake advocacy efforts either individually or in coalition with other groups to protect the rights of those in detention.
Building Links to Regional and International Debates
The fund supports partners that aim to prioritize the rights of criminal defendants in regional and international debates about rule of law and human rights. By identifying national groups with links to international and regional networks, the fund seeks to increase the profile of criminal justice issues globally while at the same time expanding international partners’ ability to galvanize existing networks and engage in targeted advocacy.
Guidelines
The fund focuses its support on those countries where the need is greatest, and where due process rights intersect with questions of equality and human dignity. The fund works with organizations that can share their experience and build partnerships beyond their own borders in order to contribute to learning and the development of good practice.
Application Process
To apply for a grant from the Open Society Global Criminal Justice Fund, interested organizations should send a two- to three-page concept paper to criminaljustice@osi-dc.org. The paper should include the following:
A brief description of the project goals and planned activities;
Information about the applicant organization and project partners;
An estimated overall budget and timeframe of the project.
The initiative will aim to respond to concept papers within one month of receipt. Selected applicants will be invited to submit a full proposal for consideration.
Source: Open Society Foundations
Monday, February 6, 2012
The South African Constitutional Court Extends Police Accountability
Should the police be more trustworthy than any other citizen? And if they are not, can you hold the Minister of Police to account? In an important unanimous judgement penned by South African Chief Justice Mogoeng Mogoeng and handed down on 15 December 2011, the answer to these questions was a resounding “yes.” This judgement has effectively set new legal precedent by extending the basis for civil claims against police officers who break the law and cause injury or damage to citizens. Most importantly, this judgement holds that even when off-duty, if there is enough of a connection between their employment as police officers and their illegal acts, the Minister of Police may be held liable.
This ground-breaking case began 14 years ago in 1998 when Allister van Wyk, a police officer, raped a thirteen year old girl outside the town of George in the Western Cape. The incident started in the early hours of the morning when the girl had needed a lift home from a night-club. Mr van Vyk offered to give her a lift home as he was doing the same for two of his friends. He was driving an unmarked police vehicle at the time that had been allocated to him as he was on standby duty and would need to be able to respond quickly if he was called to pace himself on duty. Knowing he was a police officer and was driving a police vehicle, the girl felt that it would be safe to accept a lift from him. After leaving the night club, van Wyk first dropped off his friends, but then, instead of driving her home, he drove out of town towards an area known as ‘the Wilderness’, stopping in the Kaaimans pass at a dark and secluded picnic spot alongside the estuary.
The girl, realising that he wasn’t driving her straight home as promised, became afraid and jumped from the car as soon as it stopped. She managed to get away and hide amongst the trees and bush until he left. Then she made her way back to the main road with the intention of hitchhiking back into George. She didn’t wait long before a vehicle stopped for her. To her surprise it was the same car she had just escaped from, driven by van Wyk. Although reluctant to climb back in, van Wyk assured her that he would take her home unharmed. Given that there were very few vehicles on this road at that time of the morning, she felt she had little choice but to accept. Van Wyk drove a short way up the road before stopping, assaulting and then raping her. He then drove her home and threatened to hurt or kill her if she told anyone what he had done.
She bravely defied his threats and reported the incident to the police who arrested van Wyk and charged him with rape. He was later convicted of the crime and was sent to prison. Shockingly, at the time of the rape van Wyk was head of the George detective unit, this was in spite of having four previous criminal convictions against him.
In 2005 the girl, now a young woman, brought a civil claim for damages against van Wyk and the Minister of Police. She held the Minister liable for van Wyk’s action and sought to claim damages from the police. Although the High Court ruled in her favour, the police appealed the decision which was subsequently overturned in a majority judgement by the Supreme Court of Appeal on the basis that van Wyk was off-duty at the time of the incident and that the Minister could therefore not be held liable. She then appealed that ruling in the Constitutional Court.
The question the Constitutional Court was called on to answer, was whether the Minister of Police could be held accountable for the actions of police officers, who were not on active duty; and whether police officers should be more worthy of our trust than any other citizen. The Institute for Security Studies was the first of three civil-society organisations to apply to act as amicus curie (friends of the court) by bringing expert testimony in the matter. We did so because this case offered an opportunity to strengthen police accountability by putting in place additional legal measures that citizens could use to hold the state liable for criminal and abusive behaviour by police officials.
