Hoekom Jy Vir die DA Moet Stem

Vanuit SA Vandag 17 April 2009

Gaan stem op Woensdag 22 April!

Elke enkele geregistreerde kieser wat die DA steun, moet op Woensdag in die verkiesing gaan stem. Elke stem is kritiek: dit kan die stem wees wat die skaal swaai. Die wiskunde is eenvoudig: hoe meer DA-kiesers in verhouding tot ANC-kiesers gaan stem, hoe beter is die kans dat ons sal sorg dat Jacob Zuma nie die meerderheid van twee derdes kry wat hy nodig het om die Grondwet te wysig nie.

Die opkoms van kiesers maak 'n geweldige verskil aan die verkiesingsuitslag in ons stelsel van proporsionele verteenwoordiging. Een politieke ontleder gebruik die analogie van 'n verjaardagpartytjie om die gevolge van opkomssyfers te verduidelik. Op jou verjaardag koop jy 'n koek en nooi tien mense na jou partytjie. As almal kom, kry elkeen een tiende van die koek. As net vyf kom, kry elkeen een vyfde. Dit beteken elkeen van die vyf vriende wat vir die partytjie opgedaag het, kry 'n stuk koek wat dubbel so groot is as wat hulle sou gekry het, net omdat die ander vyf weggebly het. Net so maak al die kiesers wat in 'n verkiesing stem, 100% van die verteenwoordigende getal uit, wat dan in verhouding onder die partye verdeel word. As meer DA-kiesers as ANC-kiesers wegbly, beteken dit dat die ANC-stem in verhouding groter word, en omgekeer.

In vorige verkiesings het die opkomsverhouding die ANC bevoordeel. Dit beteken dat meer ANC-kiesers as opposisiekiesers gaan stem het. Dit het hul getalle in verhouding opgestoot.

Die opkoms gaan op Woensdag deurslaggewend wees. Ons eie interne navorsing toon dat as elke DA-kieser gaan stem, en as meer DA-kiesers in verhouding tot ANC-kiesers opdaag, sal ons die ANC landswyd 'n meerderheid van twee derdes ontsê, en kan ons die ANC selfs tot minder as 60% beperk. In provinsies soos Gauteng en die Noord-Kaap, waar die ANC se greep op die mag die minste is, kan ons genoeg stemme kry om koalisieregerings te skep. As elke DA-kieser in die Wes-Kaap opdaag, kan ons die provinsie met 'n volstrekte meerderheid wen.

Die ANC is magshonger. Hy wil selfs meer as 'n tweederde-meerderheid hê. Op Woensdag het Julius Malema, die verspotte president van die ANC se Jeugliga, in een van sy tipiese fascistiese uitbarstings by die Universiteit van Kaapstad studente aangesê om die ANC "met 'n meerderheid van drie derdes" weer aan bewind te plaas. Hy het bloot nageaap wat Gwede Mantashe, die ANC se sekretaris-generaal, vroeër in die verkiesingsveldtog gesê het. Sy woorde was: "Ons wil nie 'n tweederde-meerderheid hê nie, ons wil in elke provinsie, met inbegrip van die Wes-Kaap, 'n driederde-meerderheid hê."

Malema glo Zuma is "onstuitbaar". Hy het Zuma 'n "biologiese tsoenami" genoem. Dis onsin. As elke DA-ondersteuner op 22 April gaan stem, kan ons verhoed dat die "biologiese tsoenami" verwoesting in Suid-Afrika saai.

Dit staan vas: as die ANC 'n meerderheid van twee derdes kry, met Zuma as President, gaan daar ernstige gevolge wees. Mnr. Zuma het geen begrip van konstitusionalisme nie, al is dit die rots waarop ons demokrasie gebou is. Hy het al dikwels gesê die ANC is belangriker as die Grondwet, dat opposisiepartye geen outomatiese bestaansreg het nie, en dat die magte van die Konstitusionele Hof hersien moet word omdat die regters "nie God" is nie. Zuma is die soort leier wat 'n regering op die pad na baantjies vir boeties, korrupsie en kriminalisering plaas - die pad wat uiteindelik in 'n mislukte staat uitloop. Ons het reeds die bewyse hiervan gesien.

Tot dusver het die heerserskliek in die ANC die Skerpioene ontbind, Vusi Pikoli, die vorige nasionale Direkteur van Openbare Vervolgings (NDOV), ontslaan, die vroegtydige vrylating van Zuma se weldoener, Schabir Shaik, uit die tronk bewimpel, en druk op Mokotedi Mpshe, die waarnemende NDOV, geplaas om aanklagte teen Zuma te laat vaar. Al dié stappe is gedoen om Zuma en sy kliek te beskerm.

Dit is dus duidelik dat niks Zuma sal stuit om die Grondwet en die oppergesag van die reg te ondermyn om homself en sy kliek te verryk en hulle teen vervolging te beskerm nie.

Gister het die Kabinet aangekondig dat hy die konsep van 'n Wysigingswet op die 17de Wysiging van die Grondwet goedgekeur het. Dit sal die nasionale regering in staat stel om plaaslike regerings se magte oor te neem. Dié Wetsontwerp sal nou na die Parlement toe gaan, en as die ANC op 22 April 'n meerderheid van twee derdes kry, sal hy die Wetsontwerp in die Parlement deurdruk. As dit bekragtig word, sal die ANC die wet inspan om die mandaat van 'n verkose plaaslike owerheid sterk aan bande te lê, veral waar die ANC nié regeer nie, en waar plaaslike owerhede heel tereg weier om ANC-beleid in te stel. Die Kabinet se goedkeuring van die wetsontwerp kom twee dae nadat ANC-woordvoerders uitdruklik ontken het dat só 'n wetsontwerp bestaan.

'n Meerderheid van twee derdes sal die ANC die mag gee om ander dreigemente uit te voer. Die ANC het reeds gedreig om eiendomsregte terug te trek, persvryheid te ondermyn en te sorg dat die howe bloot 'n uitbreiding van die ANC word - net soos grondwet-instellings soos die Openbare Beskermer en die Nasionale Vervolgingsgesag reeds deur kaderontplooiing uitbreidings van die ANC geword het.

Landswyd is die DA die enigste party wat 'n mens kan vertrou om te sorg dat Zuma se kliek sy mag nie misbruik om die Grondwet te wysig nie. Ons ding egter nie net nasionaal in hierdie verkiesing mee nie. Ons neem ook in al nege provinsies deel. Daar is 'n uitstekende kans dat ons die Wes-Kaap sal verower, en daar is ook 'n moontlikheid dat ons in een of twee ander provinsies koalisieregerings sal kan skep.

