Piccolo Teatro

The onslaught by the White Inc on the President’s nomination of Mogoeng J for the position of Chief Justice is far bigger than the supposed inexperience and insinuated homophobia of the judge. It is even bigger than the President himself. In the past two years since Jacob Zuma became President the White Inc has executed a carefully planned and measured campaign to discredit, ridicule and embarrass him. Jacob Zuma himself has made their job quite easy at times for some of his actions and decisions. While they are within their rights not to like him or even not want him as President but they must keep in mind that Zuma did not vote himself into that office, the people did. It’s the same people that they want to vote parties and candidates of their own choice. It is rather stupid then they insult the very same people and then wonder why they are simply not getting the votes.

In their campaign to undermine Zuma they trample on and abuse anyone who will give them a shot at Zuma. Last week it was Ngcobo CJ and this week it’s Mogoeng J. In their quest, they do not care that lives and reputations are destroyed. The silence after Zuma’s nomination of Mogoeng J was deafening as they flooded the Internet and archives to find, not why this person could be Chief Justice but why he could not be. Why? Because Zuma made the decision! Judge Mogoeng’s reputation is now being shreded into pieces and ridiculous assertions being made about his abilities and experience while overlooking the facts. The fact is that there is no prerequisite on experience on the appointment of Chief Justice. The fact is that Mogoeng J has been on the bench since 1997, only two judges currently serving the constitution court have been on the bench longer. Moseneke DCJ who Zuma has been accused of overlooking, only rose to the bench in 2001 and is effectively a junior to Mogoeng J in judicial experience. No other Chief Justice had had the experience of having been a President of of a division of a High Court before like Mogoeng J and this brings administrative experience. These are the facts.

In their quest they even go as far as suggesting who should have been nominated. Ridiculous, I say. The constitution is clear on the process of appointing a Chief Justice and now that the process has been followed they find something else that’s wrong. Now there are suggestions that the process, enshrined in the constitution they always loudly seek to protect, is not transparent and concentrate too much power in the hands of one person. This only means that he White Inc, in a constitutional democracy, wants to change rules of the game whenever they don’t get their way or powerbis in the hands of those they abhor.

Indeed Zuma’s leadership abilities has left a lot of question marks but this does not mean the constitutional authority of the office he holds must be ridiculed and undermined. He indeed has been caught in one too many a gaffe but he is still an elected president of the country elected by a clear majority which needs to be respected. What the White Inc should be doing is going to the voters and pointing out Zuma’s and the ANC’s shortcomings without disrespecting and ridiculing him. Since the majority of voters are African, they need to understand how Africans think, what they think about and what matters to them. They need to study how the ANC manages to keep voters election after election, screw up after screw up. They need to understand that respect means a lot Africans. This destruction of innocent people’s lives in the pursuit of the downfall of one man must simply stop. This carnage must simply stop.

2 responses to “This Carnage Must Stop”

  1. ximba Avatar
    ximba

    When Mogoeng J was appointed to the bench in 1997 there was no noise. When he was appointed JP North West there was also no noise. When he was elevated to the Constitutional court there was also no noise. The noise is coming out now about his experience and his fitness. For me this noise is more about the person who made the nomination than the nominee. Good Nco keep it up

  2. Tony Harding Avatar

    I opposed the working of the ‘liberal consensus’ strongly. Nomalanga Mkhize write in the City Press:

    “Ntsebeza wrote about the ease with which the credibility of a black judge was eviscerated with scant evidence by people who considered him a legal non-entity.

    “The intellectual landscape is littered with political analysts who run about in the same professional networks, creating self-referential circles of knowledge about what or whom are significant or acceptable in the political realm.

    “It’s an incestuous relationship among columnists, editors, analysts and sections of civil society who feed a tiresome liberal consensus on South African political affairs.

    “And they’ve done it again with Mogoeng. We need to re-examine what constitutes the embodiment of a good judge in the new South Africa and how to come to terms with the diversity inherent in our society, which is inevitably reflected in the judiciary.”

    I agree fully with these views.

    We were treated to fully coverage by the E News Channel, which (I thought) was intended to allow the public to make up their own views on the matter. Just as in their coverage of the Malema vs Afriforum matter, the E News Channel clearly has its own interpretation of the clear sense that is spoken on the screen.

    In the Mogoeng matter, the E News Channel runs the photograph of Zuma and Mogoeng at the party of a certain lawyer in Mafikeng some years ago – before Zuma became president. The lawyer’s face has been edited out of the picture. Mogoeng explained in detail, when given the opportunity by a (white) member of the JSC, the circumstances of the meeting. Mogoeng expressed his deep thanks for the opportunity to set the matter straight.

    (I cannot repeat the circumstances as the could possibly be construed as defamatory to the lawyer who issued the invitation. After making absolutely clear that subsequent to the events at the meeting left a bad taste his mouth, Mogoeng explained that he had no further meetings with Zuma, not did he presume Zuma would need to seek his friendship.)

    In a article published in the Times, Paul Hoffman, director of the Institute for Accountability in Southern Africa, stated:

    “Ramatlhodi has complained (The Times, September 1) that the ANC made “fatal concessions” in the process that led to the abolition of apartheid and parliamentary sovereignty and the establishment of a multiparty constitutional democracy under the rule of law in the early 1990s.

    “It is not clear whether the “fatal concessions” refer to the national democratic revolution, in which case he is right, or to the country, in which case he is dead wrong.

    “These “concessions”, says Ramatlhodi, tilt the constitution in favour of “forces against change”, “while immigrating substantial power away from the legislature and the executive and vesting it in the judiciary, chapter 9 institutions and civil society movements”.

    “Ramatlhodi, an advocate, reveals a worrisome attitude towards constitutionalism in general and, in particular, the checks and balances on the exercise of power that it entails. His views are informed by the deeply unconstitutional tenets of the national democratic revolution and they are subversive of the rule of law, which brought respect for human dignity, the promotion of the achievement of equality and the enjoyment of the freedoms guaranteed to all.”

    As I have written elsewhere on this blog, we will have to settle the matter of the representivity of a number of the lobby groups claiming to represent a broad section of interests in our society. Surely, the Constitution does not guarantee equal weight to all voices claiming to represent citizens in the broadest sense.

    At the end of considering the matter carefully and sensitively, with the test of the needs of the rural poor in mind, I came to a personal decision that Mogoeng would not have the mettle to deal with the process of robust engagement that our country needs to undertake in the short-term – or face a possible failure of the state.

    I have no doubts about Mogoeng’s personal integrity, but I am not sure he has the mettle to sift through the noise of battle to see where the country should be headed.

Leave a reply to ximba Cancel reply