The apartheid crimes of Ramaphosa’s WMC mentor and handler – FW de Klerk

The apartheid crimes of Ramaphosa’s WMC mentor and  handler – FW de Klerk

Cyril Ramaphosa’s ‘New Deal’ SONA got the approval of the invited guest of honor, an apartheid mass murderer, FW de Klerk. This revealing moment, which has significantly confirmed the return of the country to settler white monopoly capital, has conjured up painful images of the massacres and other crimes that the former apartheid president (FW de Klerk) has had a direct hand in and presided over.

BLF would like to remind our people of exactly who FW de Klerk – the man that Ramaphosa and the opposition parties who service white monopoly capital are upholding in high esteem – is.

On 8 May 2017 BLF laid several charges and complaints against FW de Klerk regarding his apartheid crimes against black people. The crimes, masterminded by de Klerk (often in partnership with Adrian Vlok), include the following: Sebokeng Massacre 22 July 1990 – 27 blacks dead; Sebokeng 26 March 1990 – 13 blacks killed; Daveyton massacre, 14 March 1991, 13 blacks murdered; Nangalembe Night Vigil Massacre; Sebokeng, 12 January 1991, 45 Blacks murdered; Biopatong Massacre, 17 June 1992 – 45 blacks murdered, 27 injured; Shell House Massacre, 28 March 1994 – 19 murdered; Umtata Raid, 8 October 1993 – Five Sleeping Youth Murdered; and The Cradock Four, 27 JUNE 1985

It makes sense why under Ramaphosa there will be no land expropriation; Free education will not be for all; the Mining Charter has been surrendered; no State Bank; and no nationalisation of SARB.

To be precise BLF laid 22 criminal charges against F.W. De Klerk and 16 criminal charges against Adrian Vlok.

CHARGES LAID WITH THE SOUTH AFRICAN POLICE SERVICES

Charges 1 to 8 of the 22 charges as well as Complaints 1 to 2 are highlighted below.

1. CHARGE ONE: CONSPIRACY TO MURDER (VIA THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM)

ACCUSED 1: F.W. DE KERK

ACCUSED 2: ADRIAN VLOK

Subject

Sebokeng Massacre 22 July 1990 – 27 blacks dead

Particulars

On 22 July 1990 the IFP called a peace rally in Sebokeng. To this end (and before the rally) COSATU attempted to obtain an urgent interdict restraining the IFP from having the rally based on intelligence reports from hostels which suggested that the IFP was forcing hostel dwellers to join the political party. At or around the same time in July 1990 the ANC warned De Klerk’s Minister of Law and Order Adrian Vlok of the imminent IFP attacks on ANC supporters in Sebokeng. The Apartheid Government did nothing to stop the attacks and consequently on 22 July 1990, twenty seven black people were murdered by the IFP members in the streets of Sobokeng as they returned to their hostels from the rally.

FW De Klerk, as President of RSA and Adrian Vlok as Minister of Law and Order both being members of the SSC at the relevant time, are directly responsible and accountable for the deaths of the people that occurred on 22 July 1990 at Sebokeng.

As the order to murder emanated from a decision taken at the SSC meeting of which they were both a part of, De Klerk and Adrian Vlok in their respective capacity as aforesaid should each be prosecuted to the full extent of the law for their complicity in the crimes that resulted in the murders of blacks as indicated herein via the criminal justice system for conspiracy to murder.

2. CHARGE TWO: CONSPIRACY TO MURDER (VIA THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM)

ACCUSED 1: F.W. DE KERK

ACCUSED 2: ADRIAN VLOK

Subject: Sebokeng 26 March 1990 – 13 blacks killed

Particulars

Police opened fire on 26 March 1990 on a crowd of 50 000 people as they marched from Sebokeng to Vereeniging to present a list of grievances. Mr Bavumile Vilakazi of the Vaal Civic Association handed a petition to the police commander. Suddenly and without warning and as Mr Bavumile was addressing the crowd the police opened fire. At least thirteen people were killed and 400 others were injured. Most of those who were injured were shot in the back which suggested that they were fleeing when they were shot.

As the order to murder protesters emanated from decisions taken at the SSC meeting of which they were both a part of, De Klerk and Adrian Vlok in their capacity as aforesaid should each be prosecuted to the full extent of the law for their complicity in the crimes that resulted in the murders of blacks as indicated herein via the criminal justice system for conspiracy to murder.