Ons moet op provinsiale vlak die mag in hande kry, want dan sal ons kan bewys watter verskil ons alternatiewe visie, beginsels en beleid in die praktyk vir almal maak, net soos ons dit bewys het waar ons op die vlak van plaaslike regering gewen het. Dit is die doeltreffendste rol wat ons kan speel, nie net waar ons aan die stuur staan nie, maar vir die hele land, terwyl ons die proses van nasionale politieke herrangskikking deurvoer.

As ons in die Wes-Kaap wen, sal ons byvoorbeeld kan bewys wat samewerkende regering tussen plaaslike owerhede en 'n provinsie kan bereik. Albei regeringsfere is op talle manier nóú verweef, en ons kan uitsonderlike resultate bereik as ons almal dieselfde kant toe beur, in plaas van in teenoorgestelde rigtings.

As ons op provinsiale vlak die mag in hande kry, beteken dit ook ons kan die volgende stap op die pad van ons politieke reis neem. Dié reis het in 2006 begin toe die DA in die Stad Kaapstad en ander plaaslike owerhede in die Wes-Kaap aan bewind gekom het. Ons reis sal ná 22 April voortduur, want dan gaan ons vir die plaaslike verkiesings van 2011 voorberei. In dié verkiesings gaan ons stede en dorpe orals in Suid-Afrika verower. As die laaste been van dié reis sal ons in 2014 die kern van die nasionale regering uitmaak.

Ons kan sonder jou stem op Woensdag dié reis nie voortsit nie. Ons sal nie die nodige verbande kan lê om ons eindbestemming te bereik nie. En as die ANC 'n meerderheid van twee derdes kry, sal hy elke moontlike struikelblok in ons pad plaas om ons te ontspoor.

Die belangrikste verkiesing in Zimbabwe was nie verlede jaar, toe die MDC meer stemme as Mugabe se Zanu-PF gekry het nie, al is die verkiesing blatante bekook. Dit was in 2000, toe die MDC net-net met 1% van die stemme teen Zanu-PF verloor het. As elke enkele MDC-ondersteuner in daardie verkiesing gaan stem het, sou Zimbabwe se rampspoedige agteruitgang miskien nie gebeur het nie. Zimbabwe sou vandag bes moontlik die welvarende nasie van weleer gewees het, in plaas van die mislukte staat van die hede.

Dit is die verskil wat jou stem kan maak. Dit is die verskil tussen sukses en mislukking. Dié verkiesing gaan 'n keerpunt in Suid-Afrika se geskiedenis wees. Dit is trouens die belangrikste verkiesing ná 1994, want ons keuse gaan bepaal of die land 'n suksesvolle demokrasie word (en dit is verloklik binne ons bereik), of die afwaartse spiraal na 'n mislukte staat gaan voortsit.

In 'n demokrasie kry die kiesers die regering wat hulle verdien. Suid-Afrika se toekoms lê komende Woensdag in die hande van elke individuele kieser. Een stem kan 'n oorwinning beteken, of 'n nederlaag. Tien jaar van nou af gaan dit vir almal klinkklaar wees dat dit in dié verkiesing reg was om vir die DA te stem. Maar dan gaan dit te laat wees. Doen dit dus nóú.

Why You Should Vote DA

From SA Today 17 April 2009

Go out and vote on Wednesday 22 April!

Every single registered voter who supports the DA must go out and vote in the election on Wednesday. Your vote is critical: it could be the vote that tips the scales. The mathematics are simple: the more DA voters turn out relative to ANC voters, the better our chances are of stopping Jacob Zuma from getting the two-thirds majority he needs to change the Constitution.

Voter turnout makes a huge difference to the election result in our proportional representation electoral system. One political analyst uses the analogy of a birthday party to explain the impact of turnout. On your birthday, you buy a cake and have a party for ten people. If everyone comes, each gets one tenth of the cake. If only five attend, each gets one fifth of the cake. This means that each of the five friends who come to the party gets a slice of cake double the size of what they would have got, because the other five stayed away. In the same way, all voters who vote in an election make up the 100% representational tally which is then divided up proportionately among parties. If DA voters stay away in higher numbers than ANC supporters, the effect is to increase the proportional power of the ANC vote. And vice-versa.

In previous elections, differential turn-out has benefited the ANC. This means that more ANC voters than opposition voters turned out to vote. And that proportionately boosted their tally.

Turnout will be decisive on Wednesday. Our own internal research shows that if every DA supporter goes to vote, and if more DA voters turn out relative to ANC voters, we will keep the ANC below a two-thirds majority nationally and we could even drive the ANC below 60%. In provinces like Gauteng and the Northern Cape, where the ANC's grip on power is weakest, if every DA voter turns out, we could win enough votes to be able to form coalition governments. In the Western Cape, if every DA voter turns out, we could win the province outright.

The ANC is power-hungry. It wants even more than a two-thirds majority. On Wednesday, in one of his stock fascist tirades, the imbecilic President of the ANC Youth League, Julius Malema, told students at the University of Cape Town to return the ANC to power with "a three-thirds majority". He was merely parroting ANC Secretary-General, Gwede Mantashe, who earlier in the election campaign said, "We don't want a two-thirds majority; we want a three-thirds majority in any province including the Western Cape". Malema believes Zuma is "unstoppable". He referred to him as a "biological tsunami". That is untrue. If every DA supporter goes to the polls on 22 April, we can prevent the "biological tsunami" from wreaking devastation on South Africa.

Make no mistake: if the ANC gets a two-thirds majority with Zuma as President, the consequences will be serious. Mr Zuma has no understanding of constitutionalism, which is the bedrock of our democracy. He has often said that the ANC is more important than the Constitution, that opposition parties have no automatic right to exist, and that the powers of the Constitutional Court should be reviewed because judges are "not God". Zuma represents the kind of leaders that take governments down the path of cronyism, corruption and criminalisation, towards the failed state. The evidence is already there.

So far, the ruling clique in the ANC has disbanded the Scorpions; fired the former National Director of Public Prosecutions (NDPP), Vusi Pikoli; engineered the premature release from prison of Zuma's benefactor, Schabir Shaik; and pressured the acting NDPP, Mokotedi Mpshe, to drop the charges against Zuma. All these steps were taken to shield Zuma and his cronies.

This makes it clear that Zuma will stop at nothing to undermine the Constitution and the rule of law to enrich himself and his cabal, and protect them from prosecution.

