The South African public are inundated by calls for crimes to be overlooked, forgiven or — in some cases — not to be considered crimes at all. Unsurprisingly, the vast mast majority of these emanate from those at the very heart of power in this country.
The number of judges, correctional services officials, politicians and police involved in this should make it a cause for national embarrassment but for some strange reason, this is not the case.
Let’s deal with it in light of the issue of Eugene De Kock’s “possible” pardon.
De Kock, nicknamed “Prime Evil”, has been serving a 212 year sentence for his part in crimes against humanity. This is pursuant to being charged with 89 offences, six of which were for murder.
“Prime Evil” did of course apply to the Truth and Reconciliation Commission for amnesty, but was refused on the grounds that some of his crimes were committed without political motive.
The commission were absolutely right to turn down his application because besides being a political assassin, De Kock is also a common or garden murderer as well. Why wouldn’t he be? The politicians of the National Party — in the name of expedience — taught him that killing was no problem at all. So he figured, seeing as he wasn’t doing anything on a particular day, why not murder a few more.
Who’ll notice?
In any sane country they would bury this fellow so deep inside the system you’d need an archeologist to lead the parties that wish to visit him.
Not South Africa.
Schabir Shaik — the fraud convict out on a medical parole that must be in accordance with the laws of Mexico because it certainly is not in terms of ours — needs another favour.
The man convicted in the biggest corruption trial in this country’s history demands a pardon because all the other people who committed the same corrupt act that he did — stealing billions of rands which should have gone towards uplifting the black masses of this country — are still at large.
Naturally that means that the fact that he has made an absolute joke of our criminal justice system in getting out is neither here nor there, and just in case he doesn’t get his way and spills the beans, the government are now going to ensure he gets a pardon.
How to achieve this?
Why not give the Afrikaans community one — for example De Kock, so they won’t be mad when we give one for Shaik? After all, they will be so excited about having a murderer released they probably won’t even notice.
Perhaps we give one whitey who has about as much right to a pardon as Britney Spears has to the central strikers role at Manchester United and they won’t mind if we do the same with Shaik.
Of course, the fact that judges trying to influence other judges goes unpunished, enormous corruption charges being dropped, the refusal to convene an arms-deal inquiry and on and on, can only result in the people of this country assuming that there is no law and order, has escaped them.
Instead it appears to be a case of telling the masses to forget the billions taken which could have helped alleviate a substantial amount of poverty, forget that those involved are beyond the law and will not be called to account and remember that if you break the law the police have instructions to shoot to kill.
Yet they not embarrassed by this ridiculous situation, which goes a long way to explaining our crime rate and the failing criminal justice system.
Yesterday we were treated to the former spy and De Kock’s friend, Kevin Woods, being quoted as saying that Zuma had told him that “the war is over” and accordingly, there was no reason why De Kock could not be returned to the community.
Because of his non-political crimes maybe?
Today, incredibly, we hear that former widows of those murdered by De Kock are appealing for his release. Shame, I wonder who approached them?
What next? Just prior to his release there is confirmation that he qualifies for a medal?
A whole build-up just so that they can release an apartheid hitman as the forerunner to the release of “Not so evil, but Evil enough”.
While the government continues along this path I think the time has come to pose a set of questions which they can choose to answer or ignore.
1. Are you going to pardon Eugene de Kock?
2. Have you explained to the masses — before you announce it — what the crimes this man has committed?
3. Is anyone who campaigns against the release of the man who murdered black people for a living a racist?
4. Which race does the campaigner purportedly hate? Whites because they don’t want De Kock to be released or blacks because by not allowing the pardon of a person who murdered blacks, the government — who are mainly black — feel that they can’t pardon their favourite fraud convict?
5. Can all murderers who have committed the same number of killings as De Kock’s non-political murders be released?
6. If not, why not? What distinguishes him from them?
7. Is Schabir Schaik getting a pardon?
8. On what basis did he qualify to be fast-tracked past all the other candidates?
9. Would you recommend that anyone who has committed serious crimes find a politician to blackmail?
10. Do you ever laugh when you tell the public that you are serious about crime?
11. On what basis are parties accountable for the crimes they commit? Is it if your income falls below a certain level or if you have no substantial political influence or friends?
12. Would it be possible to provide the public with a list of people that cannot be charged with crimes no matter how large or serious?
13. If you can’t compile a listm is it not possible to just photostat the one that you are using right now and fax it to members of the media for distribution.