3. CHARGE THREE: CONSPIRACY TO MURDER (VIA THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM)

ACCUSED 1: F.W. DE KERK

ACCUSED 2: ADRIAN VLOK

Subject: Nangalembe Night Vigil Massacre, Sebokeng, 12 January 1991, 45 Blacks murdered

Particulars

On 12 January 1991, in Sebokeng, forty-five black people were killed at a night funeral vigil for Mr Christopher Nangalembe who was an ANCYL member. The IFP affiliated Khetisi Kheswa gang led by Mr Victor Khetisi Kheswa was responsible (in the line of perpetrators) for the death of Christopher Nangalembe. Mandla Nangalembe, the bother of the deceased, approached the police for protection regarding the night vigil. His request was however ignored. Subsequently on the night in question the Kheswa gang upon arriving at the funeral vigil “opened fire and lobbed three hand grenades into the crowd” thereby kills 45 black people.

It must be stated that while the Khetisi Kheswa gang, the IFP and the Police are jointly responsibility for the Massacre and for the prior killing of Christopher Nangalembe – the complicity of FW De Klerk (as President of RSA and a member of the SSC) as well as Adrian Vlok (as Minister of Law and Order and a member of the SSC) in this heinous crime must be thoroughly addressed so as to ensure real justice. There were strong links between FW De Klerk and Adrian Vlok as members of the SSC on the one hand and to the IFP and the Kheswa gang on the other. The IFP clearly operated to further the decisions of the apartheid regime taken at the SSC meetings to kill blacks and to this end supplied weapons to the Khetisi Kheswa gang.

Furthermore as the order to murder protesters emanated from decisions taken at the SSC meeting of which they were both a part of, De Klerk and Adrian Vlok in their capacity as aforesaid should each be prosecuted to the full extent of the law for their complicity in the crimes that resulted in the murders of blacks as indicated herein via the criminal justice system for conspiracy to murder.

4. CHARGE FOUR: CONSPIRACY TO MURDER (VIA THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM)

ACCUSED 1: F.W. DE KERK

ACCUSED 2: ADRIAN VLOK

Subject: Daveyton massacre, 14 March 1991, 13 blacks murdered

Particulars

On 14 March 1991 the police opened fire on crowd of about 200 residents who were ANC supporters. The crowd had gathered “because they feared an attack following an Inkatha rally in the township”. Thirteen people were murdered and twenty-nine injured. According to the police they shot at the group because they were attacked by them and also the group had “hacked one policeman to death.” The TRC found inter alia that the SAP was responsible for the massacre in that they used excessive force and by their failure to use non-lethal means of controlling the crowd.

As the order to murder protesters emanated from decisions taken at the SSC meeting of which they were both a part of, De Klerk and Adrian Vlok in their capacity as aforesaid should each be prosecuted to the full extent of the law for their complicity in the crimes that resulted in the murders of blacks as indicated herein via the criminal justice system for conspiracy to murder.

5. CHARGE FIVE: CONSPIRACY TO MURDER (VIA THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM)

ACCUSED: F.W. DE KLERK

Subject: Biopatong Massacre, 17 June 1992 – 45 blacks murdered, 27 injured

On 17 June 1992 a group of about 300 IFP affiliated armed men from the Kwa Madala Hostel in Sebokeng Township invaded and attacked the Joe Slovo Informal settlement in Boipatong. Forty-five blacks were murdered and 27 others were seriously injured. The evidence before the TRC suggests that the actions of IFP were intended to undermine the prevailing negotiations between the apartheid government and the ANC which resulted in the ANC withdrawing from negotiations which in turn resulted in the termination of the first Congress for a Democratic South Africa (CODESA I). To this end the IFP was manipulated by the apartheid government led by De Klerk as President so as to undermine and weaken the ANC in the period leading up to the April 1994 elections. FW De Klerk used the IFP led by Chief Mangosutho Buthelezi as a third force to cause turmoil and death. In elaboration the attack on blacks was a “carefully planned and executed strategic operation” that entailed the SADF and the police working closely with the IFP.

As the order to murder protesters emanated from decisions taken at the SSC meeting of which he was a part of, De Klerk in his capacity should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law for his complicity in the crimes that resulted in the murders of blacks as indicated herein via the criminal justice system for conspiracy to murder.