Yesterday, the Cabinet announced that it had approved the draft Constitution 17th Amendment Bill, which empowers national government to usurp powers from local government. The Bill will now go to Parliament, and if the ANC gets a two-thirds majority on 22 April, it will force the Bill through Parliament.
If it is enacted, the law will be used by the ANC to severely limit the mandate of an elected local government, especially where the ANC does not govern and where local authorities legitimately refuse to implement ANC policies. The Cabinet approval of the Bill came two days after ANC spokespersons categorically denied the existence of such a Bill.

A two-thirds majority will give the ANC the power to act on other threats.
The ANC has already threatened to revoke property rights, undermine press freedom and make the courts an extension of the ANC - just as constitutional institutions such as the Public Protector and the National Prosecuting Authority have been turned into extensions of the ANC through cadre deployment.

Nationally, the DA is the only party that can be trusted to stop Zuma's clique from abusing its power to change the Constitution. But we are not only contesting this election nationally. We are contesting it in all nine provinces, too. There is an excellent chance that we will win the Western Cape, and also a possibility that we may be able to form coalition governments in one or two other provinces.

We must win power at provincial level, because this will enable us to demonstrate the difference that our alternative vision, principles and policies make in practice, for everyone -just as we have demonstrated where we have won at local government level. This is the most effective role we can play, not only where we govern, but for our country as a whole, as we undertake the process of national political realignment.

Winning power in the Western Cape, for example, will allow us to show what co-operative governance between local authorities and a province can achieve. Both spheres are closely inter-linked in many ways and we can attain exceptional outcomes if we all pull together, rather than in opposite directions.

Winning power provincially also means that we can take the next step in our political journey. That journey started in 2006 when the DA won the City of Cape Town and other local authorities in the Western Cape. Our journey will continue after 22 April, as we prepare to contest the 2011 local government elections, in which we will win cities and towns across South Africa. At the end of the final leg of our journey, we will form the core of national government in 2014.

Without your vote on Wednesday, we cannot continue this journey. We will not make the connection we need to reach our final destination. And if the ANC gets a two-thirds majority, it will throw every obstacle it can onto the track to derail us.

The most important election in Zimbabwe was not last year when the MDC won more votes than Mugabe's Zanu-PF, despite the election being blatantly rigged. It was in 2000, when the MDC narrowly lost to Zanu-PF by 1% of the vote. If every MDC supporter had gone out to vote in that election, Zimbabwe's catastrophic slide may have been halted. Today Zimbabwe might have been the prosperous nation it once was, instead of the failed state it has become.

That is the difference your vote makes. It is the difference between success and failure. This election will be a defining moment in South Africa's history. In fact, it is the most important election since 1994, because the choice we make will determine whether our country becomes a successful democracy, which is tantalisingly within our reach, or continues the downward spiral towards a failed state.

In a democracy, voters get the government they deserve. The future of South Africa lies in the hands of every individual voter this Wednesday. One vote can win it - or lose it. In ten years time it will be obvious to everyone that voting for the DA in this election was the right thing to do. By then it will be too late. So do it now.

The ANC has failed the youth

Speech delivered by Helen Zille, Leader of the Democratic Alliance5 March 2009 at UCT

In the ANC's closed, crony society, people get preferential treatment if they have friends in high places. That explains why Jacob Zuma's former financial advisor, Schabir Shaik, can be fast-tracked for release on medical parole -- without official confirmation that he is terminally ill -- while hundreds of other terminally ill prisoners die waiting for their parole applications to be processed. Shaik's discharge is a case of "parole for pals". That is how the closed, crony society operates. It benefits members of a closed network whose interests, like Zuma and Shaik's, are mutually reinforcing. It leads to corruption and power abuse. Shaik’s parole is just the first step. In a recent interview, Zuma hinted strongly that he would pardon Shaik should he become President. He said: “Why should I discriminate against him [Shaik], because he happens to be my comrade and friend? How can I punish him for that?” The ANC has failed the vast majority of prisoners who do legitimately qualify for medical parole, but it has personally benefited Shaik. In the same way, the ANC has failed to create opportunity for the vast majority of South African youth with its closed, crony policies, but it has privileged a select few, like its blundering Youth League President, Julius Malema. In return for their slavish obedience to Jacob Zuma and their promises to “kill for Zuma”, members of the Youth League’s ruling clique are rewarded with perks, positions and privileges. They drive around in fancy cars and wear flashy clothes, which haven’t been earned through hard work and talent, but which have been acquired through networks based on cronyism and corruption. The Gucci revolutionaries in the ANC Youth League couldn’t care less about empowering and developing the youth. Like their counterparts in the parent body, they are only interested in keeping on Zuma’s right side, lining their back pockets and entrenching their power inside and outside the party. That is why, at its National Executive Committee (NEC) Lekgotla ten days ago, the Youth League undertook to continue its support for Zuma and insisted on nominating its Deputy President as Chairperson of the new National Youth Development Agency (NDYA) Board. The NDYA will be funded by the taxpayer, and you can count on it that if members of the ANC Youth League get onto the Board, taxpayers’ money will be wasted in expensive hotels and restaurants and squandered on BMWs and designer labels. The ANC, like its Youth League, has betrayed the youth of South Africa. One of the key findings that went unnoticed earlier this week when Statistics South released its latest unemployment data is that 75% of all unemployed South Africans are aged between 15 and 34. More than one third are between 15 and 24 years old. These figures are an indictment on the ANC. They show that the ruling party has failed to equip the “born-free” generation with the education and skills they need to participate in the economy and thereby contribute to the prosperity of all South Africans. The growing pool of poorly educated, unskilled and unemployed young South Africans aggravates a vicious cycle of other social problems – like poverty, delinquency, alcoholism, drug abuse and crime – which destroy the cornerstones of a democratic society: openness and opportunity. It also breeds frustration, anger and despair. But the fact is that the ANC has actively swelled this pool of disadvantaged youth through its policies, which are destroying opportunity and entrenching the closed, crony society. The rot starts in the education system. Too many learners drop out of the system before they reach benchmarked levels of achievement, and before they are functionally literate and numerate. Between 2005 and 2007, 535 000 young people left school without a passing certificate of any kind. Most of these people have no prospect of finding gainful employment. Those who remain in the system do not, by and large, receive a quality education: they are not provided with the tools they need to exercise their freedom, take advantage of their opportunities, and develop their full potential. Even if learners make it to matric – and pass – this does not guarantee them a job. That is because of labour laws which make it harder for job-seekers to enter the market and discourage employers from hiring workers – especially those who do not have a skills qualification or work record. Meanwhile, the ANC’s efforts to improve skills development by funding learnerships through the sectoral education and training authorities (Setas) have backfired. The Setas are a financial sinkhole: they are riddled with corruption and they have repeatedly failed to respond to the needs of the market. The DA believes that the state should focus on expanding and promoting equal opportunities for the youth through quality education, incentivised skills development and policies conducive to job-creating economic growth. Our education policy focuses on the essentials: reading, writing and calculating. It helps learners from disadvantaged backgrounds to overcome poverty and develop their natural talents by encouraging them to match their opportunities with hard work and personal responsibility, and by rewarding them for doing so. We will introduce a bursary voucher programme for academically promising children from low-income families, giving them the opportunity to receive better school education. The DA will provide all learners who pass matric with an opportunity voucher that they can use to start a small business or subsidise the costs of further education.To make it easier for young people to enter the labour market, we will reform the laws that destroy the prospects of many unemployed people to get jobs. We will encourage employers to hire first-time jobseekers by subsidising employees’ wages for a specific period to enable them to gain experience and demonstrate what they are capable of doing. And to promote skills development, we will reimburse employers for the cost of skills training. We believe that these policies will go a long way to reversing the scourge of youth unemployment brought upon us by the ANC. Our manifesto also includes a range of proposals that enable youths from disadvantaged backgrounds access to various work opportunities. They can sign up for a Youth Development Programme, or enrol for voluntary community service in the public sector, the police or the defence force. Those who complete these training periods would either be absorbed into the permanent structures of the public service or qualify for an opportunity voucher to further their careers. These proposals will create opportunity for the youth. In fact, the DA is the only party that puts youth development at the centre of its agenda. We have a range of other initiatives aimed at empowering the youth – like our Young Leaders’ Programme and our volunteer campaign, which you can find out more about at www.contributetochange.org.za. I invite you to be part of the DA’s efforts to empower the youth. There is a new wave of interest in politics among young people. During the recent IEC voter registration window, more than 1 million young people in the 18-to-29 age bracket registered to cast their ballots for the first time, compared to 300 000 older citizens. A total of 6 million youths under the age of 29 are now on the voters’ roll, compared to 4 million in 2004. Your vote is your power. Vote for a party that cares about the youth. Vote for a party that has carefully researched, workable, and costed solutions to unemployment, poverty and crime. Come 22 April, vote DA and vote to win!