The Court’s finding, that the Minister of Police, is indeed accountable for the actions of officers, represents an important milestone in the effort to ensure that the police act to project, rather than harm citizen’s even when they are not on active duty. It means that the Minister of Police has a responsibility to ensure that the officers who are recruited, appointed and employed by the police are not criminals themselves. Fortunately, the current Minister of Police, Nathi Mthethwa has already publicly committed himself to professionalising the South African Police Service (SAPS). This finding is particularly important in the light of the increase in recent years of cases of human rights violations committed by the police. For instance, the Independent Complaints Directorate (ICD) reported 45 allegations of torture in its 2010-2011 report, the highest number reported since 1999.
Towards the end of 2011, the Parliamentary Portfolio Committee on Police heard that during the 2010-11 financial year, contingent civil claims against the SAPS, mostly arising out of police criminality and misconduct, had increased to the substantial amount of R11bn or about 20% of the total police budget. In the short-term the Constitutional Courts ruling is likely to mean that the police will face additional civil claims and will therefore have to allocate even more of their budget to cover the potential cost of these claims.
To prevent this, it is going to be necessary for the Minister to ensure that SAPS management put proper measures in place to ensure that the people they recruit, train and employ understand, accept and are held accountable to the burden of professional service that being a member of the police requires. If SAPS management is able to do this, it will result in better policing while costing the state less in civil claims in the long run.
Source: ISS
This ground-breaking case began 14 years ago in 1998 when Allister van Wyk, a police officer, raped a thirteen year old girl outside the town of George in the Western Cape. The incident started in the early hours of the morning when the girl had needed a lift home from a night-club. Mr van Vyk offered to give her a lift home as he was doing the same for two of his friends. He was driving an unmarked police vehicle at the time that had been allocated to him as he was on standby duty and would need to be able to respond quickly if he was called to pace himself on duty. Knowing he was a police officer and was driving a police vehicle, the girl felt that it would be safe to accept a lift from him. After leaving the night club, van Wyk first dropped off his friends, but then, instead of driving her home, he drove out of town towards an area known as ‘the Wilderness’, stopping in the Kaaimans pass at a dark and secluded picnic spot alongside the estuary.
The girl, realising that he wasn’t driving her straight home as promised, became afraid and jumped from the car as soon as it stopped. She managed to get away and hide amongst the trees and bush until he left. Then she made her way back to the main road with the intention of hitchhiking back into George. She didn’t wait long before a vehicle stopped for her. To her surprise it was the same car she had just escaped from, driven by van Wyk. Although reluctant to climb back in, van Wyk assured her that he would take her home unharmed. Given that there were very few vehicles on this road at that time of the morning, she felt she had little choice but to accept. Van Wyk drove a short way up the road before stopping, assaulting and then raping her. He then drove her home and threatened to hurt or kill her if she told anyone what he had done.
She bravely defied his threats and reported the incident to the police who arrested van Wyk and charged him with rape. He was later convicted of the crime and was sent to prison. Shockingly, at the time of the rape van Wyk was head of the George detective unit, this was in spite of having four previous criminal convictions against him.
In 2005 the girl, now a young woman, brought a civil claim for damages against van Wyk and the Minister of Police. She held the Minister liable for van Wyk’s action and sought to claim damages from the police. Although the High Court ruled in her favour, the police appealed the decision which was subsequently overturned in a majority judgement by the Supreme Court of Appeal on the basis that van Wyk was off-duty at the time of the incident and that the Minister could therefore not be held liable. She then appealed that ruling in the Constitutional Court.
The question the Constitutional Court was called on to answer, was whether the Minister of Police could be held accountable for the actions of police officers, who were not on active duty; and whether police officers should be more worthy of our trust than any other citizen. The Institute for Security Studies was the first of three civil-society organisations to apply to act as amicus curie (friends of the court) by bringing expert testimony in the matter. We did so because this case offered an opportunity to strengthen police accountability by putting in place additional legal measures that citizens could use to hold the state liable for criminal and abusive behaviour by police officials.
The Court’s finding, that the Minister of Police, is indeed accountable for the actions of officers, represents an important milestone in the effort to ensure that the police act to project, rather than harm citizen’s even when they are not on active duty. It means that the Minister of Police has a responsibility to ensure that the officers who are recruited, appointed and employed by the police are not criminals themselves. Fortunately, the current Minister of Police, Nathi Mthethwa has already publicly committed himself to professionalising the South African Police Service (SAPS). This finding is particularly important in the light of the increase in recent years of cases of human rights violations committed by the police. For instance, the Independent Complaints Directorate (ICD) reported 45 allegations of torture in its 2010-2011 report, the highest number reported since 1999.
Towards the end of 2011, the Parliamentary Portfolio Committee on Police heard that during the 2010-11 financial year, contingent civil claims against the SAPS, mostly arising out of police criminality and misconduct, had increased to the substantial amount of R11bn or about 20% of the total police budget. In the short-term the Constitutional Courts ruling is likely to mean that the police will face additional civil claims and will therefore have to allocate even more of their budget to cover the potential cost of these claims.
