Helen Zille lost her review application in the North Gauteng High Court for the Public Protector's finding her colonialism tweet was unethical.
Last week Pierre de Vos, who's no friend of the PP, never mentioned any of Zille's issues in his analysis of the judgement.
He said inter alia: the "judgement contains much of interest for people interested in the judicial review of bodies exercising public power, in general, and of the reports of the public protector'; 'the court proceeded to consider – and reject – all the arguments presented to it by Zille’s lawyers. To try and understand the reasoning of the court (which, in places, is not easy to follow), it is important to grasp the distinction made in our law between appeals and reviews'; 'one of the parties unhappy with the judgement [eg Zille] may try to approach a higher court to appeal that judgement".
And interestingly, "the judgement is of interest because individuals on the wrong side of the public protector cannot challenge the findings and remedial action contained in a report merely because the public protector got the facts or the law wrong" (emphasis added).
We know Zille, a very hubristic and egotistical person, and her followers always believe she's right even when she's wrong. De Vos, who while I criticise him, has legal skills, never mentions those purported problems Zille raised, which as the losing party she would. She has the right to take it on appeal. But as I asked last week, would she now that she must pay for it herself? So far, like other office bearers and politicians, she's had the taxpayer pay for personal battles of the ego, which is why she took the PP's finding on review. Why, when she had already offered a half-hearted apology when the DA slapped her on the wrist.
Back to biases and conflicts of interests I mentioned before. In 2017 Zille, as premier refused to investigate, or have investigated, on specious, fake reasons very serious charges against senior officers and employees of the Western Cape Health Department (WCHD) including the head of health Dr Beth Engelbrecht. Instead, she preemptively exonerated the parties while at the same time saying she'll look into it (right).
It was in her remit as premier and fiduciary duty. She squashed the complaint and helped cover it up, which the DA always accuses the ANC of. (We were the complainant.) She displayed bias and conflict of interest because one of the accused was her appointee. And as they - politicians and government - always do, refused to take responsibility.
This year the case ended up at the Health Professions Council which dismissed it. However, their decision was irrational: it violated statutory regulations regarding the conduct of inquiries, lenient to respondents, didn't allow a fair hearing to the complainant, ignored case precedent. And worse was an inquiry member had a prior, ongoing personal-professional relationship with one of the respondents, both presently senior employees of the WCHD (professors). The alleged conduct at the inquiry is prohibited in anti-corruption legislation.
But here's Zille's complaining she was unfairly treated and crying Godzille tears. Boo hoo. The Tygerberg doctors fired for fixing chairs and failures of the WCHD - 'it's failing the people it serves' (TAC) - happened under her watch. Life's unfair, but it's not supposed to happened to little Miss Perfect who, she doesn't realise, no longer has the protections and advantages a public office and taxpayer resources affords. It sucks being one of the little people.
Helen, have the courage of your convictions and appeal. And crowdsource your defence. I'm sure your Army - among them Politicsweb and Rapport readers - will eagerly fund it.
From her layman's and as the aggrieved, losing party's interpretation of Judge Malebo Habedi's obiter dicta ("personal observations", "irrelevant ruminations"), which he's allowed to do, one would assume it's as she says - he let his biases and conflicts of interest get in the way of his job (I'll get back to that).
Last week Pierre de Vos, who's no friend of the PP, never mentioned any of Zille's issues in his analysis of the judgement.
He said inter alia: the "judgement contains much of interest for people interested in the judicial review of bodies exercising public power, in general, and of the reports of the public protector'; 'the court proceeded to consider – and reject – all the arguments presented to it by Zille’s lawyers. To try and understand the reasoning of the court (which, in places, is not easy to follow), it is important to grasp the distinction made in our law between appeals and reviews'; 'one of the parties unhappy with the judgement [eg Zille] may try to approach a higher court to appeal that judgement".
And interestingly, "the judgement is of interest because individuals on the wrong side of the public protector cannot challenge the findings and remedial action contained in a report merely because the public protector got the facts or the law wrong" (emphasis added).
We know Zille, a very hubristic and egotistical person, and her followers always believe she's right even when she's wrong. De Vos, who while I criticise him, has legal skills, never mentions those purported problems Zille raised, which as the losing party she would. She has the right to take it on appeal. But as I asked last week, would she now that she must pay for it herself? So far, like other office bearers and politicians, she's had the taxpayer pay for personal battles of the ego, which is why she took the PP's finding on review. Why, when she had already offered a half-hearted apology when the DA slapped her on the wrist.
Back to biases and conflicts of interests I mentioned before. In 2017 Zille, as premier refused to investigate, or have investigated, on specious, fake reasons very serious charges against senior officers and employees of the Western Cape Health Department (WCHD) including the head of health Dr Beth Engelbrecht. Instead, she preemptively exonerated the parties while at the same time saying she'll look into it (right).
It was in her remit as premier and fiduciary duty. She squashed the complaint and helped cover it up, which the DA always accuses the ANC of. (We were the complainant.) She displayed bias and conflict of interest because one of the accused was her appointee. And as they - politicians and government - always do, refused to take responsibility.
This year the case ended up at the Health Professions Council which dismissed it. However, their decision was irrational: it violated statutory regulations regarding the conduct of inquiries, lenient to respondents, didn't allow a fair hearing to the complainant, ignored case precedent. And worse was an inquiry member had a prior, ongoing personal-professional relationship with one of the respondents, both presently senior employees of the WCHD (professors). The alleged conduct at the inquiry is prohibited in anti-corruption legislation.
But here's Zille's complaining she was unfairly treated and crying Godzille tears. Boo hoo. The Tygerberg doctors fired for fixing chairs and failures of the WCHD - 'it's failing the people it serves' (TAC) - happened under her watch. Life's unfair, but it's not supposed to happened to little Miss Perfect who, she doesn't realise, no longer has the protections and advantages a public office and taxpayer resources affords. It sucks being one of the little people.
Helen, have the courage of your convictions and appeal. And crowdsource your defence. I'm sure your Army - among them Politicsweb and Rapport readers - will eagerly fund it.
Comments
Post a Comment