Decision to recall Mbeki taken to settle political scores

HELEN ZILLE

LEADER OF THE DEMOCRATIC ALLIANCE

The ANC National Executive Committee’s decision to “recall” President Mbeki is motivated by revenge to settle political scores. It has nothing to do with the interests of the people of South Africa.
The ANC has turned its internal battles into a crisis for South Africa. ANC factionalism has long undermined government’s ability to deliver, and it now threatens to destabilise the entire country.
The move is clearly an attempt to find the ‘political solution’ to Jacob Zuma’s legal problems that his supporters have been calling for. Replacing President Mbeki with a Zuma proxy will open the way for them to ensure that he does not have to face a court of law to answer the 783 allegations of corruption against him. If Zuma is put above the law it will do more to undermine the Constitution than anything else.
It is untenable for Jacob Zuma to assume the Presidency without being acquitted of these charges by a court of law. Judge Nicholson’s judgment was not an acquittal.
The DA looks forward to the 2009 election, when the people of South Africa, rather than the ANC, get to choose South Africa’s next president. People are sick and tired of the factionalism in the ANC and the abuse of state institutions for factional advantage.
The DA will offer South Africa a clear alternative to the ANC: A party that places the rule of law, the Constitution and the interests of South Africa before internal power struggles.

The Zuma verdict: What now?

SA Today - The Weekly Newsletter by Helen Zille, Leader of the DA

As a party that upholds the rule of law and the Constitution, the DA respects the Pietermartizburg High Court’s verdict, based on a legal technicality, to set aside the decision to prosecute Jacob Zuma on fraud and corruption charges. The Court ruled on the basis that the National Prosecuting Authority (NPA) did not allow Zuma to make representations before it decided to reinstate the charges against him – as it was required to do by the Constitution.
An unintended consequence of the judgment is that some of Jacob Zuma’s supporters may conclude that their intimidatory and violent behaviour influenced the judge’s decision. They must understand that their behaviour had no influence at all on the judgment. They must also understand that the verdict does not absolve Zuma of guilt.
It is significant that Judge Nicholson stressed that this verdict was not a judgment on Zuma’s guilt or innocence. This means that we are still no closer to knowing whether Zuma is innocent or guilty of the corruption charges brought against him. The DA will not rest until this is resolved.
This is why the DA reiterates its call for a full judicial commission of inquiry into the arms deal, headed by a retired judge nominated by the Chief Justice. The truth must out and justice must be served. No person implicated in arms deal corruption deserves to escape the due process of law.
We have also called for Parliament to be dissolved and for a fresh election to be held – in light of Judge Nicholson’s statement that he was “not convinced that the applicant [Zuma] was incorrect in averring political meddling in his prosecution”. There are further statements in the judgment that can only lead to the inference that, under President Thabo Mbeki’s tenure, instruments of state were abused for political purposes in the ANC’s factional struggles for control.
This means that Mbeki, and power brokers aligned to him, have undermined the Constitution. It is untenable that he remain President under such circumstances.
But the dissolution of Parliament could result in an equally untenable situation, because it would merely clear the way for Zuma to become the President with a heavy cloud still hanging over his head. Voters cannot exercise an informed choice under these circumstances.
The factional battles in the ANC, and the ruling party’s abuse of the Constitution, have put South Africa between a rock and a hard place.
That is why two things must happen in the interests of the country: Mbeki must step down as President, and Zuma must withdraw as a candidate for the Presidency until he has had his day in court, and his guilt or innocence has been established. Until these men put the country before their own interests, South Africa will continue to be dragged down by the unresolved consequences of the arms deal scandal.
The upside of the judgment is that it nullifies the demand by Zuma’s supporters for a political rather than a legal solution. A political deal would have had profound consequences for the future of our constitutional democracy because it would have placed an accused above the law, on the basis of his political status. The question of a political solution cannot be revived, even if the NPA decides to appeal the High Court judgment.
The judgment also provides proof to Zuma’s supporters, if any were necessary, that the judiciary is impartial and will rule according to the law. It is now incumbent upon them to demonstrate their respect for the judiciary when judgments go against their political preferences. If Zuma has his day in court, as we believe he must in the interests of the country, his supporters will have no reason to believe that he won’t have a fair trial.
Our judiciary has shown that it will not be complicit in power abuse. The Constitutional Court’s action against Judge Hlophe shows this, as does the ruling two weeks ago that the Erasmus Commission of Inquiry was unlawful and unconstitutional.
I have already unpacked the importance of that judgment for constitutional democracy, and will not repeat myself here, suffice it to say that the verdict filled me with renewed hope for the future of our country. It showed that the Constitution can successfully be defended against the ANC’s abuse of power, and that the courts have the muscle to check such abuses.
That sets an important precedent for the future, and it also shows that, institutionally, the judiciary will not be swayed by powerful politicians. Institutions are the bedrock of constitutional democracy; without them, the entire edifice crumbles. As we move forward, all South Africans – Zuma’s supporters included – should take heart that we have a robust and impartial judiciary. This gives us hope for the future.