To prevent this, it is going to be necessary for the Minister to ensure that SAPS management put proper measures in place to ensure that the people they recruit, train and employ understand, accept and are held accountable to the burden of professional service that being a member of the police requires. If SAPS management is able to do this, it will result in better policing while costing the state less in civil claims in the long run.
Source: ISS
Thursday, October 6, 2011
'Justice system overhaul would mean no more meddling'
A proposed overhaul of South Africa's justice system will prevent "meddling" with case files, says the high court's Judge Eberhard Bertelsmann. A proposed overhaul of South Africa's justice system will prevent "meddling" with case files, North Gauteng High Court Judge Eberhard Bertelsmann said on Thursday. "With this system, judges will be given §an electronic case file the moment a case is opened. The electronic files will be saved in a server and will have certain features to prevent meddling," he said.
Bertelsmann was talking at the opening of the Consumer Goods Council of SA annual conference in Johannesburg. He said the new system was decided on at a national judiciary meeting in 2009, and was being initiated this year. "Previous chief justice Sandile Ngcobo endorsed this model, and his enthusiasm has been carried over with new chief justice Mogoeng Mogoeng." He said the system would speed up trials. "Delays are simply not good enough. Our criminal justice system is creaky in its joints. We have 40 000 people awaiting trial in prisons. Some are granted bail, and others can't even raise R300 needed for bail. "It is unfair that we punish people, at a cost to ourselves that is greater than R300, because these people are poor. That does not sit well with a Constitution that demands equality and dignity."
He said an efficient, and technologically advanced justice system would benefit the consumer goods council as well. "How would we deal with crime, protect brands and patents, guard against unfair competition and protect labourers from being exploited if we never had courts? ... We are embarking on a very exciting trek ... that has filled us with optimism. This new process demands a new culture, and we need the support of all members of civil society, including consumer organisations."
Source: Mail & Guardian
Bertelsmann was talking at the opening of the Consumer Goods Council of SA annual conference in Johannesburg. He said the new system was decided on at a national judiciary meeting in 2009, and was being initiated this year. "Previous chief justice Sandile Ngcobo endorsed this model, and his enthusiasm has been carried over with new chief justice Mogoeng Mogoeng." He said the system would speed up trials. "Delays are simply not good enough. Our criminal justice system is creaky in its joints. We have 40 000 people awaiting trial in prisons. Some are granted bail, and others can't even raise R300 needed for bail. "It is unfair that we punish people, at a cost to ourselves that is greater than R300, because these people are poor. That does not sit well with a Constitution that demands equality and dignity."
He said an efficient, and technologically advanced justice system would benefit the consumer goods council as well. "How would we deal with crime, protect brands and patents, guard against unfair competition and protect labourers from being exploited if we never had courts? ... We are embarking on a very exciting trek ... that has filled us with optimism. This new process demands a new culture, and we need the support of all members of civil society, including consumer organisations."
Source: Mail & Guardian
Friday, September 9, 2011
Five years in jail an 'appropriate' sentence for McBride
Former Ekurhuleni metro police chief Robert McBride was sentenced to five years’ imprisonment by the Pretoria Magistrate’s Court on Thursday.
Magistrate Peet Johnson sentenced him to two years for driving under the influence of alcohol, and five years for defeating the ends of justice, of which two years were suspended for five years.
Johnson said it was in the interests of society that the court handed down an appropriate sentence. McBride would appeal the sentence. His bail of R1 000 was extended.
Civil rights body AfriForum said the sentence was a victory for justice.
‘No place for dishonesty’
“His sentence sends a strong message to law enforcement officers that there is no place for dishonesty and that they can wear their uniform with pride,” spokesperson Nantes Kelder said.
McBride was supposed to be an example to the community and had the responsibility to abide by the law, which he did not do, said Kelder.
The Congress of the People in Gauteng said McBride’s sentencing showed that no-one was above the law.
“Taxpayers will cherish the completion of the case, as more than R11-million paid by the council for McBride’s legal defence should be paid back,” Cope Ekurhuleni municipal councillor Lesego Sentsho said in a statement.
“In terms of public service statutes, officials found guilty of any offence are required to pay back money provided by the state for legal defence.”
‘I do not have problems with alcohol’
McBride on Thursday denied that he had a problem with alcohol.
He told the court he would comply with a court order which included attending an alcohol rehabilitation programme.
“I will comply even though I’m not happy. I do not have problems with alcohol,” he said.