14. In light of the fact that the masses are down so many billions through corruption and many of their leaders and role models are waltzing around breaking the law at will, how do you justify a policy of shoot-to-kill?
14b. How can you justify abolishing the death penalty — which has safeguards to protect the innocent — when you are instructing police to go looking to inflict the death penalty on a whim?
15. In light of 14 and 14b, how do you keep a straight face when discussing crime?
16. Have any of you thought of doing stand-up comedy?
17. If fighting crime requires social upliftment (see missing billions through corruption) and guidance through leaders and other role models (see total disregard for the laws of the country) on what basis — other than shooting our citizens — are you fighting crime?
18. Do you think releasing mass murderers in the name of expedience will bring down the murder rate?
19. Do you think allowing the biggest offender in South African history in terms of corruption to be released will fight white collar crime?
20. Do you have any plans in the not too distant future to start becoming serious about crime?
This entry was posted
on Saturday, January 23rd, 2010 at 2:40 pm and is filed under Perspective.
You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.
You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
55 Responses to “How serious is the ANC on crime?”
So the deal the ANC is dishing up to sweeten the Shaik pardon is to also pardon de Kock.
I do not think the governing party is in touch with the people of the country, especially Afrikaners. I not aware of any “Free de Kock” campaint that mainstream Afrikaners support.
Why would Afrikaners want de Kock released? He is a remnant of a previous unjust era that was unfortunate for every South African, not just blacks. Amnesty is one thing, but releasing a cruel murderer is quite another. He needs to serve his sentence in full.
“Do you think allowing the biggest offender in South African history in terms of corruption to be released will fight white collar crime?”
Coming from you, this is all laughable. It is not THEM or THEY who will do the pardoning - it is HIM, yes, our president, who will do the pardoning. The person who was the co-respondent (but was absent from the trial) in that very big corruption trial. The person that you have continually defended on these pages. The person who has led the charge in making a mockery of our criminal justice system. Of course, he does it with such charm, that we must all forgive and forget. Eish, Trapido, decide which way you want things
Questions we are all asking. I am almost certain, though, that we will shortly have some replies which intellectualise this whole issue. You know, make some apartheid remarks, some cultural stabs, some physcoanalytical bullsh*t. Better known as spin-doctoring in political circles.
There is a theory that says that the tax revenue, and kick backs in the private security industry, are SOOOO lucrative, that fixing the crime problem is simply not viable. Supply and demand - If no crime, then no private security companies required. More crime then more security companies and more tenders and contracts to be won (or offered to your cousin/uncle/sister/fellow cadre
After 16 years, we still appear to be in ‘reconciliatory’ mode. Whilst this was a necessity in the beginning of our democracy, we need to draw a line in the sand at some point. Do the crime, do the time. De Kock and Shaik need to serve their time. Simple as that.
The only question remaining seems to be: totalitarian or anarchistic? Since the “leaders” in the inner circle do seem to enjoy a life of relative safety and absolute wealth, totalitarian do sound more likely. Then I cannot help but wonder: benevolent or despotic? At the moment it seems fairly benevolent at the top but shading to a politburo style despotism at the bottom. Almost as difficult to get used to as multifocals.
And the ANC tries to tell foreigners that the country is safe to come for the World Cup. The country is even not safe for South Africans. The only people who are safe are the ANC and their gang.
We have built the stadiums, we have built most of the infrastructure but crime gets worse. Sexwale’s wife was hijacked and the perpetrators were caught in hours, the rest of us it takes weeks or does not happen at all.
When Mandela had his 80th birthday he celebrated by freeing 8,000 hardened criminals onto the defenceless South African public. What did he do for the good guys other than force them to place higher electric fences around their homes?
Our guns have been taken from us and the police are free to lose their guns or sell them, 12,000 by all accounts for 2009.
The ANC is above the law and its going to get worse.
There is profit in continuing with the ANC’s most powerful tool - DENIAL.
But Traps, we must join hands with government and all “fight crime together because together we can do more!” Makes you want to puke now does it not?
The only people who are serious about crime are the private security companies that are earning a good living from it. With a few struggling, brave exceptions, the police are a joke and are more dangerous than half of the criminals. We basically have a failed state in almost every sense, being funded and held together by privately run institutions. Long may they last.
From the top down to the stinking bottom, the ANC has polluted and destroyed our policing and criminal justice system. They put race, racism and racial issues above murder every time as your analysis shows. They will release a mass murderer but want the book thrown at four student idiots with a youtube video. The focus is all wrong and nobody seems to have a clue on how to get it back to where it should be.