You can subscribe to this e-newsletter free of charge at http://www.da.org.za/

Die Zuma-uitspraak - Wat Nou?

SA Vandag - Die Weeklikse Nuusbrief deur Helen Zille, Leier van die DA

Die DA is ’n party wat die oppergesag van die reg en die Grondwet sterk steun, en respekteer dus die uitspraak in die Pietermaritzburgse Hoërhof om – op grond van ’n regstegniese punt – die besluit om Jacob Zuma weens bedrog en korrupsie te vervolg, tersyde te stel. Die Hof se uitspraak was daarop gegrond dat die Nasionale Vervolgingsgesag (NVG) Zuma nie toegelaat het om vertoë te rig voordat hy besluit het om die aanklagte teen hom weer in te stel nie. Kragtens die Grondwet moes hy dit gedoen het.
’n Onvoorsiene gevolg van die uitspraak is dat sommige van Zuma se ondersteuners dalk die gevolgtrekking sal maak dat hul intimiderende en gewelddadige optrede die regter se beslissing beïnvloed het. Hulle moet verstaan dat hul gedrag hoegenaamd geen invloed op die uitspraak gehad het nie. Hulle moet ook verstaan dat die uitspraak Zuma nie van enige skuld onthef nie.
Dit is belangrik dat regter Nicholson beklemtoon het dat die uitspraak geen oordeel oor Zuma se skuld of onskuld inhou nie. Dit beteken ons weet nog steeds nie of Zuma ten opsigte van die aanklagte van korrupsie teen hom skuldig of onskuldig is nie. Die DA sal sy bes doen om dié kwessie tot ’n spits te dryf.
Dit is waarom die DA sy beroep op ’n volle regterlike kommissie van ondersoek na die wapentransaksie, met 'n oudregter wat deur die Hoofregter benoem word aan die hoof daarvan, herhaal. Ons moet die waarheid vasstel, en geregtigheid moet seëvier. Niemand wat by die wapentransaksie-korrupsie betrek word, moet aan ’n behoorlike regsproses ontsnap nie.
Ons het ook gevra dat die Parlement ontbind moet word, en dat ’n verkiesing uitgeroep moet word weens regter Nicholson se verklaring dat hy “nie oortuig is dat die aansoeker (Zuma) verkeerd was om aan te voer dat daar politieke inmengery by sy vervolging was nie”. Daar is nog verklarings in die uitspraak wat ’n mens maar net kan laat aflei dat staatsinstellings in pres. Mbeki se ampstermyn vir politieke doeleindes misbruik is terwyl faksies om beheer gebots het.
Dit beteken dat Mbeki, en smouse van mag wat aan hom verbonde was, die Grondwet ondermyn het. Dit is onhoudbaar dat hy in sulke omstandighede steeds die President kan wees.
Die ontbinding van die Parlement sal egter ’n ewe onhoudbare situasie skep, want dit sal bloot die weg vir Zuma baan om president te word terwyl daar steeds ’n donker wolk bo sy kop hang. Kiesers kan in sulke omstandighede geen ingeligte keuse maak nie.
Die faksiegevegte binne-in die ANC, en die regerende party se misbruik van die Grondwet, beteken dat Suid-Afrika tussen twee meulstene vasgevang is.
Dit is waarom twee dinge in belang van die land moet gebeur: Mbeki moet as President bedank, en Zuma moet hom as Presidentskandidaat onttrek totdat hy in ’n hof verhoor is en sy skuld of onskuld bewys het. Suid-Afrika sal steeds deur die onafgehandelde gevolge van die wapentransaksieskandaal gerem word totdat dié mans die land se belange voor hul eie plaas.
Die positiewe sy van die uitspraak is dat dit eise deur Zuma se ondersteuners vir ’n politieke eerder as ’n regsoplossing tot niet maak. ’n Politieke oplossing sou baie ernstige gevolge vir die toekoms van ons konstitusionele demokrasie gehad het, want dit sou ’n beskuldige op grond van sy politieke status bo die wet geplaas het. Die kwessie van ’n politieke oplossing kan nie weer opgediep word nie, al besluit die NVG om teen die Hoërhof se uitspraak appèl aan te teken.
Die uitspraak bewys ook aan Zuma se ondersteuners, as hulle enige bewyse nodig gehad het, dat die regbank onpartydig is en aan die hand van die reg uitsprake lewer. Hulle moet nou hul respek vir die regbank bewys wanneer uitsprake nie hul politieke voorkeure weerspieël nie. As Zuma sy dag in die hof beleef, en ons glo dít is in die land se belang, sal sy ondersteuners geen rede hê om te glo dat hy nié ’n regverdige verhoor sal beleef nie.
Ons regbank het bewys dat hy nie aan magsmisbruik aandadig sal wees nie. Die Konstitusionele Hof se geding teen regter Hlope toon dit, net soos die uitspraak van twee weke gelede dat die Erasmus-kommissie van Ondersoek onwettig en ongrondwetlik was.
Ek het reeds oor die belangrikheid van daardie uitspraak vir konstitusionele demokrasie uitgewei, en gaan my nie hier herhaal nie, behalwe om te sê dat daardie uitspraak my weer hoop vir ons land se toekoms gegee het. Dit het bewys dat die Grondwet met welslae teen die ANC se magsmisbruik verdedig kan word, en dat die howe sterk genoeg is om sulke misbruike in toom te hou.
Dit skep ’n belangrike voorbeeld vir die toekoms, en bewys ook dat die regbank as instelling hom nie deur magtige politici laat beïnvloed nie. Instellings maak die kern van ’n konstitusionele demokrasie uit: daarsonder verkrummel die hele bouwerk.
Terwyl ons vorentoe beweeg, moet alle Suid-Afrikaners – ook Zuma se ondersteuners – moed skep omdat ons ’n sterk en onpartydige regbank het. Dit gee ons hoop vir die toekoms.