He told the court he was a tracker and could be used to track rhino poachers. He could also be used to teach in prisons or any underprivileged community as he was a teacher with two BA degrees.
He told the court he believed he did not belong in jail. - Sapa
Source: Mail & Guardian
Magistrate Peet Johnson sentenced him to two years for driving under the influence of alcohol, and five years for defeating the ends of justice, of which two years were suspended for five years.
Johnson said it was in the interests of society that the court handed down an appropriate sentence. McBride would appeal the sentence. His bail of R1 000 was extended.
Civil rights body AfriForum said the sentence was a victory for justice.
‘No place for dishonesty’
“His sentence sends a strong message to law enforcement officers that there is no place for dishonesty and that they can wear their uniform with pride,” spokesperson Nantes Kelder said.
McBride was supposed to be an example to the community and had the responsibility to abide by the law, which he did not do, said Kelder.
The Congress of the People in Gauteng said McBride’s sentencing showed that no-one was above the law.
“Taxpayers will cherish the completion of the case, as more than R11-million paid by the council for McBride’s legal defence should be paid back,” Cope Ekurhuleni municipal councillor Lesego Sentsho said in a statement.
“In terms of public service statutes, officials found guilty of any offence are required to pay back money provided by the state for legal defence.”
‘I do not have problems with alcohol’
McBride on Thursday denied that he had a problem with alcohol.
He told the court he would comply with a court order which included attending an alcohol rehabilitation programme.
“I will comply even though I’m not happy. I do not have problems with alcohol,” he said.
He told the court he was a tracker and could be used to track rhino poachers. He could also be used to teach in prisons or any underprivileged community as he was a teacher with two BA degrees.
He told the court he believed he did not belong in jail. - Sapa
Source: Mail & Guardian
Friday, September 17, 2010
Radebe 'kept info from Zuma'
Justice Minister Jeff Radebe is in the firing line after President Jacob Zuma's lawyer revealed in court this week that Radebe had placed very little information before Zuma when the president appointed Menzi Simelane as head of the National Prosecuting Authority. This could lead to Zuma's appointment of Simelane being declared invalid if the court accepts that a rational process wasn't followed in appointing the controversial former justice director general to head the NPA. "The president relied on a very senior minister [Radebe] who said this [Simelane] is a man of integrity. He did not interrogate the minister. He accepted it," advocate Nazeer Cassim SC, appearing for Zuma, told the North Gauteng High Court this week.
Cassim defended Zuma's appointment of Simelane on the limited ground of Zuma's "value judgement", against mounting evidence by the Democratic Alliance that Zuma wasn't fully briefed on Simelane's track record and negative findings against him before appointing him in November last year. The DA is challenging Simelane's appointment as prosecutions boss on the grounds that a rational process wasn't followed in appointing him, that Simelane is not a fit and proper person to head the NPA and that Zuma and Radebe had an ulterior purpose in appointing him.
After three days of argument, legal experts attending the case said the DA's argument that a rational process wasn't followed when Zuma appointed Simelane was the party's strongest point. Judge Piet van der Byl has reserved judgement. Senior advocate Owen Rogers, appearing for the DA, revealed in court that Zuma was not in possession of the following information before he appointed Simelane:
* A report by the Public Service Commission (PSC) recommending that Radebe institute a disciplinary hearing against Simelane based on the findings of the Ginwala inquiry;
* Consecutive qualified audits received by the justice department from the auditor general while Simelane was director general;
* A judgement by the Supreme Court of Appeal in a case brought by Pretoria Portland Cement against the Competition Commission while Simelane headed the commission. The judgement found Simelane had used deception in gaining access to PPC's premises and was "scathing" about the commission's abuse of power; and
* Criticism by the Constitutional Court of Simelane's actions in the case brought by businessman Hugh Glenister to save the Scorpions. Judges Kate O'Regan and Zac Yacoob criticised Simelane for not responding "fully, frankly and openly".
This wasn't challenged by Cassim, who turned his attention to Radebe and said Zuma didn't "second-guess" the minister. Cassim argued that the test for "fit and proper" was subjective and that Zuma accepted Simelane's fitness to hold office based on his personal value system, which he juxtaposed with the DA's "liberal tradition". "Someone raised in a liberal tradition has a very different value system from someone who came into power in a socialist structure. The court will not impose a value system as if it is a universal criteri[on]," said Cassim. He argued it was "very difficult to find someone who would suit the ANC profile with 30 years of prosecuting experience". Radebe, a "very senior minister", told Zuma that in his judgement "Simelane is a good man" and Zuma believed him.