6. CHARGE SIX: CONSPIRACY TO MURDER (VIA THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM)

ACCUSED: F.W DE KLERK

Subject: Umtata Raid, 8 October 1993 – Five Sleeping Youth Murdered

Particulars

Five sleeping youths which included two twelve-year-old children were murdered on 8 October 1993 when the SADF raided what was alleged to have been an APLA base in Mpendulo, Northcrest in Umtata.

According to a press statement issued by the then Minister of Defence HJ ‘Kobie’ Coetsee the purpose of the raid – founded on an intelligence report received by the SADF – was to prevent APLA operatives (who used the Transkei for their operations with the help of Bantu Holomisa) from attacking certain “civilians”. The SADF strike was conducted by the 45 Parachute Brigade, under the command of Colonel Hannes Venter. The SADF’s Army Chief, General Georg Meiring, told the TRC that APLA had launched in excess of fifty attacks beyond the Transkei border during the period before October 1993. In relation to the case at hand the intelligence report indicated that the residence in Mpendulo was utilised as an “APLA arms facility and base from which attacks in the Eastern and Western Cape were launched”. The intelligence further suggested that eighteen APLA operatives were living in the house. In this context and in in August 1993 the SSC discussed the situation and decided to move on APLA. In this regard it must be stated that the Goldstone Commission of Enquiry subsequently found that Transkei under the leadership of Bantu Holomisa had played a pivotal role in availing a safe house for the APLA leadership and operatives as well as in providing military training for APLA soldiers.

With the approval of De Klerk’s Minister of Defence, Coetsee, on 2 October 1993 an army reconnaissance operation was established. Hours later an instruction (emanating from the SSC) “to conduct a limited strike on the house” in order “to neutralise the target” was issued. The reconnaissance operation withdrew some 8 hours before the operation started. It is important to point out that the said SSC meeting was “attended by, inter alia, Ministers Kriel, Coetsee, Pik Botha and then State President FW de Klerk.” When 45 Parachute Brigade entered the house they shot five young boys who were asleep.

In this regard General Meiring’s evidence at the TRC was that “all (five youth) were killed because they reacted hostilely”. To this end he stated that “one of the youths had sat up with a weapon in his hand” and that “(w)hile the operatives had been given instructions to incur minimum loss of life, they were also told to avoid endangering themselves and, in this respect, had a license to shoot.” However photographs of the scene presented at the TRC showed the youths ‘riddled with bullets” in their beds. There were no weapons in sight from the photographs and evidence of claims of “seventy-eight cartridges and twenty-six projectiles” and a reinforced storage room with a weapons cache outside the house were never produced.

It is instructive to point out that De Klerk has not denied ordering the Umtata raid of 8 October 1993. Sigqibo Mpendulo, a PAC activist, ex Robbin Island prisoner and the father of the 16-year-old twins who were murdered in the Umtata raid called in vain for the prosecution of De Klerk for his complicity in the relevant crimes. He pointed out that the “modus operandi” of the attack ordered by De Klerk was to murder everyone in the targeted house as was the case with the raids he ordered in Zimbabwe and Mozambique.

Failure on the part of the SADF to produce the allegedly seized weapons for “independent forensic examination” is an indication that the so called “seizure of weapons” was an excuse used for entry to the house so as to murder innocent blacks they suspected of being opponents of the Apartheid Regime. Furthermore the actions of the SADF were in line with the instruction given by the SSC in this regard.

Accordingly as the order to murder protesters emanated from decisions taken at the SSC meeting of which he was a part of, De Klerk in his capacity should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law for his complicity in the crimes that resulted in the murders of blacks as indicated herein via the criminal justice system for conspiracy to murder.

7. CHARGE SEVEN: CONSPIRACY TO MURDER (VIA THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM)

ACCUSED: F.W DE KLERK

Subject: Shell House Massacre, 28 March 1994 – 19 murdered

Particulars

Nineteen blacks died in circumstances relating to a political demonstration which occurred in Johannesburg on 28 March 1994. In this regard ten people died in incidents which occurred in the vicinity of the Library Gardens in Johannesburg and nine others died in two incidents which occurred in and around the ANC’s regional Office at Lancet Hall and its national headquarters at Shell House.

