Simelane not fit for the job, SCA hears

2011-10-31 16:35

Bloemfontein - There was no evidence that President Jacob Zuma applied his mind properly in appointing the country's prosecution head, the Supreme Court of Appeal heard on Monday.

"The decision maker must have the facts before him," argued Owen Rogers, legal counsel for the Democratic Alliance, in Bloemfontein.

The North Gauteng High Court in Pretoria last year dismissed the DA's bid to have Zuma's decision to appoint Menzi Simelane as National Director of Public Prosecutions (NDPP) set aside.

The party was asking the Supreme Court of Appeal to overturn this judgment.

Simelane's appointment in 2009 was criticised by many, including former speaker of Parliament Frene Ginwala.

Rogers argued that Zuma's efforts to satisfy himself of Simelane's fitness for the job were not in line with the objectives of the Constitution and the National Prosecution Authority (NPA) Act.

"The point we made there is there was not one piece of paper that show what he [Zuma] considered. No record."

In papers before the Supreme Court of Appeal, the DA submitted that the requirement of fitness in the NPA act was an objective jurisdictional fact.

The DA argued that Simelane was not objectively a fit person.

It contended there were various incidents which cumulatively established that Simelane had behaved evasively and displayed a lack of candour.

Despite this, Zuma did not call for, or receive any written submissions to help him consider whether Simelane was fit for office.

Legal counsel for Zuma, Nazeer Cassim, submitted that the president received information on Simelane by discussing the matter with Justice and Constitutional Development Minister Jeff Radebe.

Cassim argued that Zuma had all the facts before him and he made a value judgement on the matter which was required from him as president.

Legal counsel for Radebe, Marumo Moerane, submitted the decision on Simelane was taken based on verbal interaction between Radebe and Zuma.

The president could not be expected to read everything on the matter.

"He has a minister whose responsibility in a department was to work with nitty-gritty. He [Zuma] was entitled to have discussions and take the minister's advice."

However, Moerane agreed that the "buck stops with the president" in making the final decision.

He said Radebe's advice was not insufficient.

Judgment was reserved.

  • johncarlos.biza - 2011-10-31 16:41

    "There was no evidence that President Jacob Zuma applied his mind properly in appointing the country's prosecution head" As if he applies his mind properly in other things

      Right - 2011-10-31 16:52

      I will pass on this one....lets just say I know far too much here.

      Jeff - 2011-10-31 16:57

      Zuma has no mind.

      Servaas - 2011-10-31 16:58

      Like you do with each and every article.

      Right - 2011-10-31 17:01 you honestly think you can engage me in debate? Are you so "THICK" not to even realize that you do not have the WHEREWITHALL. Come on now little away!

      Servaas - 2011-10-31 17:17

      So give me something viable to debate, if this bs is the best you got, I think you should run along.. old man

      Right - 2011-10-31 17:26

      @serv-ASS : you go : White privilege must be eradicated from society. Wikipedia's article on white privilege states quite rightly that : "In critical race theory, white privilege is a way of conceptualizing racial inequalities that focuses as much on the advantages that white people accrue from society as on the disadvantages that people of color experience. Most such theories focus on American and European societal condition, since inequality between whites and non-whites is a long-standing feature of these academic areas. White privilege differs from conditions of overt racism or prejudice, in which a dominant group actively seeks to oppress or suppress other racial groups for its own advantage. Instead, theories of white privilege suggest that whites view their social, cultural, and economic experiences as a norm that everyone should experience, rather than as an advantaged position that must be maintained at the expense of others. This normative assumption implicitly constrains discussions of racial inequality within the dominant discourse: such explanations are limited to factors specific to disadvantaged racial groups - who are viewed as having failed to achieve the norm - and solutions focus on what can be done to help those groups achieve the 'normal' standards experienced by whites."

      SimnikiweNtingi - 2011-10-31 17:33

      LoL HAHAHAHAHA @right, are you perhaps a friend of Vukani?

      Right - 2011-10-31 17:33

      Ummmmmmm...has anyone seen or heard from serv-ASS????

      Right - 2011-10-31 17:49

      @serv-ASS....have you now left the ring or are you awaiting someone that has a "laager mentality" to come to your rescue and assist you. I thought YOU wanted to debate. Go and have your bath....LITTLE BOY!

      Mike - 2011-10-31 18:35

      How old are you Right because when I read your comments and I refer to the manner of your delivery, you sound like a bickering name caller, kinda kills all your credibility

      sven.gohre - 2011-10-31 18:44

      @Right, it would seem that you are a rather lazy person, just copying and pasting from Wikipedia. But let us take what you so diligently copied and break it down. Firstly the fact that White privilege exists is a given, seeing that when the Whites arrived in Africa just over 300 years ago, the tribes of Africa were still in the Stone-age. Even though Billions of Dollars have been spent on trying to educate these people of African decent, it has proved rather fruitless, with the African people always finding an excuse not to learn, or work for what they want. In fact it may be that they are unable to, as you may have heard of the Bell Curve, which shows that the average IQ of a Black person is 70. This is 10 points below Moron level in the Western world. I am not saying that there are not people of African decent that have not got higher IQ's, as that would be a lie, as can be seen by those Black people that are doctors, engineers and scientists. Secondly, the fact that White people want others to have the same standard of life as they have, is not in any way racist. In fact it is that trait in them that made them ban the slave trade and to open missionary schools in Africa in an attempt to educate those that had none. But no matter how hard the Whites have tried to alleviate the poverty and lack of education in Africa, the more they have been kicked in the teeth and told to go back to where they come from. In South Africa this is a joke, as both are Settlers in SA.

