Constitution under siege by ANC
11 July 2011 2 Comments
… warns Afrikaner Journal
10 July 2011 By, J. Mare
Picture by Beeld: Esteemed senior-advocate George Bizos, grimacing in dismay – listening to SA president Jacob Zuma attacking the SA Constitution at the third ‘Access to Justice conference’ at Pretoria on July 8 2011:
Greek-born George Bizos, was part of the team defending the top ANC-terrorists at the Rivonia Trial in 1963–64 – Nelson Mandela, Govan Mbeki and Walter Sisulu. The defendants were sentenced to life imprisonment, but spared the death penalty. This trial heralded the arrival of a group of tough post-1994 human rights lawyers in South Africa — Joel Joffe, Arthur Chaskalson and Harold Hanson. Bizos was counsel at various inquests into the deaths people in detention. He has been a senior member of the Johannesburg Bar since 1978. He is a member of the National Council of Lawyers for Human Rights, which he helped found in 1979. He is Senior Counsel at the Legal Resources Centre in Johannesburg in the Constitutional Litigation Unit. He was a judge on Botswana‘s Court of Appeal from 1985 to 1993. In 1990 he became a member of the African National Congress‘ (ANC) Legal and Constitutional Committee, and at Convention for a Democratic South Africa (CODESA) he served as advisor to the negotiating teams and participated in drawing up the Interim Constitution. He was involved in the drafting of legislation, and particularly the Truth and Reconciliation Bill and amendments to the Criminal Procedures Act, to bring it into line with Chapter 3 of the Constitution, guaranteeing fundamental human rights to all citizens of South Africa. At the Truth and Reconciliation Commission hearings, he led the legal team that opposed applications for amnesty on behalf of the Biko, Hani, Goniwe, Calata, Mkonto, Mhlauli, Slovo and Schoon families. He was appointed by then-President Mandela to the Judicial Services Commission which, in terms of the Constitution, recommends candidates for appointment as judges and proposes reforms to the judicial system ‘to erace its apartheid past’. Bizos led the legal team opposing the death penalty as ‘unconstitutional’. He was counsel for the National Assembly in the Certification of the Constitution by the Constitutional Court. In 2005, Bizos was legal advisor to Nelson Mandela in a bitter legal dispute with Mandela’s former attorney, Ismail Ayob. Thát George Bizos.
One the (ANC) government has decided on the appropriate policies, the judiciary cannot … change the policies…’ Jacob Zuma
While acknowledging the strides we have made, it is our well-considered view that there is a need to distinguish the areas of responsibility between the judiciary and the elected branches of government, especially with regards to government policy formulation.
The Executive, as elected officials, has the sole discretion to decide policies for government.
This challenge is perhaps articulated clearly by Justice VR Krishna Lyer of India who observed that: “Legality is within the courts’ province to pronounce upon, but canons of political propriety and democratic dharma are polemic issues on which judicial silence is the golden rule.”
This means that once government has decided on the appropriate policies, the judiciary cannot, when striking down legislation or parts thereof on the basis of illegality, raise that as an opportunity to change the policies as determined by the Executive area of government.
There is no doubt that the principle of separation of powers must reign supreme to enable the efficiency and integrity of the various arms of the State in executing their mandates.
Encroachment of one arm on the terrain of another should be frowned upon by others, and there must be no bias in this regard.
In as much as we seek to respect the powers and role conferred by our Constitution on the legislature and the judiciary, we expect the same from these very important institutions of our democratic dispensation.
The Executive must be allowed to conduct its administration and policy making work as freely as it possibly can.
The powers conferred on the courts cannot be superior to the powers resulting from the political and consequently administrative mandate resulting from popular democratic elections.
Political disputes resulting from the exercise of powers that have been constitutionally conferred on the ruling party through a popular vote must not be subverted, simply because those who disagree with the ruling party politically, and who cannot win the popular vote during elections, feel other arms of the State are avenues to help them co-govern the country.
This interferes with the independence of the judiciary. Political battles must be fought on political platforms.”
He then goes on to say the following:
“Ladies and gentlemen,
As the Executive, we remain committed to the independence of the judiciary as entailed in our Constitution.
We maintain that the integrity of our Constitution is beyond doubt and the Constitutional Court remains the primary custodian of the Supreme Law in the land.”
