Posts tagged as Judge

100 days of very cross examination

By Ray Hartley | 2 weeks, 6 days ago

The Farlam Commission sits for its 99th day in the Rustenberg Civic Centre Auditorium

The Farlam Commission sits for its 99th day in the Rustenberg Civic Centre Auditorium


It was the afternoon of the 99th day of the hearings of the Marikana Commission of Inquiry and Judge Ian Farlam was at the end of his tether.
Seated on a raised platform on the stage of the Rustenberg Civic Center’s auditorium, he had just spent a frustrating day watching a game of legal cat and mouse in which the cat did not have claws and the mouse could not run. It had not been an edifying spectacle and Farlam had shifted about in his chair, sometimes placing his cheek on his fist and at others sitting ramrod straight and staring into the middle distance with the tips of his fingers touching beneath his raised chin.
To his right sat the Commissioner of Police, Riah Piyega, wearing a dark jacket offset by a white shirt and a red cravat and a pair of spectacles, which she sometimes removed to reveal closed eyes and a the brow of someone attempting to minimize the effect of a migraine.
To his left sat the representative of the injured and arrested Marikana protestors, Dali Mpofu, also in a dark suit with a white shirt, against which his luminescent lime green jersey and tie glowed in the stage lighting.
All around sat lawyers, translators and assistants – at times numbering as many as 35 – each enduring the unedifying spectacle in their own way. Some flicked through lever arched files, others flitted from one desk to another to pass on photocopied documents, which were immediately placed on piles of other photocopies documents, the detritus from previous unedifying spectacles.
For the entire day, Mpofu and Phiyega had been asking and answering the same question in a hundred – perhaps a thousand – different ways.
Mpofu’s line of questioning was aimed to establishing that the policeman, Major General William Mpembe, had been removed from his position of authority because he favoured a more reconciliatory approach with the protesting miners. He had been replaced, Mpofu was suggesting without ever actually saying so, by Major General Charl Annandale in order to change tack to a more confrontational approach.
The question went to the heart of police culpability. If it could be shown that a policeman who was encouraging union leaders to talk to the striking miners to defer violence was replaced by a more hard-lined officer, it would suggest a decision higher up in the police chain of command to take more repressive action or worse, that the shooting dead of the 34 protestors had been planned by the police hierarchy.
The problem was that Phiyega insisted that she was not aware of such a decision, a position she would not deviate from despite extensive provocation.
In one variety of the question, Mpofu referred to the attendance register of a police meeting in which Mpembe’s name appeared lower down on the list than that of Annandale. Mpofu asked if it was not the case that “number two is higher than number three”. Phiyega’s response was that the list was “in descending order” but that there was nothing to be read into one major general appearing lower than another on the list.
Then began the game of cat-and-mouse. Mpofu appeared unwilling to accept that Phiyega’s testimony that she had not been aware of these operational details.
Mpofu asked this question over and over again in different formulations and Phiyega gave the same answer over and over again. These, she said, were “operational issues” about which only those directly involved could give evidence. Farlam rested his cheek on his fist. Mpofu asked increasingly obscure questions, Phiyega gave the same dispassionate answers in the same tired monotone.
At one point, Farlam pointed out that the commission would be entering its 100th day the following day.
The commission had originally been asked to do its work in one month – January. It had obtained a four-month extension until the end of May and now it was about to ask for a further four-month extension, taking it through until the end of September. The current hearing is “Phase One” of the commission’s work. Phase Two, which will examine the “socio-economic” issues underpinning the violent confrontation, is yet to start.
The commission’s banners, which bracket Farlam and his assessors, include a logo – a rising sun, which appears to be emerging from a stylized flower. Underneath is a precise of its mission: “Committed to finding the truth in the interests of justice”, which suggests that it sees itself as doing far more than simply establishing the facts of what took place. It wishes to establish the facts, but also act as a mini truth and reconciliation commission. The danger of “mission creep” turning it into a never-ending “process” is real.
Four witnesses are already dead under unexplained circumstances: A National Union of Mineworkers official who pointed out where workers had been shot, an organizer for the rival AMCU, the Inyanga who was alleged to have given the strikers muti, to make them invincible and one of the strike leaders.
Back at the hearing, the cell phone of a television camera operator rang, filling the hall with the singing of a traditional song. It was some time before it was switched off. Farlam reminded all that phones had to be silent during the proceedings.
Judge Ian Farlam reads the riot act to Dali Mpofu