Gaan na www.da.org.za om gratis vir hierdie e-nuusbrief in te skryf.

Overcoming the Threats to Freedom

Freedom Day Statement issued by: Helen Zille, DA Leader
26 April 2008

South Africa has traveled a great distance since our first democratic election in 1994. We have come of age as a nation; we have realised that there is more that holds us together than keeps us apart.

As we celebrate Freedom Day we must ask: Are we truly free in South Africa today?

I am afraid to say that the answer to this question must be “no”.

Many people might disagree. They will say that we gained our freedom when we voted in that first democratic election. I will reply that elections are not enough to make you free. We only have to look at Zimbabwe to see that.

They will say that we have a Constitution and a Bill of Rights that guarantees our freedom. I will reply that the mere existence of a Constitution is not enough to make us free. It is a blueprint for freedom, but does not guarantee it.

When we use the Constitution as the yardstick to measure our progress, we see that the free society it envisages is not the one we live in. The majority of our people are still a long way from enjoying their most basic freedoms:

• When 53 people are murdered every day, we cannot say that the right to life is upheld.
• When 144 women and children are raped every single day, we cannot say that the right to be free from violence is protected.
• When 15 million people are without access to basic sanitation, we cannot say that the right to dignity is enjoyed by all.
• When 10 million people live in informal settlements, we cannot say that the right of access to adequate housing has been fulfilled.
• When half a million HIV positive people require access to antiretroviral drugs but do not receive them, we cannot say that there is access to basic healthcare.

It is clear that there is much work to be done, and it is going to take the efforts of every one of us to make our Constitution a living, breathing reality. But the story does not end there. Fourteen years after our first democratic election, we face a new threat to our freedom. The threat is a ruling party that believes it is more important than the Constitution. It is a party that believes it will rule until Jesus comes.

• Instead of allowing the free press to flourish, the ANC wants to control the media.
• Instead of allowing the judiciary to be independent, the ANC wants to make judges accountable to politicians.
• Instead of fighting crime and corruption, the ANC wants to take away the Scorpions.
• Instead of opening the space for real debate, the ANC wants to shut down Parliament.

On Freedom Day every year, the ANC pays tribute to the icons of the liberation struggle. Its leader sings about machine guns. This is because the ANC needs people to stay in the past if it is to keep power in the future. The ANC undermines freedom in the present and has no vision for the future. So where is the hope?

The hope lies in the people of South Africa who never gave up in the past and will not give up now. The hope lies in a party that does have a clear vision for the future, the Democratic Alliance.

Our vision is an open society in which the people are more important than the ruling party. It is a society with a free and questioning press, an independent judiciary and a Parliament that holds the government to account. Our vision is an open opportunity society in which every person has the freedom to achieve their goals, whatever their background. It is a society where every person’s basic needs are met, where people do not live in fear of criminals, where every child has access to a good school and where every person has a job. This open, opportunity society is the one promised in our Constitution.

A few weeks ago, the US Presidential candidate Barack Obama, gave a landmark speech in Philadelphia. He spoke of the struggle to attain the liberties that were set out in the American Constitution, but were denied to many for so long. He said:"Words on a parchment would not be enough to deliver slaves from bondage, or provide men and women of every color and creed their full rights and obligations as citizens of the United States. What would be needed were Americans in successive generations who were willing to do their part – through protests and struggle, on the streets and in the courts, through a civil war and civil disobedience and always at great risk - to narrow that gap between the promise of our ideals and the reality of their time."

Narrowing the gap between the reality of our time and the open opportunity society envisaged in the Constitution is the DA’s mission. And it is a mission that will succeed. It will succeed because most South Africans are rejecting the politics of race. They are more interested in the politics of ideas and the politics of prosperity. It will succeed because the ruling party has shown that it cannot govern. It has shown that it rules in the interests of the connected few and not the majority of our people. It will succeed because the ANC believes that it rules South Africa by divine right. It forgets about the people that put it in power.

In the coming months and years, the DA will continue to build the moderate, non-racial centre of politics. We will take power in this country municipality by municipality and province by province. And, make no mistake, we will not wait until Jesus comes.

Zille on the Erasmus Commission of Enquiry

EDITED EXTRACT FROM SPEECH BY HELEN ZILLE
LEADER OF THE DEMOCRATIC ALLIANCE
EXTRACT FROM A SPEECH DELIVERED AT THE CAPE TOWN PRESS CLUB
MONDAY 21 APRIL 2008 19:30

“Some judges allow themselves to be abused and I am afraid that Nathan Erasmus is one of them”

Strictly embargoed against delivery: Monday 21 April 2008, 19:30

The ANC has tried and failed to achieve what it wanted through due process of law, under the Constitution. It cannot find anything that I, the City of Cape Town or the Democratic Alliance did wrong in what it has dubbed the “Spygate saga”, a name that has stuck without foundation in the facts. So they have to find another route, via the Erasmus Commission, which we argue is an illegal and unconstitutional political hit squad that the Premier is using to by-pass the due process of law. We are prepared to take our case to the Constitutional Court if necessary to expose this commission for what it is.

If we had done anything wrong, the legal and constitutional route to nail us, would have been through a police investigation, via the prosecutorial authorities, into a court of law.

But, despite an exhaustive police investigation over many months, no charges have been laid and no evidence has emerged that the Spygate allegations have any substance. Indeed, the investigations so far have found no evidence that the City or the DA engaged in illegal spying. The allegation that the City paid a DA account has also been found to be groundless.

When the ANC realized we had done nothing wrong, and that I was correct when I told them that the first commission was unlawful, rather than back down gracefully, they simply established another commission, extending its terms of reference to issues completely unrelated to the so called “Spygate” matter in a desperate attempt to find something that they could use to bring me down.

This second Erasmus Commission is a platform for a parade of people, with deep personal grudges, to wreak revenge against me in particular and the DA in general. They include people like Kent Morkel, Badih Chaaban, Sheval Arendse and Anwaar Isaacs. This collective forms the core of “a coalition of the aggrieved”. The formation of such coalitions is unavoidable in politics, especially if you believe in running a clean administration.

In the process you have to confront people, and even fire them. They inevitably find common cause with each other and with your political opponents. All of these people, despite what they have done, and despite the fact that the criminal justice system has failed to deal with them, still have their rights. If I have breached any them, I am prepared to take the consequences through due process of law, but not through an unconstitutional political hit squad.