A depressingly, frighteningly accurate reflection of a probable end to this undesirable circumstance. Intense soul searching is required, beginning with our President who says one thing but means and does the complete opposite - unfortunately, he simply cannot be trusted at all and thus, in my opinion, JZ, our president, is probably one of the most dangerous people in South Africa…. We actually have no idea whatsoever where he stands or what he stands for and I suspect things are so far gone with him that it is self preservation all the way no matter the cost to the country or the nation as a whole. Not a triumphalist statement - on the contrary, it would be great to confidently state the opposite. When Jeff Radebe and other dubious appointments were made to the justice and security cluster, uncharacteristic fear replaced my usually buoyant optimism and positive attitude. Pardoning either Shaik or deKock is going to set a terrifying precedent - in a real sense both are guilty of crimes against humanity - one with brutal killing, the other with literally stealing the food, etc from the mouths of desperately poor, destitute South Africans.
Wouldn’t it be ironic if Schabir was the person behind money going to the widows to encourage them to support a pardon for Prime Evil so that Schabir could also get out…?
I do not see Eugene de Kock or Wit Wolf Barend Strydom , like McBride as anything but murderers. They soiled the causes that they were supposed to uphold.
In the case of De Kock and Strydom, it goes against the ethos of the Boers during the ABO who treated those that they captured humanely – of which De la Rey’s treatment of Methuen is an exemplary example.
All those who commit acts of crime should be punished. What perverted reasoning (or is there any other name for it?) says that “politically motivated” crime should be treated any differently? What perverted reasoning (or is there any other name for it?) says that innocent victims should not have the right to effectively protect themselves, and if the criminal gets hurt as a consequence of their criminal intent/action in the process, so be it. They have violated the victim’s rights, after all.
Anywhere where there are innocent victims of crime provides a reason for the state to exercise its duty of care and hence see to it that those criminals (enemies of innocent civilians) are brought to justice in such a manner that it serves as the strongest possible deterrent for anyone else who is contemplating preying upon his/her fellow humans. Wake up South Africa!!! Wake up all nations!!!
Robert McBride was also on death row for murdering innocents. What justifies his release and reward of “Chief of Police”?
Simple solution: Keep De Kock in prison, put McBride back, give them both the death penalty!
De Kock was essentially a state-sponsored contract killer. The people who took out the contracts, and who made it possible for him to commit his murders without getting into trouble, are walking around safely and unharmed.
That’s a pretty big crime in itself. Not dissimilar in some ways from the fact that so many members of the Cabinet, from the President down, were involved in the arms-deal and other corruption which Shaik fostered, but they did not face any music.
That’s a pretty big crime in itself.
The ANC as a party and a broad organisation is probably quite serious about crime. The ANC in government, at least at central level, is not.
Nor, by the way, is the rest of the ruling class, although it happily uses the crime issue as a smokescreen.
Well put. It feels like we are fighting a losing battle, not against crime per se, but the governments gangster politics and hypocrisy on the issue. The ETV subpoena’s loook more like intimidation of the independent media than a real atempt to crack down on crime. How much time and money is being wasted on this rather than the aprehension of known criminalls in the communities around SA? Neither De Kock nor Shaik should be pardoned.
I say apply the law. As for de Kock, I hope he rots in his shithole. The damage his action have cost race relations in this country is incalculable. As far as Schabir goes, serve your term China.
To answer your question: How serious is the ANC on crime?
Best case scenario is they are serious, but extremely incompetent and clueless. Worst case is they don’t care, but also have sinister ulterior motives.
Either way, I believe the big problem is and across-the-board lack of regard for rule of law. Having lived in other democracies, I have observed that too many people in this country feel the rules don’t apply to them. Sometimes, it really feels like living in the “wild west”.
For some, the anti-apartheid strategy of making the country ungovernable has evolved into a culture of lawlesness. Some others, who see the post-1994 government as “not theirs”, don’t feel the need to follow the rules of this government, and often have a lingering sense of entitlement. The wealthy and political elite feel like they can use their money and power to be above the law - not unique in SA per se, but magnified by the highest income inequality in the world, a populace focused on more pressing, immediate needs such as housing, jobs, etc., and an electorate inexperienced with democracy. And those tasked with keeping law and order are, for a plethora of reasons, ineffective. But the rot is spread widely, from top to bottom and all across. Not all South Africans are bad; most are good, decent people. But we need to re-evaluate this widespread culture of disregard for rule of law, and acceptance of inacceptable conditions.
Heaven knows ehat is going to happen in June/July when the world cup is on.