      Right - 2011-10-31 18:44

      Ahhhhh....old man Mike has decided to come thru with his "laager mentality". The last time we sparred you got bruised....but I guess you been licking your wounds all this while. Welcome back!...I trust you will have something intelligent to contribute as opposed to your usual drivel.

      Mike - 2011-10-31 18:51

      No I have never commented in your posts there is more than one mike check

      Right - 2011-10-31 18:57

      @sven....your comments have just proven the assertion made....THANK YOU!

      John - 2011-10-31 21:01

      Mind? What mind?

      Zifnab - 2011-11-01 09:04

      Hey everyone: Right is a bored pimply white kid getting his kicks baiting all the topics. Go do your homework "Right" you pimpled anti-social freak. An get some fresh air, friends and sunlight. You are about as black as Hillary Clinton.

      Michael - 2011-12-01 12:14

      @right. You hide behind your computer, pretending to be highly intelligent, and threaten others with your "great debating skills" you then accept the challenge, we all await with baited breath, only for you to copy and past something that you have read on Wikipedia. You are also stupid enough to admit, that you got it from Wikipedia. I am still waiting for something remotely intelligent from YOU. At the moment you actually come across as a childish schoolyard bully. Instead of empty threats of the physical kind, we have to read your arrogant threats of the mental kind. Funny thing is, you apply your mind exactly the way zuma does. My question is, how do you apply thin air, to anything. I can see right through you. Pretending to be all smart, and the sad thing is, you probably think you are really smart. Sitting there with your pigeon chest puffed out, eagerly slurping your fresco, getting kfc crumbs stuck in your keyboard as you excitedly show everyone how smart you are. Do us all a favor, we can all read articles on the net and copy and paste. How about contributing something valid, and "apply" your own mind. The mind still boggles so much, i will actually repeat your stupidity. You threaten someone, and shout how you will out-debate them, only to copy and past something off the net. Now we all know why the country is in the state it's in. Zuma keeps copying things of the Chinese govt website...

  • Peter - 2011-10-31 16:46

    You are wasting space here, this is a given with the Government!

  • Mike - 2011-10-31 16:47

    This must fall under administrative law, quite complicated issues

  • Johan - 2011-10-31 17:01

    Zuma struggles to apply his mind as there is a shower dripping watter over his head . . . . . . .almost all of the time . . . . .distracting him

  • Alva - 2011-10-31 17:20

    I'm thinking there is an ulterior motive for the big man appointing Simelane. The motive is COVER -UP!!!

  • Poloyatonki - 2011-10-31 17:32

    DA irritates me.

      Dmitri - 2011-10-31 18:38

      Everyone irritates you ;)

      Michael - 2011-12-01 12:18

      mosquito's irritate me...

  • Mehluli - 2011-10-31 18:03

    I do not know what the DA is trying to prove in this case,what are they going to gain as they are not going to be consulted when ever the decision is made to appoint any DG.DA is just another white party which does not believe that a black man can do good.A recist party.

      Mike - 2011-10-31 18:41

      His testimony at the Ginwala commission is the problem, he should have been struck from the roll of advocates because a credibility finding was made against him.

  • Justus - 2011-10-31 18:30

    @right I can clearly see that you wrote this out of a book or an article. To debate you have to say things in your own words and not use those of someone more clever than you. Try again

      Right - 2011-10-31 22:38

      Nothing to see clearly. The comment does state clearly "Wikipedia's article". I guess you have never did higher education and presented material from other sources. So we will just classify you as one of those uneducated imbeciles..

  • Bertha - 2011-11-01 07:57

    @ the lot of you, and in particular Right. for crying out loud, would you all catch a bleedin grip of yourselves, trying to goad others into a silly debate that is clearly above your and many others intellectual capacity can only be seen as trying to score up upmanship, what is it you are trying to prove? that your smarter, more educated, who the hell cares what education you may or may not have achieved, everyone is entitled to an opinion whether you agree with it or not. quite frankly this nonsense screams of your own insecurities. And whilst im on the subject of the absolute blige posted on these sites, who the hell cares if words are spelt incorrectly, how the opinion is framed is not the point. The point is, is the iformation is being disected and consumed as is the objective of this site. So please, for the love of god, content yourselves in knowledge that you are part of this, you are intelligently curious enough to want to read about current affairs. Then be content within yourselves and your own abilities. The only thing you acheive by this nonsense is exposing yourself as a wannabe intellectual. show some respect!

  • pages:
  • 1