The limp-wristed liberal brigade is once again frothing at the mouth and sharpening their pitch forks to burn public protector Busisiwe Mkwebane at the stake. This follows the referral of charges against her to Parliament’s justice committee last week for an inquiry into her alleged conduct.
On Tuesday March 16 on his CapeTalk show just before the 5pm news, host John Maytham opined on the news topic, “of course there should be an inquiry into the public protector”. I emailed him I was not surprised he’s part of the Salem-type witch hunt along with the media and so-called analysts like media darling “constitutional law expert” Pierre de Vos.
De Vos is one of the PP’s critics and among those who started the vendetta. On his platforms – his blog Constitutional Speaking and Daily Maverick – where he’s prolific rather than peer-reviewed journals[1], he offered quasi-legal opinions why she ought to be kicked out of office. This despite allegations against her being slim and based on biased personal opinion, animus and speculative hearsay rather than sound legal reasons. There is no legal or constitutional principle De Vos will not abandon to further his leftwing watered-down liberalism. For example, he wrote a KZN judge was wrong when he ruled in favour of an applicant in a neighbourly dispute, not because of substantive, objective legal principles, but the applicant expressed anti-Muslim sentiments[2] which the judge correctly said was irrelevant. Note De Vos has never practiced as an attorney or advocate but deigns to tell a judge what’s right or wrong.
The whispers against PP started with her office’s investigation into former finance minister Pravin Gordhan and around the time of the Gupta-linked Free State government Estina dairy project. The left-liberal mob went into a frenzy that she dared find against putative anti-corruption fighter Pravin Gordhan. (That he’s South Africa’s purported hero at the bridge is mainly the left-liberal media’s and white business’ false belief.
They expediently and hypocritically overlook his silent complicity during Zuma’s pillage. They conflated and confused her office’s investigation with her personally, ignoring that fact that investigative agencies around the world only act if and when complaints are laid by a member of the public. Mostly, and depending on their mandates, they don’t initiate complaints. Someone, EFF I think, laid complaints against Gordhan and that was enough for them.
It’s not clear if Mkwebane’s sin was her office accepted the complaint, she investigated or investigated and found Gordhan breached of ethics. Likely it’s all three.
Like one wronged and who never defended alleged arch-corrupt Jacob Zuma, Gordhan took her findings to court on review. This set the tongues wagging. Before the judgement was in, the brigade – self-righteous and omniscient “expert” analysts, editors and journalists and their readership who equally had little clue how PP and other investigations work – reached for the smelling salts.
Gordhan won and they went into a paroxysm, saying she personally – note not her investigators and legal staff who investigated and wrote the report although she was key in all this – was unethical and incompetent. About this and other cases they screamed the fact she was overturned, and a judge said she lied, was sufficient to remove her immediately and charge her. With what exactly they never said, and as it transpired, the Public Protector Act was silent on the process to remove a public protector.
But that didn’t matter then and doesn’t now. When the pack scents blood, they go into frenzy. The witch hunt mob thought they had Mkwebane. Her competence to occupy the post was scrutinised, her findings and number of times she was taken on review analysed. De Vos was one of them but never disclosed he reportedly was an applicant for the job she got. So he has a personal stake in seeing her fall.
It was deemed irrelevant and never raised that very few of the over 20 000 cases the PP receives every year are taken on review. However, at the time a singularly rare objective assessment in Daily Maverick by a staff writer put the PP’s win/loss including cases rolled over from Thusi Madonsela’s time slightly ahead at around five to four. But this didn’t matter to the brigade.
It also doesn’t matter wins and losses and appeals are part of the legal system. When reviewing appeals, judges rule on the legal correctness and rationality of the finding and procedures but not on the PP’s personal competence or ethics. Lying or competence goes to credibility but that’s not relevant to the case under review, just as a litigant’s religious feelings are not relevant to a neighbourly dispute.
National Prosecutions Authority head Shamila Batoyi has not yet had one corruption court case. She has a tough job but South Africans are tired of her excuses. The limp-wristed brigade has not called for her to be fired and charged. Similarly, the country’s high crime and police misconduct, criminality and incompetence have not led to demands for the policed commissioner to be fired and charged.
What about lack-lustre and confused Cyril Ramaphosa’s poor record as president and leading government? SA still has corruption, internal ANC divisions and dire social and economic problems that he’s incapable of finding solutions for. And government’s Covid-19 record is dismal with PPE tender corruption, vaccine debacle and only 147 000 people vaccinated after a month. But the mob, who are Ramaphorias, are silent.
But none of this matters. Mkwebane touched a nerve particularly for the white left-liberal intelligentsia when she found their hero Gordhan was unethical. To them she’s guilty as charged, the exact nature of charges irrelevant even before thought went into the legalities and process of an inquiry.
Endnotes
1. For an academic of his seniority – a full professor – De Vos’ (called “Pierretjie” by his UCT detractors) has written relatively few academic journal papers, around 50. It should be over 100. According to former UCT professor Tim Crowe, UCT considers public intellectual articles in popular media sufficient contribution for academic achievement and advancement.
2. Other examples are De Vos retroactively agreed with UCT and vice-chancellor Max Price were correct to dis-invite Fleming Rose, not because Rose would say anything offensive or his presence a security risk, but because his mere presence would upset his critics, the small but influential radical and violent Rhodes Must Fall movement. Another occasion De Vos defended UCT removing art, an act of censorship, because it affected this group’s sensibilities. Oddly, he said he defends freedom of speech.