With a bit of luck,the visitors will be stuck at the airports where they will be safe.
I loved your assumption about the laws of “Mexica”, but maybe you should have checked further north to the Tamanay Hall and Al Capone “judge in a pocket” regime.
What the mythical black “street” thinks about it is evidence by the serious amount of vigilantism in the townships. The police having lost all credibility amongst the otherwise law-abiding populace.
Did you not ask for a “political solution” to the whole Zuma corruption thing? Is this not but a mere extension of that “political solution” you were so vehemently defending just a couple of months back? If Shabir stays in prison and then spills the beans because he is disgruntled that he is the only one doing the time, will that not negate that “political solution” that you lauded? So, Traps, exactly how IS it going with changing the party from within?
You do a lot of excellent critical examination Traps, but when the robbers are asking for your vote - permission to continue - you gave it to them for being “pro-poor”. Why do you complain when this was all so patently obvious before the election? This is your choice of person to occupy government…
@Grant Walliser - you say private security companies are the only ones who are serious about crime. Do you mean that? Is the irony intended?
(Keeping with the way you phrased it)-is there any company in this world who is serious about eliminating their core business? From your research, how many of those companies are out of business? What is contained in their five year plans - a steady decrease in business?
The fact that some murderers, thieves, rapists, child molesters, fraudsters, etc, get away with their crimes and never pay the price of incarceration is no justification for pardoning those who have been caught, tried, convicted and sentenced by a court of law. In an ideal world all criminals would be behind bars but for now we live with reality and put the ones we catch where they belong - behind bars - amongst those are deKock and Shaik - and that is where they should remain or be sent back to when, like Shaik, they have been found “more equal than others” and managed to wheedle their way back into the world of privilege and freedom.
Spot on Grant. There is no balance, but when you can guarantee that more than 60% of adults will vote for you in the next elections, no balance is required.
You say nobody has any idea on how to fix the crime problem in our country.
Well in fact there are people who have an idea, and in fact when their ideas have been implemented, crime dropped in one city, by 77%!!!! Yes, you read that right!
The problem, we have in South Africa, is that, implementing that plan, requires left wing liberals addicted to their ‘poverty is the root cause of criminality crackpipe’ to confront the reality that their ‘poverty is the root cause of criminality’ belief is untrue.
Sustaining crime is a secret ANC policy. It’s othrwise known as “redistribution of wealth through stealth.”
I can’t prove this off course, but I also can’t prove that god doesn’t exist; all logic just points to it being highly plausable.
It’s simple you see. The ANC don’t have the answers to alleviation of poverty; but they knew that by just confiscating everything from the owners of wealth would simply destroy the economy (as one Robert Gabriel Mugabe found out). They needed the owners of wealth to continue creating the wealth by creating the facade of a democratic society with a sound capitalist economy for them to operate in, while secretly (at first, until they got caught)siphoning off the tax revenue for themselves, and leaving the producers of wealth at the mercy of the poor people.
Those in government took the easy route to wealth redistribution through fraud and corruption, which later turned into open looting of the treasury, while the ordinary poor people were left to get their wealth through a much tougher route - common crime.
This all makes a fascinating read. Too many of these comments come straight out of the maw of the apartheid monster; a monster defined by its DNA to consistently, loudly and ever righteously lay the blame for its own faults on the faults of others.
Lets us face it, Apartheid had a cost: SA is a country with a people monstrously distorted by its history and culture. While others have faults, the dominantly western monotheistic bourgeoisie, mainly Mr Whitey (see comments above) constitute the seed and core of this distorted apple. De Kock and Shaik both come from this class and their motives and actions illustrate this clearly. In this blighted class, the only difference between them and us is those two were caught. The louder the wail against them the truer this allegation is.
The simple truth is that there is no going forward without forgiveness and no forgiveness without a fundamental recognition of communal guilt. We made de Kock and Shaik. They are our pollen; our spawn.
So fellow bourgeois and Whitey, let’s face it. We stink!
Trapido’s article accentuates this. The ANC or any other political initiative has to find validity in this mass of muck and in the process the muck predictably throws mud in protest.
The good news is that validity is to be found, and is being found, as in all humanity. We must concentrate on it; allow the terrible two home amongst us and find it in them. It’s the key.
All victims are innocent! Nobody invites crime on themselves and their families. No women asks to be raped.