Judge Ian Farlam reads the riot act to Dali Mpofu

Dali Mpofu responds to the dressing down by Judge Ian Farlam

Dali Mpofu responds to the dressing down by Judge Ian Farlam


He tried to move things along, rephrasing Mpofu’s sometimes-clumsy questions in abrupt legal shorthand, and putting them to Phiyega, who replied with the same answer she had been giving all morning.
Once, during such a summation, Mpofu had intervened and Mpofu apologized and the tension appeared to have been lowered.
Then as the commission’s 4pm closing time came and went, Farlam could finally take it no more as Mpofu appeared to question a ruling he had made.
Farlam said that his experience from years spent at the bar was that it was a bad idea to show dissent at a presiding officer’s decisions. His finger was raised and his eyes appeared to bulge ever so slightly.
Mpofu responded that he was merely fulfilling “my professional obligation”.
This agitated Farlam further. What disappointed him was Mpofu’s “body language and a general air of respect or lack thereof”. It would seem to those observing, Farlam said, that he was not giving Mpofu a fair chance.
The commission adjourned for the 99th time.

Posted in

2

Statement on court victory over the NPA

By Ray Hartley | 17 November 2012

STATEMENT BY SUNDAY TIMES EDITOR, RAY HARTLEY

The decision by acting Judge Nomsa Khumalo of the Pretoria High Court that the Sunday Times can publish the article “How Zuma got off the hook” represents a victory for free speech.
The judge ruled that the NPA had failed to argue that there were grounds for an urgent interdict against the newspaper and awarded costs to the Sunday Times.
The story by a award-winning investigations unit (Stephan Hofstatter, Mzilikazi wa Afrika and Rob Rose) is based on over 300 pages of leaked documentation, which show that top prosecutors were convinced they had a winning case against Jacob Zuma. Despite this, the then Acting head of public prosecutions, Mokotedi Mpshe overuled them and dropped the charges in 2009.
The story includes details of secret representations made by Zuma’s lawyers to the NPA and a series of internal memorandums in which top prosecutors argue strongly against dropping the charges despite claims that the prosecution was tainted by political interference. Their argument was essentially that political interference should not trump the merits of the case which they believed to be strong enough for a successful prosecution.
Sadly, the NPA has said it intends bringing a fresh court action against the Sunday Times this week on the grounds that the documents were illegally obtained. This too will fail because the documents were leaked to the Sunday Times and are demonstrably in the public interest.
Instead of trying to keep vital information away from the public, the NPA would do well to heed the constitution’s call for an “open” society and its protection of freedom of expression. Its dogged attempts to protect certain political leaders from public scrutiny are raising serious doubts about its ability to serve the public with the independence and integrity required of a prosecuting authority.
What is chilling is that if the Protection of Information Bill is passed in its current form, this sort of reporting will become illegal.

Posted in

3

JSC ruling on Hlophe was a low point. And let’s not forget what it was all about …