On Tuesday March 16 on his CapeTalk show just before the 5pm news, host John Maytham opined on the news topic, “of course there should be an inquiry into the public protector”. I emailed him I was not surprised he’s part of the Salem-type witch hunt along with the media and so-called analysts like media darling “constitutional law expert” Pierre de Vos.
De Vos is one of the PP’s critics and among those who started the vendetta. On his platforms – his blog Constitutional Speaking and Daily Maverick – where he’s prolific rather than peer-reviewed journals[1], he offered quasi-legal opinions why she ought to be kicked out of office. This despite allegations against her being slim and based on biased personal opinion, animus and speculative hearsay rather than sound legal reasons. There is no legal or constitutional principle De Vos will not abandon to further his leftwing watered-down liberalism. For example, he wrote a KZN judge was wrong when he ruled in favour of an applicant in a neighbourly dispute, not because of substantive, objective legal principles, but the applicant expressed anti-Muslim sentiments[2] which the judge correctly said was irrelevant. Note De Vos has never practiced as an attorney or advocate but deigns to tell a judge what’s right or wrong.
The whispers against PP started with her office’s investigation into former finance minister Pravin Gordhan and around the time of the Gupta-linked Free State government Estina dairy project. The left-liberal mob went into a frenzy that she dared find against putative anti-corruption fighter Pravin Gordhan. (That he’s South Africa’s purported hero at the bridge is mainly the left-liberal media’s and white business’ false belief.
They expediently and hypocritically overlook his silent complicity during Zuma’s pillage. They conflated and confused her office’s investigation with her personally, ignoring that fact that investigative agencies around the world only act if and when complaints are laid by a member of the public. Mostly, and depending on their mandates, they don’t initiate complaints. Someone, EFF I think, laid complaints against Gordhan and that was enough for them.
It’s not clear if Mkwebane’s sin was her office accepted the complaint, she investigated or investigated and found Gordhan breached of ethics. Likely it’s all three.
Like one wronged and who never defended alleged arch-corrupt Jacob Zuma, Gordhan took her findings to court on review. This set the tongues wagging. Before the judgement was in, the brigade – self-righteous and omniscient “expert” analysts, editors and journalists and their readership who equally had little clue how PP and other investigations work – reached for the smelling salts.
Gordhan won and they went into a paroxysm, saying she personally – note not her investigators and legal staff who investigated and wrote the report although she was key in all this – was unethical and incompetent. About this and other cases they screamed the fact she was overturned, and a judge said she lied, was sufficient to remove her immediately and charge her. With what exactly they never said, and as it transpired, the Public Protector Act was silent on the process to remove a public protector.
But that didn’t matter then and doesn’t now. When the pack scents blood, they go into frenzy. The witch hunt mob thought they had Mkwebane. Her competence to occupy the post was scrutinised, her findings and number of times she was taken on review analysed. De Vos was one of them but never disclosed he reportedly was an applicant for the job she got. So he has a personal stake in seeing her fall.
It was deemed irrelevant and never raised that very few of the over 20 000 cases the PP receives every year are taken on review. However, at the time a singularly rare objective assessment in Daily Maverick by a staff writer put the PP’s win/loss including cases rolled over from Thusi Madonsela’s time slightly ahead at around five to four. But this didn’t matter to the brigade.
It also doesn’t matter wins and losses and appeals are part of the legal system. When reviewing appeals, judges rule on the legal correctness and rationality of the finding and procedures but not on the PP’s personal competence or ethics. Lying or competence goes to credibility but that’s not relevant to the case under review, just as a litigant’s religious feelings are not relevant to a neighbourly dispute.
National Prosecutions Authority head Shamila Batoyi has not yet had one corruption court case. She has a tough job but South Africans are tired of her excuses. The limp-wristed brigade has not called for her to be fired and charged. Similarly, the country’s high crime and police misconduct, criminality and incompetence have not led to demands for the policed commissioner to be fired and charged.
What about lack-lustre and confused Cyril Ramaphosa’s poor record as president and leading government? SA still has corruption, internal ANC divisions and dire social and economic problems that he’s incapable of finding solutions for. And government’s Covid-19 record is dismal with PPE tender corruption, vaccine debacle and only 147 000 people vaccinated after a month. But the mob, who are Ramaphorias, are silent.
But none of this matters. Mkwebane touched a nerve particularly for the white left-liberal intelligentsia when she found their hero Gordhan was unethical. To them she’s guilty as charged, the exact nature of charges irrelevant even before thought went into the legalities and process of an inquiry.
Endnotes
1. For an academic of his seniority – a full professor – De Vos’ (called “Pierretjie” by his UCT detractors) has written relatively few academic journal papers, around 50. It should be over 100. According to former UCT professor Tim Crowe, UCT considers public intellectual articles in popular media sufficient contribution for academic achievement and advancement.
2. Other examples are De Vos retroactively agreed with UCT and vice-chancellor Max Price were correct to dis-invite Fleming Rose, not because Rose would say anything offensive or his presence a security risk, but because his mere presence would upset his critics, the small but influential radical and violent Rhodes Must Fall movement. Another occasion De Vos defended UCT removing art, an act of censorship, because it affected this group’s sensibilities. Oddly, he said he defends freedom of speech.
Comments
Post a Comment