We are all victims and the only ‘innocent’ ones are the perpetrators because they are “innocent until proved guilty” which is the war cry of the ANC and our ‘president’. And now we have the blue light brigade that escorts victims to a police station so that they can be beaten up, in privacy, whilst police officers look on with appreciation and glee. I wonder how many countries in the world have police like ours where we have to be equally afraid of the police as we are of the criminals? At least with a criminal you know what to expect but with a policeman anything is possible and then its your word against his despite the visible bruising and trauma. The ANC has created a police force that is generally perceived to be rotten as one bad egg spoils the whole basket. Now we cannot even run from the police when they flag us over on a road - we go to the nearest police station and they too may be rotten and maybe get locked up or worse for having the affront to flee for a cop who may or may not be a cop. There is a huge mess and I for one cannot see how to repair it when we have people at the top who are rotten and show the way.
I agree wholeheartedly with Mike when he speaks of RSA being like the “wild west” with too many citizens displaying complete disregard for the rule of law. Corruption and fraud aside, this fact is particularly evident on our roads - the carnage caused by drivers who completely disregard speed limits and general driving regulations, drive under the influence or in un-roadworthy vehicles is well documented - not to mention trucks wreaking havoc on the national roads. We drive alongside “killers” with absolutely no regard for human life and the devastation caused to innocent people and families in the wake of their outrageously irresponsible, immature actions. Then we have employers paying pathetic wages to foreigners just because they can - or domestics being paid way below a living wage and work in horrible conditions just because there is no other employment…. and so much more - we really need to become an honourable, decent nation - little real progress is possible with such disregard evident in so many vital areas - so many of us seem rotten to the core with selfish, greedy, self enrichment, self indulgent tendencies. Are we self-destructing? Laws are there to protect us - let’s live within them - no shame in doing the right thing.
@White refugee - when ‘crime’ dropped by 77% in one city as you suggest, where was it displaced to?
No one can seriously believe that crime has only one cause - but it is also a denialist position to try and argue away correlation.
Why not simply allow for multiple perspectives - why make this about being leftwing or rightwing and ignite a proxy fight? Surely a more complex analysis of a complex problem will yield solutions that deal with complexity?
That’s the problem with ‘experts’ - they always like to be ‘right’ and prove someone else’s perspective ‘wrong’.
In the final analysis sir, leaving poverty as a concept aside for a moment, can you DISPROVE that inequality (in its various guises) is correlated to violent crime?
Why politicise a problem that is threatening all of us? How hard can it be to TRY AND UNDERSTAND another perspective before rejecting it out of hand?
Peter Joffe - this is wildly exaggerated! I have had several occasions over the years to call on the police or go to a police station and I have experienced nothing but politeness and respect. It is true there is incompetence and not every policeman is properly trained for his or her job and of course there are” bad apples” but to state “we have to be equally afraid of the police as we are of the criminals” is really getting things way out of perspective. Also, I dispute that all “victims” are innocent - if the students at University of Free State got beaten up by incensed people objecting to what they did to the domestic workers they would be “victims” but are they innocent? There are many times when people are extremely provocative and inflammatory, and whilst I do not advocate physical violence, if you push people too far they snap - no matter their colour - and then there is no guarantee of not being physically attacked. Words can be just as “violent” as a beating - sometimes more so.
Alan Egner, I think that ’some criminals are more criminal than others’ would be more apt, or even: ’some politicians are more criminal than others’.
Since blogs like this are totally going to pass most of the people by, tell us, Traps, is there not some forum that exists to ensure that incidents of this nature cannot occur? What about the peoples’ rights according to the constitution? Or is this the limit of justice in SA?
Sarah Henkman - I will put it simply. You are asleep at night and you hear your window break. Do you lift the phone and call the cops or do you push your ADT panic button. Please tell me you know the answer to this one.
To make the quantum leap of logic that security companies don’t prevent crime because they would be out of business is misguided. It is like saying a doctor never cures a patient to ensure he keeps busy. While there may be a few sickos out there, the free market determines that any company doing the above will be replaced by one that offers better protection. While there is a need they will be in business. When the market peaks and the police start doing their jobs again, their market will shrink, specialist companies will stay in business and a new market will emerge for something else to employ the people currently patrolling our streets.
White refugee - semantics. Either nobody in charge has a clue or they have no will or both. End result is the same.
What city? 77% of what crime. Why did it drop? If you think that crime is not related to poverty juxtaposed with pockets of extreme wealth catalised by the Apartheid system to stir up the resentment then you must have one hell of a new theory and I would love to hear it.