Make no error, (and I say this without any delusions of grandeur), the line-up that comprises this hit squad has me in its sights. This is the reason that the spin-doctors at the Premier’s office tried so hard to attach the “Zillegate” label to their probe. Premier Rasool’s aim is to do as much damage as possible, through smear and innuendo, to me personally in the run-up to the 2009 elections with the aim of preventing the party I lead from winning the Western Cape.

Apart from the distortions and outright lies their testimony to the Commission will produce, such hearings will also make the most innocuous events and actions seem suspect. Every morsel will be seized on by reporters labouring under the illusion that they are covering an impartial judicial commission.

The ANC has established this misperception by appointing a judge as chair. As I have said before, some judges allow themselves be abused, and unfortunately Nathan Erasmus is one of them. Instead of issuing a groveling apology to Erasmus for saying this, as some columnists have suggested I do, I am repeating this statement because it is relevant, because it is true, and because our Constitution protects freedom of speech.

By choosing to chair the Commission, Erasmus has ignored the guidelines accepted by the Constitutional Court to prevent this kind of abuse. Incidentally, when I first approached another Judge of the Cape High Court to chair the City’s inquiry, he declined on the basis that the Constitutional Court’s guidelines prevented him from doing so. Nathan Erasmus ignored them and, having done so, he cannot be protected from the consequences. The Commission is not a court, and its chairman is not acting in the capacity as a Judge and cannot expect the deference due to a judicial process. In fact, if anything, Erasmus’s decision to chair the Commission has undermined the independence of the judiciary required by the Constitution.

He showed his hand in the first week by dismissing the applications of four different parties to the matter, for a postponement of the Commission’s hearings until a court of law has ruled on our objections regarding its constitutionality. Instead, he pressed ahead. After all, if the Commission can squeeze in as many witnesses as possible before our case is heard, enough damage will have been done to make the outcome of our court case academic.

It is no coincidence that Zithulele Twala, the Commission’s secretary, is the brother of Mzukisi Twala, the regional editor of SABC television news. I think it is fair to describe SABC’s television coverage of the Commission as “selective” to put it mildly. But its reach is enormous. The Commission will prove to be a poison-dripping tap, over many months, leaving a lethal lake that will be impossible to mop up in the course of my testimony. And I will be overcome by the fumes as I try to do so. But that, of course, is the purpose. And it is pure power abuse.

It has worked very well before in the Desai Commission, which was also a political assassination attempt by floor crossers against their former DA colleagues from the safety of their new home in the bosom of the ANC.

After weeks of irrelevant and unrelated evidence from a parade of witnesses with axes to grind (similar to the line-up in the Erasmus Commission), Desai (who is a former ANC branch chair) pronounced that he had glimpsed into the DA and seen the “Heart of Darkness”.

Because he is a judge, most people treated this opinion with the deference due to the judgment of a court. It was quoted in banner headlines. And the damage to the DA, after weeks of similar front-page reporting, was profound. There is, of course, no appeal from the opinion of a commission. And so we had to live with the outcome of a commission given the cloak of respectability by the appointment of a judge to chair it, but which I believe was simply another political hit squad.

Ironically, just as the Erasmus Commission was getting under way in 2008, Jurgen Harksen was released from prison. He owned up to giving a donation of R500,000 to the ANC -- almost 5 times as much as he was alleged to have given to the DA. This little admission passed by without attracting the attention of a single reporter who so eagerly covered the Desai Commission. But it struck me like a hammer to the temple.

When we look back, we will see the Erasmus Commission in exactly the same cynical light. Then we will ask why we did not in 2008, focus on the burning questions. Questions like:

Why is the ANC so desperate to protect Badih Chaaban?
Who funded Chaaban’s lavish procurement of councilors prior to the floor crossing?
What was Uri the Russian’s links with local politicians; who killed him and why?
What financial transactions transpired between Morkel and Chaaban, and to what end?
Why did the provincial police commissioner, Mzwandile Petros, personally supervise the raid on investigator Philip du Toit’s house?
How did the Premier come to intimately know the contents of what had been confiscated from Du Toit a few hours afterwards?
What was the Premier’s purpose in inviting Patricia de Lille (but not me) to a private hearing and sharing selective snippets prior to a press conference?
What were the real reasons for du Toit’s arrest? Why was he denied bail?

All these questions point to threads in the real tapestry that should be woven into a proper investigation, both by the police and the media to expose the real scandal. No wonder the Premier is trying to divert attention from these issues that go to the heart of our constitutional democracy, through a ploy called the Erasmus Commission.

I have seen this all before, and I am not the kind of person to allow it to happen a second time without fighting back. If I allow this precedent to become established the ANC will abuse its overwhelming power, against any opponent anywhere who poses a credible threat.

My role is to do the best I can to govern Cape Town, to build a viable opposition and to prevent a one-party state. These goals are in the best interest of South Africa, but they are not in the interests of the ANC. The ANC is therefore going to do whatever is necessary to prevent me from achieving them, by fair means or foul.

Their means are often unconstitutional as well, including the unceasing provincial interference in the domain of local government, to frustrate our capacity to do our job. The media presents these as petty political rows, and rarely recognizes their profound constitutional implications.

In fact, they are all the small steps that cumulatively, over time, widen rather than narrow the gap between the ideals of our Constitution and the reality of our time. Bit by bit they take us in the direction of Zimbabwe.

Our struggle is to prevent that. Exposing and resisting the political abuse represented by the Erasmus Commission, is one small step in our quest to do just that. And I will not shrink from it.

A Message from Helen Zille

Recently, in a radio interview, I made the following statement regarding the Erasmus Commission of Inquiry:

“Some judges allow themselves to be abused, and unfortunately Nathan Erasmus is one of them.”

Die Burger criticized this statement as a challenge to the independence and integrity of the judiciary. On the basis of the advice of Senior Counsel, I am advised that Die Burger’s interpretation is incorrect. Below is my response to Die Burger, published this morning (Afrikaans version follows below).

Best wishes,

Helen Zille
Leader of the Democratic Alliance


To the Editor:

It is ironic that Die Burger’s editorial claiming to defend the independence of the judiciary does precisely the opposite.

