Thuli Madonsela. (Madelene Cronje, M&G)
Holomisa must hold his horses
The credibility of the Independent Electoral Commission (IEC) is at stake in the battle between two chapter nine institutions, the public protector and the IEC ("Pansy wilts under Thuli's scrutiny", September 6).
Is this the first time that an intense squabble between such critical democratic institutions has occurred since the establishment of democracy?
The public protector, Thuli Madonsela, has found "improper conduct and maladministration practices" on the part of the IEC chairperson, Pansy Tlakula, relating to the lease of the IEC's Riverside Office Park building in Pretoria. Tlakula is refusing to accept responsibility for any transgression. She defended herself from the beginning by saying she would not allow the report to go unchallenged because it would damage the credibility of the IEC.
The issues between the two institutions has now become a political football kicked between the ANC and Bantu Holomisa's United Democratic Movement. In fact, the initial complainant was Holomisa. He had already made up his mind when Madonsela announced her report. He called for Tlakula to step down.
This call should be based on the findings of the report and nothing else. It appears that the complainant is not interested in the fact that Madonsela has now recommended that Parliament take action against Tlakula.
Handing over the matter had the ruling party in Parliament jumping on the bandwagon. This is where a clear political spat is emerging between Holomisa and the ANC over this sensitive issue.
The ANC is of the view that MPs such as Holomisa, who have already called for Tlakula's resignation, should not be part of an envisaged ad hoc committee established to look into the matter. It says their "involvement will jeopardise the integrity and the confidence of the people in this particular process", though it is not clear how. Indeed, Holomisa rejected the claim. He said political parties represented in Parliament are guided by the constitution, not the ANC.
Now that the matter has been referred to Parliament, it would be fair for the UDM to wait until the process is completed. At the same time, the ANC must not create the impression that it is attempting to curtail the views of other political parties. Surely it is their constitutional right to express themselves? Isn't that democratic participation in a constitutional democracy? – Abongwe Kobokana, Cape Town
No ill intent in pointing out some loose threads
In his review of Sir Bob Hepple’s autobiography, Young Man with a Red Tie (“It was the struggle of a lifetime”, Friday, September 6), Judge Dennis Davis describes my review of the autobiography (“A treasure trove of detail, but some loose threads”, Friday, July 12) as “mean-spirited”.
On the contrary, it’s a matter of academic and journalistic accuracy – not mean-spiritedness – to point out that Hepple makes no reference to an important passage about himself in the autobiography A Healthy Grave, by his fellow accused in the Rivonia Trial, James Kantor, published in 1967, which stated: “Bob and I discussed his decision to give evidence. He felt that none of the people caught during the Rivonia raid had the slightest chance of an acquittal, and […] did not feel sufficiently dedicated to [the struggle] … to sacrifice himself.”
It’s legitimate to point out there is a “loose thread” in Young Man with a Red Tie, since the matter is not cited in the book or discussed. Similarly, it was not mean-spirited of me to point out that Hepple does not address the recollection of fellow accused Denis Goldberg, who served a life sentence.
In his 2010 autobiography, The Mission: A Life for Freedom in South Africa, Goldberg writes: “In our cell under the court Bob again told me that the case against him was so strong that he had to do anything he could to avoid the death sentence. I understood that, but also knew that my life was at risk, the more so if Bob were to give evidence … [There] would have been serious consequences if Bob […] had given evidence.”
These are two first-hand published accounts, part of the record of South African history but not addressed by Hepple.
Davis writes I was mean-spirited for noting that members of the central committee of the South African Communist Party (SACP) […] did not warn us about sleep deprivation. He states this kind of torture “became standard police practice from the 1970s”.
Yet my trial colleagues Norman Levy, Costa Gazidis, Ivan Schermbrucker and I were detained and subjected to sleep deprivation from July 1964, just a month after the end of the Rivonia Trial. No word came to us then or later that Hepple had been subjected to sleep deprivation prior to us. There is no reference to sleep deprivation in Kantor’s book, despite his extensive pretrial conversations with Hepple, nor in Joel Joffe’s account of the trial, The Rivonia Story (1995).
As Africa editor of the magazine News/Check during the trial, while also working on Freedom Fighter, the underground journal of the ANC, the SACP and Umkhonto weSizwe, I would certainly have published a report on sleep deprivation if I had been told about it by Hilda Bernstein, my contact on the central committee, whose husband Rusty was on trial for his life.
There might be more than one explanation for the absence of information. But it’s not mean-spirited to report it. – Paul Trewhela
I had the strangest dream …
It was reported in the Mail & Guardian that President Jacob Zuma has fled from South Africa to India due to the “opposite of the positive” reporting of the media.
He was seen leaving OR Tambo Airport with most of his wives in a Jet Airways plane, which was apparently hired by the Guptas. The remaining wife refuses to leave Nkandla without her cows and kraal.
Zuma says the last straw was the report in the M&G of the Gold Fields shares given to ANC chairperson Baleka Mbete. This is the negative of the opposite reportage he abhors.
The ANC spin doctor, Jackson Mthembu, refused to comment on this story. He told the M&G he also does not know whether the story is the opposite of the positive, the negative of the opposite or the positive of the negative.
The Guptas didn’t have any comment either, because they were busy packing …
And suddenly I woke up, to yet another working day. – Dr Steve Ntlhane, Polokwane