Van der Byl pushed counsel on what process Zuma followed in appointing Simelane and whether the president had access to all relevant information to make a rational and legal appointment. In response to a statement by advocate Marumo Moerane SC, appearing for Radebe, that Zuma was "fully briefed", Van der Byl asked: "How full?" Moerane replied: "The minister [Radebe] says he briefed the president fully."
Rogers slammed Radebe for "brushing off" the PSC report and its recommendation that Simelane should face a disciplinary hearing. Former justice minister Enver Surty referred the Ginwala inquiry's report to the PSC, which considered the report and recommended that Simelane face a disciplinary hearing. In his affidavit before court Radebe admits that he unilaterally decided not to charge Simelane because the PSC had not considered submissions made by Simelane's advocates.
Motivating why he did not present the PSC report to Zuma, Radebe states: "I did not consider it legally defensible for me to take the recommendations of the PSC to the president, knowing that Simelane's views had not been taken into account." Radebe also claims he "was not legally obligated to furnish the president with any documentation that I had recourse to as I informed myself of the qualities of Simelane, nor was the president obliged to request such documentation from me". The DA slams Radebe for "blindly" accepting Simelane's version and for withholding from Zuma the PSC's report about Ginwala's findings.
After Simelane's appointment, and after the DA had launched its application, Zuma read extracts from the Ginwala inquiry's transcript and report. He states under oath: "I submit that in view of, at times, the speculative nature of the enquiry's findings in this regard, and the absence of a finding of malice or dishonesty by the enquiry, I considered the report in the light of the knowledge I have of Adv Simelane ... and found that these findings did not detract from his suitability for appointment."
Rogers, for the DA, argued Simelane's appointment as national director of public prosecutions was a done deal, regardless of the PSC's findings. Although Zuma states in his affidavit that he supported Radebe's handling of the PSC report, Cassim told the court he would not argue that Radebe's disregard of the PSC's recommendation was correct. "I agree with Mr Rogers [that] the PSC said give him [Simelane] a hearing. But the minister of justice took a decision it was not necessary to give him a hearing. Even if he was wrong, the decision [by Radebe] is not the subject matter of this review."
Source; Mail & Guardian
Cassim defended Zuma's appointment of Simelane on the limited ground of Zuma's "value judgement", against mounting evidence by the Democratic Alliance that Zuma wasn't fully briefed on Simelane's track record and negative findings against him before appointing him in November last year. The DA is challenging Simelane's appointment as prosecutions boss on the grounds that a rational process wasn't followed in appointing him, that Simelane is not a fit and proper person to head the NPA and that Zuma and Radebe had an ulterior purpose in appointing him.
After three days of argument, legal experts attending the case said the DA's argument that a rational process wasn't followed when Zuma appointed Simelane was the party's strongest point. Judge Piet van der Byl has reserved judgement. Senior advocate Owen Rogers, appearing for the DA, revealed in court that Zuma was not in possession of the following information before he appointed Simelane:
* A report by the Public Service Commission (PSC) recommending that Radebe institute a disciplinary hearing against Simelane based on the findings of the Ginwala inquiry;
* Consecutive qualified audits received by the justice department from the auditor general while Simelane was director general;
* A judgement by the Supreme Court of Appeal in a case brought by Pretoria Portland Cement against the Competition Commission while Simelane headed the commission. The judgement found Simelane had used deception in gaining access to PPC's premises and was "scathing" about the commission's abuse of power; and
* Criticism by the Constitutional Court of Simelane's actions in the case brought by businessman Hugh Glenister to save the Scorpions. Judges Kate O'Regan and Zac Yacoob criticised Simelane for not responding "fully, frankly and openly".
This wasn't challenged by Cassim, who turned his attention to Radebe and said Zuma didn't "second-guess" the minister. Cassim argued that the test for "fit and proper" was subjective and that Zuma accepted Simelane's fitness to hold office based on his personal value system, which he juxtaposed with the DA's "liberal tradition". "Someone raised in a liberal tradition has a very different value system from someone who came into power in a socialist structure. The court will not impose a value system as if it is a universal criteri[on]," said Cassim. He argued it was "very difficult to find someone who would suit the ANC profile with 30 years of prosecuting experience". Radebe, a "very senior minister", told Zuma that in his judgement "Simelane is a good man" and Zuma believed him.
Van der Byl pushed counsel on what process Zuma followed in appointing Simelane and whether the president had access to all relevant information to make a rational and legal appointment. In response to a statement by advocate Marumo Moerane SC, appearing for Radebe, that Zuma was "fully briefed", Van der Byl asked: "How full?" Moerane replied: "The minister [Radebe] says he briefed the president fully."