“The ANC finds itself in a predicament, ‘ noted Afrikaner Journal. “It seems from the above – that the independence of the courts in judging the effectiveness of the ‘ANC executive’s powers’ and ‘policies’ – (as reflected in the laws passed by this murderous regime) is a very big problem for the ANC.
How does one effect change and implement ‘unfair’ and ‘racist’ policies, if the very Constitution condemns and prohibits such act, and a Constitution which stands firmly in the way of the goal your organisation has set?
There are a few ways.
– You attack the guardians of the Constitution (the courts): insisting that they ‘should not’ do the work they were mandated to do.
– You claim unfair political interference by the courts.
– You claim unfair dominance by the courts.
What is the ANC really saying?
They are in effect saying is that this (Constitution and the oversight by the law-courts)are not working for them. They feel powerless to do their job of ‘transforming’ the country into the ‘communist utopia’ they envisaged for it prior to 1994.
The very same principles of equality and fairness that are suppose to guarantee everybody’s freedom are now a problem for them.
In fact, one can take this even further and state that the ‘freedom charter’ itself is now under siege. This document, adopted by the ruling party, insists that, ‘South Africa belongs to all who lives in it’. How is it possible that this very document and its’ legal version, the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa could be such a problem for the ANC?
Isn’t everybody’s status as equal citizens guaranteed? Doesn’t it provide for a ‘one man, one vote’ democratically elected government?
Doesn’t it have ‘checks and balances’ that will safeguard everybody from a dictatorial government?
ANC needs anarchy to achieve its goals
It seems to be clear that the constitution, and by extention, the judiciary are doing an excellent job in curbing the governing regime’s pursuits to pervert the principles of our Constitution. In fact they are so effective that one could say it almost resembles the judicial principle of ‘the Rule of Law’ in civilized countries.
This may not be the case for much longer. The ANC needs the constitution to be unequal, biased and in favor of suspending the rights of some citizens to meet its goals.
The ANC has no choice but to — either put inappropriate pressure on the judiciary to ‘not judge in favour of the constitution’, or its going to have to implement even more severe measures: such as suspending many ‘human rights’ principles of the Constitution so that they can ‘legally’ bully their unconstitutional laws into existence.
The final choice
So what will this regime decide? How will it approach this ‘dilemma’? It is not unheard of for governments to change constitutions to be more in line with governing party principles. This regime however cannot afford the fall-out should they decide to go this way.
Isn’t this the most celebrated constitution in the world?
It was hailed as the most liberal, ‘human rights’ document, to become the highest law of any country in the world. South Africa received praise for it from all over the world. How can the ANC afford to touch even one line without having to explain how this perfect document failed its’ citizens? They won’t be able to offer any satisfactory explanation — and the only option left is anarchy. Sitting back and “letting the people” pursue their own justice, retribution, redress and restitution.
In short, allowing anarchy.
In related news:
* Rural Development Minister Gugile Nkwinti reportedly said ,”the expropriation of land without compensation is a possibility in future if the current leadership fails to speed up land reform”, reports News24 on July 10, 2011.
The first land invasions have already taken place – and Afrikaners are training to defend their families:
* Censorbugbear.org reported on Tuesday, July 5, 2011 at 3:08pm:
“South Africa is on the eve of an organised, widespread land-grabbing and ‘swarming’ campaign in towns and countryside with the ANC-slogan: ‘The land should be shared among those who work it.’ Organised groups of tribal land-occupiers are aleady targetting many private properties, whether they are farms, smallholdings, or family-dwellings in towns and suburbs; and whether white families already occupy the properties or not… “ Full story here: Land-invasions in towns and farms – white families should be prepared
* Afrikaner Youth preparing to defend their property, families, homesteads and lives – this report from the ANC’s taxpayer-funded propaganda publication, The New Age: “Young white South Africans are taking part in secret military training exercises on farms across the country, as part of an effort to defend themselves against “crime and bloodshed”. (article and pictures below: De Wet Potgieter)
Full article here: Whites train to defend – The New Age
- Reports of MURDERS and ATROCITIES perpetrated against AFRIKANERS in South Africa
- Comprehensive reports of Murders and Atrocities against Afrikaners – Censorbugbear Reports