Early in the morning of 28 March 1994, Mr Themba Khoza described as a “political director” of the IFP by witnesses in “The Joint Inquest Concerning the Death of PHENDUKANI ZONDI and Eighteen others” was telephoned by Captain Wilken (being the person in charge of community liaison) who reported to him that commuters were being stoned and intimidated in Alexandra. The report of the above mentioned Inquest indicates that:

“(a) transcript of that conversation records Captain Wilken saying to Mr Khoza that “your people are breaking down the place,” to which there is the extraordinary reply that he “must expect that”. When Captain Wilken told him that people were “throwing stones etc, etc” Mr Khoza replied that “things have changed now,” and “it look like Inkatha is not going to be the same all the way now. So it’s a question of expect that”. Captain Wilken told him that he had been in touch with the Internal Stability Unit, who wanted to block the people from coming into town, to which Mr Khoza replied that they “should not try that”.

Quite clearly the intention was to bring death and destruction to the centre of Johannesburg. In this regard the organisers made no attempt to organise the event in such a way so as to minimise turmoil and avoid the loss of black lives. Thousands of people gathered in the city and their progression to that point was characterized by “widespread intimidation and vandalism.”

The events of 28th March 1994 were inextricably linked to the political rivalry between the IFP and ANC which had intensified at the relevant time concerned. These events occurred less than one month before South Africa’s first “democratic” election took place on 7 April 1994. On or about February 1994 the IFP announced its opposition to the holding of the said election. It subsequently decided on holding a gathering at the Library Gardens for the purpose of launching its “anti-election campaign”.

In the context of the political situation that prevailed the purpose went beyond the mere holding of a gathering at Library Gardens in Johannesburg to vocalize and register the grievances of the IFP. There was clearly an intention on the part of FW De Klerk as former President of Apartheid SA to demonstrate to blacks in general and to the ANC in particular the strength which the Apartheid regime and its alliances could garner and the capacity it had to cause turmoil including the senseless murdering of blacks if white interests were placed under threat. Taking all the material factors into account including the conduct of those who perpetrated violence; the disregard by the police of the intelligence it received; the speeches made by the leadership of the IFP being Mr Khoza and Mr Ndlovu, and; the political situation that prevailed at the given time – it is clear that the IFP was instructed by the Apartheid regime under the leadership and presidency of FW De Klerk. To this end FW De Klerk was part of the SSC that made the decision to murder black leadership and key activist elements engaged in the liberation struggle leading up the birth of the ANC government on 27 April 1994.

Accordingly as the order to murder protesters emanated from decisions taken at the SSC meeting of which he was a part of, De Klerk in his capacity should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law for his complicity in the crimes that resulted in the murders of blacks as indicated herein via the criminal justice system for conspiracy to murder.

8. CHARGE EIGHT: CONSPIRACY TO MURDER (VIA THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM)

ACCUSED: F.W DE KLERK

Subject: The Cradock Four, 27 JUNE 1985

Particulars

FW De Klerk was a member of the State Security Council (SSC) where a decision was taken to murder Matthew Goniwe who was a political activist and a teacher in the Eastern Cape. To this end the secret minutes of the said SSC meeting indicates that Mr De Klerk, in his capacity as cabinet minister, supported the decision to murder Matthew Goniwe as he (Mr Goniwe) was “at the forefront of a revolutionary attack against the state”. In this regard Jaap van Jaarsveld a security policeman testified at the TRC hearings that his subsequent recommendation to the SSC was that Mr Goniwe be “taken out” on a deserted road. Fifteen months following the aforesaid SSC decision on 27 June 1985, Mr Goniwe together with three other Eastern Cape UDF activists were “stopped at a roadblock, strangled with telephone wire, stabbed and shot to death” by members of the security police. The three other activists were Sparrow Mkonto, Fort Calata and Sicelo Mhlauli. They were driving back Cradock after attending a meeting in Port Elizabeth. Moreover their faces were burned and mutilated to prevent identification and Mr Goniwe’s hands were cut off. The word used, as indicated in the minutes of the SSC meeting, to describe the criminal act of murder on Mr Goniwe is the Afrikaans word “verwyder” which translates as “remove, get rid of, put out of the way, dispose of, eliminate, estrange, obviate”.

Four Eastern Cape UDF activists were abducted and assassinated by members of the security police on 27 June 1985 as they drove back to Cradock from a meeting in Port Elizabeth. The four were Matthew Goniwe, Sparrow Mkonto and Fort Calata from Cradock, and Sicelo Mhlauli from Oudtshoorn. Prior to being murdered all of them were periodically “detained, tortured and harassed by the police”.