Rogers slammed Radebe for "brushing off" the PSC report and its recommendation that Simelane should face a disciplinary hearing. Former justice minister Enver Surty referred the Ginwala inquiry's report to the PSC, which considered the report and recommended that Simelane face a disciplinary hearing. In his affidavit before court Radebe admits that he unilaterally decided not to charge Simelane because the PSC had not considered submissions made by Simelane's advocates.
Motivating why he did not present the PSC report to Zuma, Radebe states: "I did not consider it legally defensible for me to take the recommendations of the PSC to the president, knowing that Simelane's views had not been taken into account." Radebe also claims he "was not legally obligated to furnish the president with any documentation that I had recourse to as I informed myself of the qualities of Simelane, nor was the president obliged to request such documentation from me". The DA slams Radebe for "blindly" accepting Simelane's version and for withholding from Zuma the PSC's report about Ginwala's findings.
After Simelane's appointment, and after the DA had launched its application, Zuma read extracts from the Ginwala inquiry's transcript and report. He states under oath: "I submit that in view of, at times, the speculative nature of the enquiry's findings in this regard, and the absence of a finding of malice or dishonesty by the enquiry, I considered the report in the light of the knowledge I have of Adv Simelane ... and found that these findings did not detract from his suitability for appointment."
Rogers, for the DA, argued Simelane's appointment as national director of public prosecutions was a done deal, regardless of the PSC's findings. Although Zuma states in his affidavit that he supported Radebe's handling of the PSC report, Cassim told the court he would not argue that Radebe's disregard of the PSC's recommendation was correct. "I agree with Mr Rogers [that] the PSC said give him [Simelane] a hearing. But the minister of justice took a decision it was not necessary to give him a hearing. Even if he was wrong, the decision [by Radebe] is not the subject matter of this review."
Source; Mail & Guardian
Monday, April 19, 2010
Twelfth United Nations Congress on Crime Prevention and Criminal Justice (Salvador, Brazil, 12-19 April 2010)
The Government of Brazil will host the Twelfth United Nations Congress on Crime Prevention and Criminal Justice in Salvador, from 12 to 19 April 2010. Pre-Congress consultations will take place on 11 April 2010.
The theme for the Twelfth Congress will be "Comprehensive strategies for global challenges: crime prevention and criminal justice systems and their development in a changing world".
Crime congresses have been held every five years since 1955 in different parts of the world and have contributed to shaping international and domestic policies and promoting novel thinking and approaches to complex issues at the heart of one of the key institutions of the modern state: the criminal justice system.
The Twelfth Crime Congress will bring together the largest and most diverse gathering of policymakers and practitioners in the area of crime prevention and criminal justice, as well as parliamentarians, individual experts from academia and representatives of civil society and the media.
The Twelfth Crime Congress, which marks the fifty-fifth anniversary of United Nations congresses on crime prevention and criminal justice, offers a unique opportunity to stimulate in-depth discussion and proposals for action along three principal avenues by:
* Establishing firmly the criminal justice system as a central pillar in the rule-of-law architecture;
* Highlighting the pivotal role of the criminal justice system in development;
* Emphasizing the need for a holistic approach to criminal justice system reform to strengthen the capacity of criminal justice systems in dealing with crime
The provisional agenda for the Twelfth Congress shows that special attention will be paid to: children, youth and crime; smuggling of migrants; trafficking in persons; money-laundering; and cybercrime.
As is the practice, participants in the Twelfth Congress will adopt a declaration containing recommendations based on deliberations held during the high-level segment, the round tables and the workshops, to be submitted to the Commission on Crime Prevention and Criminal Justice at its nineteenth session, in 2010.
Four regional preparatory meetings have been held (in Latin America and the Caribbean, West Asia, Asia and the Pacific and Africa), providing a platform from which to discuss the issues that will be raised at the Twelfth Congress from a regional perspective. At the regional preparatory meetings, participants highlighted special problems and concerns, as well as successful experiences and promising approaches to addressing them.
Source: United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime
The theme for the Twelfth Congress will be "Comprehensive strategies for global challenges: crime prevention and criminal justice systems and their development in a changing world".
Crime congresses have been held every five years since 1955 in different parts of the world and have contributed to shaping international and domestic policies and promoting novel thinking and approaches to complex issues at the heart of one of the key institutions of the modern state: the criminal justice system.
The Twelfth Crime Congress will bring together the largest and most diverse gathering of policymakers and practitioners in the area of crime prevention and criminal justice, as well as parliamentarians, individual experts from academia and representatives of civil society and the media.
