Constitutional law expert Pierre de Vos has suggested that the appointment of advocate Menzi Simelane as national director of prosecutions is “the darkest and most scandalous day yet in the short life of President [Jacob] Zuma’s tenure”.
Writing two pieces on the new head of the NPA, De Vos is scathing calling Simelane “a liar” and stating that he is not a fit or proper person as is required for this appointment.
Justice and Constitutional Development Minister Jeff Radebe has hit back claiming that Simelane is a fit and proper person and that he would be briefing the press shortly on the reason why he elected to discontinue the disciplinary measures against Simelane following the findings of the Ginwala Inquiry.
The simple question for me on this one is why Simelane?
Leave aside the issue on whether Simelane lied or not, De Vos’ claims that he will be a Radebe puppet and the justice minister’s opinion that he is indeed a fit and proper person to be a director and focus on the post and the candidate in context.
The head of the NPA has to be beyond reproach and of unquestionable integrity. The NPA has been shrouded in controversy. President Zuma has vowed to fight crime and tackle corruption. The police are embroiled in a shoot-to-kill saga while former head Jackie Selebi is on trial for corruption.
The justice minister had at his disposal other deputies to Mokotedi Mpshe whose appointment would not have raised eyebrows and who could have started the onerous task with a clean slate and universal backing.
Why then in the face of that go and appoint Simelane — who is controversial — to this particular post?
In essence it goes to the question of unnecessarily selecting a controversial candidate in a highly sensitive post rather than whether Simelane is a fit and proper person or not.
If he is indeed the fine upstanding citizen that Radebe would have us believe then appoint him to a less sensitive post of equal standing.
Sipho – “integrity, decency and independence” -means just that and nothing more – for me anyway. That would be pretty normal for someone taking up that position don’t you think? You may have hidden agendas and skewed motivations when you write on the blog – I don’t – and many others who contribute here are genuine in their desire to be useful citizens making a constructive contribution to SA, contributing positively through caring about all her people. We grow in that direction through vibrant discussion around informed opinions and by having open minds which can be changed by valid arguments couched in decency and respect. “You get the chicken by hatching the egg, not by smashing it with a ten pound hammer.” This is a conversation, not a battle field. Surely we are not here to score points and prove how very clever and witty we are or make unfounded claims of bias and racism in everyone but ourselves. If you want someone to walk with you to your world, enter theirs, convince them of your integrity and then take their hand and lead them to a better place.
@Rose Morrow – Words carry the burden of social meaning. We use them to express our world views based on our personal experience and interests. There are words that are reserved for those we consider to be our enemies and those reserved for our friends. Words are never neutral.We never see any positives in our perceived enemies and we never see any negatives in our friends.
You’ve already concluded that Zuma’s only motivation is corruption. And this is entirely based on dinner table conversations and what is gleaned from your prefered media. You probably don’t read anything that negates your beliefs.
If you sincerely want to build the nation (I honestly believe your are) I would suggest you refrain from casting aspersion on others without concrete evidence.
I have been out of SA for over a year now and follow events closely. I often want to comment on TL and as I type, I realise that it’s a lost case.
What is happening is a joke, but it’s not funny. I feel so sorry for the good people in the country – at least 43990000 innocent bystanders in SA who will suffer.
But in the end, Africa is about going through cycles.
Sipho – Thanks for your thoughtful response and I especially like your advice in the last paragraph: “…I would suggest you refrain from casting aspersion on others without concrete evidence.” That is good advice for everyone of us to follow, even on the blog. That said, in a court of law guilty findings are made based on circumstantial evidence and there is quite a lot of that around JZ in regard to the corruption charges – many respected 0legal minds and rated commentators hold that opinion. As for concrete evidence in the form of a Court finding, for the moment that is not available because JZ has fought a long, hard and extremely costly battle to avoid facing the corruption charges in a Court of Law. That situation is not of our making. Taking the above into account, the appointments around the justice and security cluster are of great concern. Simelane has already said Mbeki (or the presidency…) made him do it……. and that in itself is problematic in terms of what he is prepared to do to please his current “master”.
@ Rose Morrow – most black people believe that Dr Wouter Basson was as guilty as charged. People know their comrades who were injected with black mamba vernom and yet the court declared that there was no evidence.
Zuma was cleared by another arm of the judiciary and to insist on the clearance by the courts creates an impression that something was amiss in the courts. Zuma has consistently said he believe his duck was already cooked, especialy at the Supreme Court of Appeal and the Constitutional Court. Surely there were reasons that made him suspicious. For example the Chief Justice of the CC was given a national award by a sitting president, who had material interest in some cases the CC was to adjudicate on. A Deputy Chief Justice socialised with Zuma’s nemesis and even assure his guests he was “gonna do the thing” irrepective the new ANC said. I personal become suspicious when former President De Klerk went around the world assuring his audience that Zuma would never become a president. How could he be so sure, especially after his private meetings with former President Mbeki. Even Mbeki actively assisted the prosecutors by following Zuma to Mauritius to ensure that the government hand over documents to the NPA. The whole succession episode has been very muddy, to therefore rely on “respected legal minds” to tell the truth is a bit overly trusting.
Stephen Grootes on 702 this morning said that Simelani is too scared to so a live interview on radio.
This about the guy who is meant to “prosecute without fear or favor” being scared of radio journalists.
If it wasn’t so scary it would be really really funny.
ha ha ha