As the order to murder protesters emanated from decisions taken at the SSC meeting of which he was a part of, De Klerk in his capacity should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law for his complicity in the crimes that resulted in the murders of blacks as indicated herein via the criminal justice system for conspiracy to murder.

COMPLAINTS AGAINST F.W. DE KLERK VIA THE SOUTH AFRICAN HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION

COMPLAINT 1: RACISM (VIA THE SAHRC)

ACCUSED: F.W. DE KLERK

On 29 May 2015 F.W. De Klerk told the Bondsraad that apartheid was not a crime against humanity

FW De Klerk is a racist. He has since the 1994 political settlement continued to be racist and to this end shows no remorse for his anti-black apartheid era crimes. To this end his speech on May 29, 2015 to the Bondsraad at the Voortrekker Monument in Pretoria entitled “Afrikaans identity under huge pressure” where he unapologetically made the following is instructive:

“But was apartheid a ‘crime against humanity’ as the ANC so frequently insists?…The idea that apartheid was ‘a crime against humanity’ was, and remains, an ‘agitprop’project initiated by communists to stigmatise white South Africans by associating them with genuine crimes against humanity – which have generally included totalitarian repression and the slaughter of millions of people.”

De Klerk’s above remarks, in the context of the anti-black outcomes of the crimes that he himself has committed as indicated in the charges and complaints above, is racist. He must be made to account and pay for this blatant act of racism to the full extent of the law.

COMPLAINT 2: RACISM (VIA THE SAHRC)

ACCUSED: F.W. DE KLERK

FW De Klerk’s complaints on or about 15 January 2015 to the SAHRC on 45 allegedly racist posts by black people in the social media

FW De Klerk’s complaints to the SAHRC on 15 January 2016 against black people who made certain comments in 45 social media posts that he alleged to be racist is in itself an act of racism. The comments made by blacks on social media that are the subject matter of the complaint made by FW De Klerk via his FW De Klerk Foundation is a response to the racism of white supremacy. South Africa is a white supremacist society’s in terms of which the white power structure benefits whites at the expense of blacks. To this end blacks can’t be racist. To accuse blacks of racism when they make certain utterances against whites which at best can be described as prejudice (which is the case here) – is itself an act of racism as the accuser who has institutional power to be racist is seeking to deprive blacks of the right to respond to racism. De Klerk’s complaints to the SAHRC must be dismissed and he must in turn be prosecuted to the full extent of the law for racism.

Read the “List Of Charges via The Criminal Justice System Against F.W. De Klerk and Adrian Vlok” here.

Also read the “List Of Complaints To The SAHRC Against F.W. De Klerk and Adrian Vlok” here.

Issued by the National Coordinating Committee of Black First Land First (BLF NCC)

19 February 2018

Black First Land First Email: [email protected]
Facebook: Black First Land First
Twitter: @black1stland1st
Website: www.blf.org.za

Zanele Lwana
(Deputy President)
Cell: +27799867225

Lindsay Maasdorp
(National Spokesperson)
Cell: +27 79 915 2957

Brian Tloubatla
(Deputy National Spokesperson)
Cell: +27 82 216 7664

 

BLF rejects Ramaphosa’s white monopoly capital SONA

BLF rejects Ramaphosa’s white monopoly capital SONA

The State of the Nation Address (SONA) by Cyril Ramaphosa was a statement of the ‘New Deal’ of the Democratic Alliance (DA) not of RET which is policy of the ANC.

Nowhere does RET find expression in the SONA by Ramaphosa. The clear sign of the rejection of RET was the invitation of the apartheid mass murderer FW de Klerk to the SONA. The invitation of de Klerk was a disgusting act by Cyril Ramaphosa and an affirmation to the apartheid forces that white power is back.

BLF has opened cases of multiple murders against FW de Klerk including massacres that he presided over in defence of apartheid. The invitation of de Klerk to the SONA strikes us as the meeting of the Marikana massacre and Boipatong massacre. Its an insult to the memory of the murdered.

BLF is even more disgusted by the respect shown to the mass murderer FW de Klerk by members of parliament who clapped for the apartheid killer while booing the name of President Zuma. How soon have we blacks forgotten? We are a sick people!

The SONA shows that RET is dead from the point of view of the President of the country. Cyril speaks a bit of RET but walks a lot of the New Deal. He speaks RET only to deceive.