The editorial is misguided and wrong. Its faulty premise is that Nathan Erasmus is chairing the Erasmus Commission in his capacity as a Judge and is therefore above criticism. He is NOT acting as a judge. He is merely the chairman of a commission. The commission is not above criticism and nor is its chairman. Furthermore, in accepting the appointment to chair the Commission, Erasmus ignored guidelines laid down by the Constitutional Court, which recommended that Judges turn down appointments outside of a court when such positions “create the risk of judicial entanglement in matters of political controversy.”

Nathan Erasmus has gone against this injunction and cannot be protected from the consequences. The commission he agreed to chair is, we contend, unlawful and unconstitutional. It was established by the ANC as a political hit squad to conduct a drawn-out witch-hunt to smear the opposition in the run-up to the 2009 election. The ANC’s purpose in appointing a judge as chair is to provide a veneer of judicial respectability and protection normally accorded by the public to a court of law. This strategy has worked well because many others, besides Die Burger, are treating the commission and its chairman with the deference applicable to a court of law. There is no legal or constitutional reason to do so. And there is no threat to the independence of the judiciary to say so.

There is, however, no doubt that the independence of the Judiciary is being harmed by Nathan Erasmus’s decision to accept appointment to such a political instrument. It is this decision -- and not my criticism of it -- that harms the independence of the judiciary.

Die Burger is also entirely wrong to suggest that I have a remedy in due legal process. Again Die Burger is confusing the commission with a court. There is no remedy in law from the outcome of a commission. The Commission delivers a report which is nothing more than the opinion of its members. A commission’s report does not have the status of a judgement or the weight of a court behind it. There is no right of appeal against its “opinion” and the “legal processes” that Die Burger states are available to me and the City do not exist. Die Burger made this claim because it was confusing the Commission with a judicial process. This confusion, which is widespread, is the very reason judges should not readily accept invitations by politicians to chair commissions of this type.

If there was any hint of wrongdoing by me or the City, we would have been charged in criminal proceedings instituted by the prosecuting authority if that authority was satisfied that there was a prima facie case that we should answer. The Premier has not used the ordinary judicial process because, despite months of investigation, there is no basis for any charge. So a smear campaign must do instead. That is what the Erasmus Commission is all about.

I will continue to say so because it is the truth and because we have a constitution that protects free speech. This is really the way to defend a “Regstaat”, not by cloaking a witch-hunt in the veneer of judicial respectability.


Aan die Redakteur:

Dit is ironies dat Die Burger se hoofartikel beweer dat hy die onafhanklikheid van die regbank beskerm, maar juis die teenoorgestelde doen.

Die hoofartikel (16 April 2008) is dwaas en verkeerd. Die onsuiwer veronderstelling is dat Nathan Erasmus in sy hoedanigheid as regter die voorsitter van die Erasmus-kommissie is, en daarom bo enige kritiek verhewe staan. Hy tree NIE as ’n regter op nie. Hy is bloot die voorsitter van ’n kommissie. Die kommissie is nie bo kritiek verhewe nie, en die voorsitter daarvan ook nie. Toe Erasmus die aanstelling as voorsitter van die Kommissie aanvaar het, het hy voorts die riglyne wat die Konstitusionele Hof neergelê het, in die wind geslaan, naamlik dat regters aanstellings buite ’n hof moet weier indien só ’n posisie “die gevaar van ’n geregtelike verstrengeling in polities omstrede sake” inhou.

Nathan Erasmus het geen ag op dié opdrag geslaan nie, en kan nie teen die gevolge beskerm word nie. Die kommissie waarvan hy ingestem het om die voorsitter te wees, is na ons mening onwettig en ongrondwetlik. Die ANC het dit as ’n politieke moordbende ingestel om ’n uitgerekte heksejag uit te voer ten einde die opposisie in die aanloop tot die verkiesing van 2009 verdag te maak en te ondermyn. Die ANC se doel toe hy ’n regter as voorsitter aangestel het, was om die skyn van geregtelike aansien en onafhanklikheid wat die publiek gewoonlik aan ’n geregshof toeken, daaraan te verleen. Dié strategie het goed geslaag, want buiten Die Burger benader talle ander die Kommissie en sy voorsitter met die agting wat ’n geregshof toekom. Daar is geen regs- of grondwetlike rede om dit te doen nie. Dit bedreig die onafhanklikheid van die regbank ook geensins om dit te sê nie.

Dit staan egter bo enige twyfel dat Nathan Erasmus se besluit om ’n aanstelling in só ’n politieke werktuig te aanvaar, die onafhanklikheid van die regbank skade aandoen. Dit is dié besluit – en nie my kritiek daarop nie – wat die onafhanklikheid van die regbank knou.

Die Burger is ook geheel en al die kluts kwyt deur aan die hand te doen dat ek ‘n behoorlike regsremedie het. Die Burger verwar die Kommissie nogmaals met ’n geregshof. Daar is geen regsmiddel teen die uitslag van ’n kommissie nie. Die kommissie lewer ’n verslag wat bloot die mening van die lede weerspieël. ’n Kommissie se verslag het nie die status van ‘n uitspraak of die gewig van ‘n hof ter steun nie, al word dit algemeen so gesien. Daar is geen reg op appèl teen sy “mening” nie, en die “regsprosesse” wat volgens Die Burger vir my en die Stad beskikbaar is, bestaan binne die konteks van die kommissie nie. Die Burger maak dié stelling omdat hy die Kommissie en ’n geregtelike proses verwar. Hierdie verwarring is baie algemeen, en juis die rede waarom regters uitnodigings deur politici om as voorsitters van hierdie soort kommissie op te tree, nie geredelik moet aanvaar nie.

As daar enige sweem van ’n misdryf deur my of die Stad was, sou ons strafregtelik voor ’n hof gedaag gewees het. Die vervolgingsgesag sou só ’n geding aanhangig gemaak het indien hy tevrede was dat ons ’n prima facie-saak sou moes verdedig. In só ’n geval sou ons nie net die grondslag van die aanklag kon betwis voordat die eerste getuienis gelewer word nie maar indien ons van mening was dat ’n ongunstige oordeel ten onregte oor ons uitgespreek was, kon ons dit met ’n appèl voor ’n hoër hof uitdaag. Die Premier het ’n gewone regsproses gesystap, want ondanks ondersoeke wat maande geduur het, is geen gronde vir ’n klag gevind nie. ’n Smeerveldtog moet dus maar deug. Dit is waarom die Erasmus-kommissie draai.

Ek sal dit bly sê, want dit is die waarheid, en ook omdat ons ’n Grondwet het wat spraakvryheid beskerm. Dit is hoe ’n mens ’n regstaat beskerm, en nie deur ’n heksejag die skyn van geregtelike aansien te gee nie.