@Grant Walliser. There’s a world of difference between ‘prevention’, ‘management’, and ‘control’ of crime, and all these are hotly contested. The peacebuilding notion of conflict transformation on the other hand, suggests that we need to give more attention to trying to understand and dealing with root & proximate causes of crime. Failing which, we will always need to ‘manage & control’. The latter remains within the domain of the expert/specialist and the former makes it everybody’s business.
So don’t you think we should be spending more time and money on eradicating inequality? It will definitely not eradicate crime, i don’t know if anything will; but it will certainly drastically reduce violent crime (if the literature is to be believed) and therefore the need for armed protection.
By the way Grant, I am far more tentative in my approach - it is a function of uncertainty befitting the subject matter. Experts have misled us so spectacularly in the past - because of that thing called ‘certainty’ and the ability to speak with confidence.
I envy the certainty of your position and the confidence with which you express it. In addition, the unquestioning assumption that everyone has a panic button to press in your ’simple’ example for my benefit, reveals more about you than it does about my intellectual ability.
Sarah,
Surely it’s simple ? Crime because of poverty and poor policing and no social net and corrupt officials…
Solution: a strong, self-policing independant judiciary, a strong incorruptible police-force (with lots of man-power)and jobs.
Start a minimum wage job regime like during the great depression… Build infrastructure… And start with ensuring corrupt politicians receive 10 years hard labour and are banned from any managerial position ever again.
Take a look at Zim, our mirror. It’s too late when the corrupt politicians start talking in terms of racial targets to divert attention… SA’s problem is not one of race or relative wealth: it’s about jobs and building wealth for all.
@Peter Win - great irony whether its intended or not. There’s no argument against dealing with symptoms - its only a problem if the causes, correlates and facilitators of crime are ignored. Anyway, to bolster my argument w.r.t. inequality, here’s a website showing evidence of 30 years of research http://www.equalitytrust.org.uk/why
… so yes, it is much simpler if we deal with complexity without tripping over semantics. Inequality has more symptoms than poverty and sometimes a combination of the symptoms interact to carve a pathway into crime. That’s why the rich are also implicated.
@James - unfortunately M&G don’t offer the option to be notified of activity on an old blog. Hope you eardrums recover soon.
You clearly have a perspective - why don’t you weigh in - or don’t you agree that crime is everybody’s business? Still trusting the ‘experts’ only and the convenience of dealing with symptoms?
Crime is everyone’s business much less the “experts”.
My concern is the silence this topic has induced from the usual vociferous cross-section of the M&G community.
Sarah,
Actually I know a lot about Australia and New Zealand. I have a lot of relatives there and have spent a lot of time there myself. This causes me to seriously question the website on equality you posted. NZ is probably one of the most socialist, equitable environments (except perhaps Sweden and Denmark) that I have ever come across.
Huge differences too in comparison with SA. In NZ no-one starves: everyone has access to health and a social-net. Crime is low, Police (by comparison) are well paid, incorruptible and efficient. Hospital services run well.
Sure the rich are “implicated” - especially if they support corruption. NZ has a democracy that is accountable. In SA, we haven’t had an accountable democracy for 50 years…
If we need to start somewhere, it’s here: accountability and jobs.
Forget De Kock: start with Zuma. Is he going to be incorruptible or not ? Will he drive out a culture of accountability ? This will shape our culture in moving forward.
All comments must be approved by our editors, click here to read the editorial guidelines for comments. Please allow some time for our editors to approve your comment after posting.
Themba Maseko, the spokesperson for the Cabinet, today confirmed that the government is committed to accommodating the views expressed during public h...
Professor Steven Friedman in an article in Business Day says that the media has it wrong about secrecy law’s victims and that the failure of the med...
On Saturday, Pat Boone, a conservative political commentator, Christian activist, writer and preacher, put the entire American cat population among th...
As the National Prosecuting Authority bask in the afterglow of having obtained a conviction against former top cop Jackie Selebi in Johannesburg on We...
Once upon a time in a land at the southern tip of Africa, there lived a people so adept at making the rest of the world scratch their heads until thei...
Loading ...
So the deal the ANC is dishing up to sweeten the Shaik pardon is to also pardon de Kock.
I do not think the governing party is in touch with the people of the country, especially Afrikaners. I not aware of any “Free de Kock” campaint that mainstream Afrikaners support.
Why would Afrikaners want de Kock released? He is a remnant of a previous unjust era that was unfortunate for every South African, not just blacks. Amnesty is one thing, but releasing a cruel murderer is quite another. He needs to serve his sentence in full.
So does Shaik (and in a proper jail)….
(Report abuse)