No land expropriation under Ramaphosa

There is not going to be any land expropriation without compensation under Cyril Ramaphosa. We must decode what he means by land expropriation without compensation. Each time he mentions it he quickly cancels it with a racist logic that says that land can only be given back if the white agricultural sector is not affected. The lie that there is food security which will be affected negatively if blacks get land is colonial thinking by Cyril Ramaphosa. The ANC 54th Elective Conference has resolved on land expropriation without compensation. Ramaphosa says that there shall be consultations.

Unlike with the joke of internships instead of jobs, there are no time frames or targets for land expropriation without compensation. There is no plan or will for it. We can’t expect Cyril Ramaphosa to lead a process to take the land from his white friends and give it to blacks.

Mining Charter surrendered

The SONA has also killed the Mining Charter. Cyril Ramaphosa now says that the Mining Charter must be negotiated with the same mining bosses who reject the transformation of the mining sector.

No State Bank, no nationalisation of SARB

The SONA is silent on the development of a State Bank and Black Bank – no mention, no time lines, no targets! The most shocking of the SONA is its silence on the nationalisaiton of the South African Reserve Bank (SARB). Cyril Ramaphosa is defying the ANC and undermining RET.

Free education not for all

Ramaphosa’s pro white monopoly capital SONA was a direct attack on the ‘Free Education’ pronounced by President Zuma. Ramaphosa, instructed by the London/Stellenbosch mafia, says only first year students will get free education in 2018. This is not what Comrade Zuma had pronounced. Ramaphosa is eroding ‘Free Education’ because he wants his business partners in the banking system to make profits from poor students with expensive loans.

BLF rejects the SONA of 2018 – we are not bamboozled by good sounding English

BLF will watch how those who gave the SONA a standing ovation will now try to disagree. Its a superficial disagreement. Parliament has become a place of the hegemony of white monopoly capital ideology and interests. Blacks are not represented in parliament.

Issued by the National Coordinating Committee of Black First Land First (BLF NCC)

19 February 2018

Black First Land First Email: [email protected]
Facebook: Black First Land First
Twitter: @black1stland1st
Website: www.blf.org.za

Zanele Lwana
(Deputy President)
Cell: +27799867225

Lindsay Maasdorp
(National Spokesperson)
Cell: +27 79 915 2957

Brian Tloubatla
(Deputy National Spokesperson)
Cell: +27 82 216 7664

 

BLF calls for the removal of judges – Jafta J, Kathree Setiloane AJ, Kollapen AJ, Mhlantla J, Theron J and Froneman J – for judicial overreach

On 14 February 2018, Black First Land First (BLF) wrote to the Judicial Conduct Committee of the Judicial Service Commission and asked for the removal of certain judges – being Jafta J, Kathree Setiloane AJ, Kollapen AJ, Mhlantla J, Theron J and Froneman J – from the bench of the Constitutional Court of South Africa for unprofessional conduct pertaining to judicial overreach in the case of the “Economic Freedom Fighters and Others v Speaker of the National Assembly and Another [2017] ZACC” which was finalised on 29 December 2017.

In this case the Court had misdirected itself in making the following rulings in its order namely:

“2. The failure by the National Assembly to make rules regulating the removal of a President in terms of section 89(1) of the Constitution constitutes a violation of this section and is invalid.

3. The National Assembly must comply with section 237 of the Constitution and make rules referred to in paragraph 2 without delay”.

BLF agrees with the dissenting judgement in this case. The majority judgment is a clear case of judicial overreach on the part of the Judges which in turn amounts to “the judiciary’s involvement in branches of state outside its purview for political reasons so as to facilitate the removal President Zuma from Office”. Evidently the orders made by the Court are invalid if not unlawful – they conflict with the “constitutional powers and responsibilities of the NA”.

These judges cannot be allowed to act with impunity. Their judicial overreach is excessive and warrants their removal as Judges of the Constitutional Court. Their conduct strikes at the core of the legal system’s integrity and credibility.

BLF is of the view that the dissenting judgements of the Deputy Chief Justice and the Chief Justice suggest compelling grounds for the removal of the above Judges from Office. They are not fit and proper persons to be Judges of the Constitutional Court or of any other Court in South Africa.

Judges who don’t administer justice without any fear, favour or prejudice and in accordance with the Constitution and the law must be removed.