By Ray Hartley | 1 April 2011

THE Judicial Service Commission faces a stark choice: It must act swiftly to re-establish its credibility or take a defiant stand that further erodes the the South African judiciary.
The commission, called into being by Chapter 8 of the Constitution, was designed to ensure the “independence, impartiality, dignity, accessibility and effectiveness” of the courts.
It is supposed to ensure that the best minds find their way to the bench by recommending appointments to the judiciary and that the behaviour of judges is above criticism.
The commission is made up of the country’s senior judge, attorneys and nominees from the ruling party and the opposition with the purpose of bringing about transparent, accountable management of the courts that is free of political bias.
It’s actions around Judge Hlophe suggested that it was drifting from this prescription.
That is putting it too politely. In fact, the Hlophe hearings were a low point for the JSC. They demonstrated that political influence could be brought to bear when it came to evaluating the conduct of judges.
It is worth recalling what Hlophe had been accused of doing.
He had visited two Constitutional Court judges, Judge Bess Nkabinde and Acting Judge Chris Jafta, in their chambers in an effort to influence them on a matter before the land’s highest court. The matter involved none other than President Jacob Zuma.
Zuma — through his lawyer, Michael Hulley — and the arms manufacturer, Thint, wanted documents seized during raids on their premises declared inadmissible as evidence. At the time, Zuma faced prosecution for his role in bribes related to the arms deal.
Hlophe had, according to Jafta, claimed that Zuma was being persecuted. His pay-off line to the judge was: “You are our last hope.”
In a ruling which shocked the legal profession and the public, the JSC, after hearings held in camera, bought Hlophe’s patently false claim that he was simply having a friendly discussion with colleagues.
No formal inquiry was needed, said the body charged with maintaining the “dignity” of the courts.
It’s words were: “The Commission, by a majority, came to the following conclusions: that the evidence in respect of the complaint does not justify a finding that Hlophe JP is guilty of gross misconduct and should accordingly be removed from office …”
It was a decision which paved the way for a loosening of the discipline surrounding the judiciary — it was now okay for a judge to discuss a case, even express and opinion on what should be concluded, with a colleague.
The Appeal Court has corrected this mistake. Now the ball is in the court of JSC. It must act swiftly to restore public confidence — or prove that it is part of the problem.

Posted in

1

Selebi will be the last top official to face the courts

By Ray Hartley | 2 July 2010

Jackie Selebi, the former Police Commissioner, has been found guilty of corruption by Judge Meyer Joffe, making him the most senior South African to go down for this crime.
Selebi’s conviction is, on the face of it, strong evidence that the criminal justice system is once more showing its steel when it comes to crimes by senior political figures.
But it is not quite so simple. Selebi is yesterday’s man, a Thabo Mbeki appointment who no longer enjoys the political protection offered by those in high office in government and the ANC.
What is remarkable is that not one senior official – perhaps even junior official – from the current government of Jacob Zuma has been arrested for corruption.
Selebi could the last top politician to find himself at the mercy of the law because his timing was off.
This is very alarming. The disbandment of the Scorpions, the appointment of the blatantly political Menzi Simelane to head prosecutions and the failure of the Hawks to tackle any serious high level case all suggest that the fight against corruption has been suppressed by the current government.
And then there is the question of who else benefited from Selebi’s corruption, or who turned a blind eye to it? Could it really be that the national police commissioner operated as a lone wolf when it came to graft? I find that very hard to believe.

Posted in

1

Jeff Radebe on why Simelane is okay – full text

By Ray Hartley | 1 December 2009

30 November 2009

The Presidency last week announced that President Jacob Zuma has taken a decision to appoint Advocate Menzi Simelane as the new National Director of Public Prosecutions. Simelane’s appointment is effective as from tomorrow, 1 December 2009.

Advocate Simelane has a Baccalaureus Procurationis (BProc) and LLB degrees from the University of KwaZulu-Natal. He served pupilage at the Durban Bar. He is a member of the Johannesburg Bar where he practiced. He previously served on the Board of South African Tourism and the Gauteng Tourism Agency. In addition he served as the Commissioner of the Competition Commission from 1999 to 2005. He became the Director-General of the Department of Justice and Constitutional Development in June 2005 until he was appointed as the Deputy National Director of Public Prosecution at the National Prosecuting Authority (NPA) in October 2009. Read More…

Posted in

0

Zuma Concourt choices: Why is he so tetchy?

