This is said to come from King Henry VI, a play by Shakespeare, Act IV, Scene II if you are interested. The character in the play to whom these famous words are attributed is no Ghandi and his motives for the statements are not motivated by world peace. These words have however been thrown around in various contexts but it is not always in malice that they are repeated. Ok, I got a little carried away on the English lesson. This post is inspired (if that is the correct word) by Justices Langa, Sacks and O’Reagan, looking morose at a press conference – pleading for a little respect not for themselves but for the institutions they represent. It is also inspired by other matters legal.
I do believe that Judges, like all other arms of government are not above criticism by the ordinary citizens. Criticism, like all other forms of inter-action is subject to limitations of common decency and common sense and if you will the facts. I am sure that the Judges do not wish to close the door on reasonable and constructive criticism. What I have read in the media, attributed to some political leaders does not with respect, amount to neither reasonable nor constructive criticism. A statement to the effect that “JZ will never be given a fair trial” is irresponsible at best and in my view nothing short of inflammatory. It is more so when stated as baldly as that without some basis. Remember this is a forward-looking statement and presumably the obstacles to fair trial of JZ can be addressed, at the very least.
It is equally unfair and ill-considered to insist that Jacob Zuma go to trial when there are matters procedural that he is entitled to have ventilated, prior to facing trial. He is of course free to abandon the procedural points and proceed to trial, until then let the man be. There is of course another matter of the legal fees being paid by the taxpayers. Well, there are rules about such matters and as far as I can tell, those rules allow for Jacob Zuma to have state funded legal defence, I stand to be corrected. This reminds me of the trial of Magnus Malan which I believe was paid for by his former victims – the SA taxpayers, I stand to be corrected.
When the leader of the young communist (as all communist should be – young that is) tears into judges because he does not agree with them and without any basis in law or fact, that is just inflammatory. It does not help our judiciary or JZ. On the other hand Mr Malema suggesting that the judges of Supreme Court of Appeal are against the ANC would be hilarious if it was not downright reckless. What then is the ANC to do when judges are against it, as they were during the apartheid years? And how, as Mr Malema suggest, would the NPA be saving the country by dropping the charges against JZ? What danger will the country be facing if the charges are not dropped?
Similarly the transformation of legal services, judiciary and all matters legal is an equally important matter. The Sunday Times recently ran an article that in summary shows that law, as in law firms, remains white and male. This is not new and in my view is not about to go away soon. Here is the thing, when I chew with my mouth open, arrive late for meetings, have poor spelling and grammar, none of these have nothing to do with me being black or white – it is just me being me. So for as long as the basis of employing a black lawyer is different from the basis of employing a white lawyer, all the commentary by lawyers and lawyers’ organisations as printed in the Sunday Times article is hot air. Consider this, a young white law student, says to his young black fellow law student: “at least you have affirmative action to help you”. The black student responds: “I have the ability to one day practice law in 8 of the 11 official languages of the country, how on earth do you reckon I need affirmative action? Young lawyers want the same things, have the same strengths and short-comings and thrive under similar circumstances. If the boss thinks and acts like someday you will make a good lawyer – so it will be. The unfortunate truth is that there are a lot more white youngsters who appear to have the potential than black ones. It must be in the genes.
The truth is peace and with it prosperity is possible only if disputes can be adjudicated and resolved fairly. The institutions that are charged with the adjudication and resolution of disputes must have the confidence of the majority of the citizens. We cannot afford for our courts and other forums of adjudication of dispute lose legitimacy. Any of the issues above can and will eat away at whatever little legitimacy that these institutions still enjoy. The present doesn’t actually ever go away. It becomes the history on which the future is built. The present exclusion of black professionals from the more advanced areas of practice, with its concomitant resentment, will become the history on which the future of us and them will be built.
In the meantime, a worker who is unlawfully dismissed, a community that is unlawfully displaced from their homes, a woman who is raped, a father who is prevented from seeing his children, a farm worker who is kicked off the land he has worked for 30 years and now lives in a plastic hovel along a national road, a young man blinded by repeated blows to his face by a bouncer at some nightclub, etc, etc – all need lawyers (magistrates, judges, prosecutors, attorneys, advocates), they all need justice, they all need the wrongs against them made right. Equally so, the offenders and perpetrators need their rights to be protected from arbitrary actions by the state; they need fair and just punishment or adjudication and resolution of the matters concerned.
So, why don’t we speed up the future and kill all the lawyers, counter-revolutionary as they are, they serve no purpose for the future.