The Twelfth Crime Congress, which marks the fifty-fifth anniversary of United Nations congresses on crime prevention and criminal justice, offers a unique opportunity to stimulate in-depth discussion and proposals for action along three principal avenues by:
* Establishing firmly the criminal justice system as a central pillar in the rule-of-law architecture;
* Highlighting the pivotal role of the criminal justice system in development;
* Emphasizing the need for a holistic approach to criminal justice system reform to strengthen the capacity of criminal justice systems in dealing with crime
The provisional agenda for the Twelfth Congress shows that special attention will be paid to: children, youth and crime; smuggling of migrants; trafficking in persons; money-laundering; and cybercrime.
As is the practice, participants in the Twelfth Congress will adopt a declaration containing recommendations based on deliberations held during the high-level segment, the round tables and the workshops, to be submitted to the Commission on Crime Prevention and Criminal Justice at its nineteenth session, in 2010.
Four regional preparatory meetings have been held (in Latin America and the Caribbean, West Asia, Asia and the Pacific and Africa), providing a platform from which to discuss the issues that will be raised at the Twelfth Congress from a regional perspective. At the regional preparatory meetings, participants highlighted special problems and concerns, as well as successful experiences and promising approaches to addressing them.
Source: United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime
Sunday, February 28, 2010
Mpumalanga premier feels the heat
David "DD" Mabuza's days as premier of Mpumalanga appear to be numbered as the ANC head office loses patience with his beleaguered administration. The ruling party has sent a sub-committee of its national executive committee (NEC) to the province to investigate complaints, including multimillion-rand government tenders which appear to be at the root of a fall-out.
An embattled Mabuza already suffered a huge blow when the ANC blocked his plans for a cabinet reshuffle. According to reliable party insiders, Mabuza was chastised by Luthuli House a week ago after he planned to reshuffle his cabinet and get rid of individuals who refused to toe his line. One of Mabuza's intended targets was Fish Mahlalela, the provincial chairman of the standing committee on public accounts. Mahlalela is believed to be investigating financial mismanagement by Mabuza's administration.
Top party officials said this week that plans to remove the powerful Mpumalanga premier - also known as the Hurricane - were well under way. The ANC's sub-committee, which is headed by NEC member Malusi Gigaba, is understood to be fed up with the "state of paralysis in the province". The sub-committee, after meeting regions and branches of the ANC in the province, will apparently recommend to ANC headquarters that Mabuza be recalled immediately for failing to show leadership.
This week the Democratic Alliance added fuel to the fire when it called for Mabuza's resignation after he denounced crime and corruption in his state of the province address but made no mention of a spate of murders and the purported existence of a hit-list of ANC officials. The hit-list, which is apparently linked to World Cup tender disputes, is now the subject of an official police investigation and has caused panic among politicians and government officials. Mabuza is further accused of failing to deal with tender irregularities.
The dissatisfaction with his leadership is further evident in a letter sent by ANC members to President Jacob Zuma in September last year, in which they accused him of ignoring glaring irregularities brought to his attention in a range of government departments. Mabuza is no stranger to controversy. In 1998 he resigned in disgrace as Mpumalanga MEC for education after his department illegally inflated the province's matric pass rate to 72.5% from 46%. While he was MEC for agriculture, he is alleged to have authorised the awarding of a R210-million tender to a company owned by his former wife, Ruth Silinda, even though her company had been suspended. Eyebrows have also been raised over the recent awarding of a R232-million tender to the Sizwengendaba-Laeveld Trekkers joint venture for the provision and maintenance of farm mechanisation and equipment in rural communities.
According to senior ANC members, who spoke on condition of anonymity, the provincial ANC Youth League, the MK Military Veterans' Association and ANC branches and regions are on the verge of open rebellion against Mabuza. But ANC spokesman Paul Mbenyane said he was not aware of any plans to remove Mabuza. "Our position is that DD Mabuza remains chairman of the ANC in Mpumalanga. He's got our full support," he said. "Structures of the ANC have the right to raise their problems about Mabuza with Luthuli House."
Mabuza's spokesman, Mabutho Sithole, also dismissed talk that Mabuza would be removed. "There are people who are spreading lies about the premier for their own personal gain," said Sithole.
Source: Times Live
An embattled Mabuza already suffered a huge blow when the ANC blocked his plans for a cabinet reshuffle. According to reliable party insiders, Mabuza was chastised by Luthuli House a week ago after he planned to reshuffle his cabinet and get rid of individuals who refused to toe his line. One of Mabuza's intended targets was Fish Mahlalela, the provincial chairman of the standing committee on public accounts. Mahlalela is believed to be investigating financial mismanagement by Mabuza's administration.