By Ray Hartley | 6 October 2009

Zuma has consulted oppostiion parties about the judges he wishes to appoint to the Constitutional Court. They have leaked the names on his preferred list, saying he wants to appoint Eastern Cape judge Johan Froneman, the Supreme Court of Appeal’s Justice Chris Jafta, Southern Gauteng High Court judge Sisi Khampepe and North West judge Mogoeng wa Mogoeng.
Now Zuma, according to his office, is not impressed, saying he was “disappointed” to learn that parties were acting “outside established processes”.
Wow. Wasn’t it Zuma who announced his preference for Sandile Ngcobo for the position of Chief Justice before consulting the opposition as required by law?
There are no laws or regulations saying that the opposition should not discuss the nominations publicly, so I am a little taken aback at his pique.

Posted in

2

Helen Zille buries hatchet on Twitter

By Ray Hartley | 1 October 2009

With this tweet, Helen Zille signalled the end of her party’s annoyance at President Jacob Zuma’s failure to consult properly prior to announcing that he wanted Judge Sandile Ngcobo to head the Constitutional Court. Zuma made the official announcement today.

HelenTwitter

Posted in

5

JSC contradicts itself and dumps Hlophe

By Ray Hartley | 22 September 2009

THE Judicial Services Commission has scratched Cape Judge President John Hlophe from its shortlist for four vacancies on the Constitutional Court. But the grounds on which it has done so remain opaque.
If it was because of his discussion with two of that court’s judges about how Jacob Zuma was being victimised in a matter before them, the JSC has contradicted itself.
On the one hand, it has said that Hlophe’s behaviour was insufficiently serious to warrant a hearing. On the other it is saying it was sufficiently grave to disqualify him from a seat on the highest bench in the land.
Surely the JSC should provide reasons for its decision to settle this burning question?

The judges who were shortlisted were Johan Froneman, Raymond Zondo, Mogoeng wa Mogoeng, Mandisa Maya, Sisi Khampepe, Leona Theron and Chris Jafta.

Posted in

0

The JSC hearings on judges – I’m just not excited

By Ray Hartley | 21 September 2009

ONCE a body which is meant to be an independent institution starts to make political calculations, it becomes much less interesting.
Right now the JSC is holding hearings into who should fill four vacancies on the Constitutional Court. But it does so just weeks after deciding that it was okay for Judge John Hlophe to tell judges of that court that he thought Jacob Zuma was being victimised in a matter that was before them.
The taste of this patently poor decision lingers. It has been challenged by Judge Johann Kriegler. But his challenge has been politicised and even, would you believe, described as racist.
So, whatever these proceedings are about on the surface, I have a sense that the JSC will simply make its decisions based on a series of political calculations at the end of the day. And there is nothing quite so dull as a bunch of apparatchiks disguising their political intentions with the veneer of autonomy.
They may even go so far as to appoint Hlophe. Astonishing.

Posted in

2

Why turn Kriegler’s challenge into a race row?

By Ray Hartley | 7 September 2009

FORMER Judge Johann Kriegler’s decision to challenge the JSC’s decision not to hold a hearing into the conduct of Judge John Hlophe and the judges of the Constitutional Court has quickly descended into a race row.
Which is a pity. Cyril Ramaphosa resigned from Freedom Under Law, the body that Kriegler is using to challenge the JSC’s decision saying he had not been consulted. Fair enough.
But JSC Dumisa Ntsebeza played the race card, saying: “It is impossible to live with the very obvious condescending attitude toward black people which has become a repeated theme in his [Kriegler's] statements.”
Really? My experience of Kriegler is that he does not mince his words. Like most judges he is condescending to everybody. Just ask anyone of any race who covered the 1994 election when he was chair of the IEC.
What is far more important is to deal with the substance of Kriegler’s objection which is that there was a dispute over fact which will not now be resolved one way or the other.
For the justices of the Constitutional Court and a provincial Chief Justice to be at odds over the facts is a serious problem. Exactly the sort of problem which the JSC ought to resolve, lest the stain remain on the judiciary.
This is what has prompted Kriegler to warn that we face “the biggest threat to rule of law the country has experienced since it emerged from darkness”.

Page 1 of 212