I do believe that Judges, like all other arms of government are not above criticism by the ordinary citizens. Criticism, like all other forms of inter-action is subject to limitations of common decency and common sense and if you will the facts. I am sure that the Judges do not wish to close the door on reasonable and constructive criticism. What I have read in the media, attributed to some political leaders does not with respect, amount to neither reasonable nor constructive criticism. A statement to the effect that “JZ will never be given a fair trial” is irresponsible at best and in my view nothing short of inflammatory. It is more so when stated as baldly as that without some basis. Remember this is a forward-looking statement and presumably the obstacles to fair trial of JZ can be addressed, at the very least.
It is equally unfair and ill-considered to insist that Jacob Zuma go to trial when there are matters procedural that he is entitled to have ventilated, prior to facing trial. He is of course free to abandon the procedural points and proceed to trial, until then let the man be. There is of course another matter of the legal fees being paid by the taxpayers. Well, there are rules about such matters and as far as I can tell, those rules allow for Jacob Zuma to have state funded legal defence, I stand to be corrected. This reminds me of the trial of Magnus Malan which I believe was paid for by his former victims – the SA taxpayers, I stand to be corrected.
When the leader of the young communist (as all communist should be – young that is) tears into judges because he does not agree with them and without any basis in law or fact, that is just inflammatory. It does not help our judiciary or JZ. On the other hand Mr Malema suggesting that the judges of Supreme Court of Appeal are against the ANC would be hilarious if it was not downright reckless. What then is the ANC to do when judges are against it, as they were during the apartheid years? And how, as Mr Malema suggest, would the NPA be saving the country by dropping the charges against JZ? What danger will the country be facing if the charges are not dropped?
Similarly the transformation of legal services, judiciary and all matters legal is an equally important matter. The Sunday Times recently ran an article that in summary shows that law, as in law firms, remains white and male. This is not new and in my view is not about to go away soon. Here is the thing, when I chew with my mouth open, arrive late for meetings, have poor spelling and grammar, none of these have nothing to do with me being black or white – it is just me being me. So for as long as the basis of employing a black lawyer is different from the basis of employing a white lawyer, all the commentary by lawyers and lawyers’ organisations as printed in the Sunday Times article is hot air. Consider this, a young white law student, says to his young black fellow law student: “at least you have affirmative action to help you”. The black student responds: “I have the ability to one day practice law in 8 of the 11 official languages of the country, how on earth do you reckon I need affirmative action? Young lawyers want the same things, have the same strengths and short-comings and thrive under similar circumstances. If the boss thinks and acts like someday you will make a good lawyer – so it will be. The unfortunate truth is that there are a lot more white youngsters who appear to have the potential than black ones. It must be in the genes.
The truth is peace and with it prosperity is possible only if disputes can be adjudicated and resolved fairly. The institutions that are charged with the adjudication and resolution of disputes must have the confidence of the majority of the citizens. We cannot afford for our courts and other forums of adjudication of dispute lose legitimacy. Any of the issues above can and will eat away at whatever little legitimacy that these institutions still enjoy. The present doesn’t actually ever go away. It becomes the history on which the future is built. The present exclusion of black professionals from the more advanced areas of practice, with its concomitant resentment, will become the history on which the future of us and them will be built.
In the meantime, a worker who is unlawfully dismissed, a community that is unlawfully displaced from their homes, a woman who is raped, a father who is prevented from seeing his children, a farm worker who is kicked off the land he has worked for 30 years and now lives in a plastic hovel along a national road, a young man blinded by repeated blows to his face by a bouncer at some nightclub, etc, etc – all need lawyers (magistrates, judges, prosecutors, attorneys, advocates), they all need justice, they all need the wrongs against them made right. Equally so, the offenders and perpetrators need their rights to be protected from arbitrary actions by the state; they need fair and just punishment or adjudication and resolution of the matters concerned.
So, why don’t we speed up the future and kill all the lawyers, counter-revolutionary as they are, they serve no purpose for the future.
Posts
The truth of the matter is that with these intimidating tactics and should the ANC have its way we will slide down the path where court decisions means nothing and judges are appointed based on their political views.
ReplyDeleteAnd what is one to make with the admission by the ANC that Zuma is corrupt but he is a small fish in all these matters and that they will point out the big fishes....don't you think that this says a lot about our leadership and their thinking capacity. Yet at the same time they don't want for there to be an arms deal enquiry. Anyway I digress. But you hit it on the nail, without a rule of law we might go back to Machiavelli's Life in a state of nature......
why do they hate us so Moremogolo?
ReplyDeleteBy the way....ke ratile ka mokgwa o o ipokang ka teng. It would be interesting if you could put it in your profile....
ReplyDelete