Top party officials said this week that plans to remove the powerful Mpumalanga premier - also known as the Hurricane - were well under way. The ANC's sub-committee, which is headed by NEC member Malusi Gigaba, is understood to be fed up with the "state of paralysis in the province". The sub-committee, after meeting regions and branches of the ANC in the province, will apparently recommend to ANC headquarters that Mabuza be recalled immediately for failing to show leadership.
This week the Democratic Alliance added fuel to the fire when it called for Mabuza's resignation after he denounced crime and corruption in his state of the province address but made no mention of a spate of murders and the purported existence of a hit-list of ANC officials. The hit-list, which is apparently linked to World Cup tender disputes, is now the subject of an official police investigation and has caused panic among politicians and government officials. Mabuza is further accused of failing to deal with tender irregularities.
The dissatisfaction with his leadership is further evident in a letter sent by ANC members to President Jacob Zuma in September last year, in which they accused him of ignoring glaring irregularities brought to his attention in a range of government departments. Mabuza is no stranger to controversy. In 1998 he resigned in disgrace as Mpumalanga MEC for education after his department illegally inflated the province's matric pass rate to 72.5% from 46%. While he was MEC for agriculture, he is alleged to have authorised the awarding of a R210-million tender to a company owned by his former wife, Ruth Silinda, even though her company had been suspended. Eyebrows have also been raised over the recent awarding of a R232-million tender to the Sizwengendaba-Laeveld Trekkers joint venture for the provision and maintenance of farm mechanisation and equipment in rural communities.
According to senior ANC members, who spoke on condition of anonymity, the provincial ANC Youth League, the MK Military Veterans' Association and ANC branches and regions are on the verge of open rebellion against Mabuza. But ANC spokesman Paul Mbenyane said he was not aware of any plans to remove Mabuza. "Our position is that DD Mabuza remains chairman of the ANC in Mpumalanga. He's got our full support," he said. "Structures of the ANC have the right to raise their problems about Mabuza with Luthuli House."
Mabuza's spokesman, Mabutho Sithole, also dismissed talk that Mabuza would be removed. "There are people who are spreading lies about the premier for their own personal gain," said Sithole.
Source: Times Live
Friday, February 26, 2010
Selebi’s Zuma option
Pierre De Vos has reported on his Blog Constitutionally Speaking the ETV news reports that lawyers for Jackie Selebi are to approach Menzi Simelane, National Director of Public Prosecutions (NDPP), in order to have the trial of Jackie Selebi stopped. According to De Vos, ETV news reports that Selebi will argue that there was a conspiracy against him and that the prosecution was tainted by prosecutorial misconduct.
In his article, he refers to section 179 of the South African Constitution and prosecution policy agreed to between the NDPP and the Minister of Justice.
According the De Vos, "If the ETV report is correct, it would present Simelane with his first real test. Will he act in the interest of justice with an eye towards securing the credibility of the NPA and the criminal justice system or will other factors persuade him to intervene in this matter? Only time will tell."
Source: Constitutionally Speaking
In his article, he refers to section 179 of the South African Constitution and prosecution policy agreed to between the NDPP and the Minister of Justice.
According the De Vos, "If the ETV report is correct, it would present Simelane with his first real test. Will he act in the interest of justice with an eye towards securing the credibility of the NPA and the criminal justice system or will other factors persuade him to intervene in this matter? Only time will tell."
Source: Constitutionally Speaking
Friday, August 21, 2009
More than a million unsolved crimes in SA
More than a million of the two million criminal cases reported annually in South Africa are never solved, the Mercury reported on Thursday. "The cases seem to get lost somewhere -- they fall through the cracks. We have to ensure cases are not filtered out," said Willie Scholtz, head of the South African Criminal Justice System working group. Scholtz was speaking at an event hosted by the University of Cape Town Graduate School of Business on Wednesday.
Scholtz blamed inadequate collection of evidence at crime scenes, insufficient investigation of crimes, trials that ran for an extremely long time, and ineffective court processes for the country's 10,3% conviction rate in criminal cases. Prosecutors and Legal Aid Board attorneys also played a role by "endlessly delaying cases".
Scholtz heads up a team that assisted with a review of the criminal justice system.
Source: Mail & Guardian
Scholtz blamed inadequate collection of evidence at crime scenes, insufficient investigation of crimes, trials that ran for an extremely long time, and ineffective court processes for the country's 10,3% conviction rate in criminal cases. Prosecutors and Legal Aid Board attorneys also played a role by "endlessly delaying cases".
Scholtz heads up a team that assisted with a review of the criminal justice system.
Source: Mail & Guardian
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)