The following affidavit by the BLF Deputy President was submitted in support of the call for the removal of the above judges from the bench:

“Affidavit of Zanele Pricilla Lwana: request to remove Jafta J, Kathree Setiloane AJ, Kollapen AJ, Mhlantla J, Theron J and by Froneman as Judges of the Constitutional Court of South Africa for unprofessional conduct of judicial overreach in Economic Freedom Fighters and Others v Speaker of the National Assembly and Another [2017] ZACC

I the undersigned Zanele Pricilla Lwana do hereby make oath and state:

1. I am the Deputy President of Black First Land First (BLF), and I am duly authorized to depose to this affidavit on behalf of BLF.

2. BLF is a Black Consciousness, Pan Afrikanist movement which embraces the Sankarist leadership ethos. It is registered with the Independent Electloral Commission as a political party and is situated at Office 602, Renaissance Building, corner of Main and Elloff Streets, Gandhi Square, Johannesburg.

3. The contents of this affidavit are, unless the context indicates otherwise, within my personal knowledge and are to the best of my knowledge both true and correct. The submissions of law that I make are based on the advice given to me by my legal team.

4. This affidavit constitutes the basis for the complaint to the Judicial Services Commission (JSC) relating to the unprofessional conduct of the undermentioned judges of the Constitutional Court who were members of the bench that presided in the case of Economic Freedom Fighters and Others v Speaker of the National Assembly and Another [2017] ZACC which was finalized on 29 December 2017: Jafta J, Kathree Setiloane AJ, Kollapen AJ, Mhlantla J, Theron J and by Froneman J

5. The Constitutional Court by virtue of its order and reasoning which constitutes its majority judgement – being the second judgment by Jafta J which was concurred with by Kathree Setiloane AJ, Kollapen AJ, Mhlantla J, Theron J and Froneman J – had misdirected itself.

6. To this end the said judges of the majority judgment had acted outside their purview and powers of the Constitutional Court as elaborated below.

7. In this case the Constitutional Court was asked to deal with certain complaints by the the first applicant, the Economic Freedom Fighters (EFF); the second applicant, the United Democratic Movement (UDM); the third applicant, the Congress of the People (COPE); and the Intervening Party, the Democratic Alliance (DA) who sought the same relief as the applicants. All these parties, who are represented in the National Assembly (NA), alleged, inter alia, that the NA has failed to comply with certain constitutional obligations. Corruption Watch was “amicus curiae” (a friend of the court) in this application.

8. This matter relates to National Assembly’s constitutional obligation and mechanisms to hold President Zuma accountable for his failure to implement the Public Protector’s remedial action as contained in her report of 19 March 2014 relating to upgrades to the President’s residence. The main orders sought in the case were the following:

a. a declaration that the NA failed to put mechanisms and processes in place so as to hold President Zuma accountable for his failure to implement the remedial action of the Public Protector regarding the Nkandla project;

b. an order that the NA had failed to hold to account President Zuma for his failure to implement the remedial action of the Public Protector regarding the Nkandla project since the judgment was handed down in the Nkandla matter.

c. an order compelling the NA to convene a committee that will investigate whether President Zuma was guilty of any conduct that was impeachable in terms of section 89 of the Constitution.

9. On 29 December 2017, the Court made the following order:

“1. This Court has exclusive jurisdiction to hear the application.

2. The failure by the National Assembly to make rules regulating the removal of a President in terms of section 89(1) of the Constitution constitutes a violation of this section and is invalid.

3. The National Assembly must comply with section 237 of the Constitution and make rules referred to in paragraph 2 without delay.

4. The failure by the National Assembly to determine whether the President has breached section 89(1)(a) or (b) of the Constitution is inconsistent with this section and section 42(3) of the Constitution.

5. The National Assembly must comply with section 237 of the Constitution and fulfil the obligation referred to in paragraph 4, without delay.

6. The National Assembly and the President must pay costs of the application, jointly and severally including costs of two counsel where applicable.”

10. Chief Justice (CJ) Mogoeng concurring with the judgment of the Deputy Chief Justice (DCJ) Zondo correctly referred to the majority judgment as “a textbook case of judicial overreach – a constitutionally impermissible intrusion by the Judiciary into the exclusive domain of Parliament”.

11. Evidently the applicants have accepted the appropriateness of the already existing mechanisms to facilitate the processing of an impeachment. The CJ points put that quite apart from utilizing trials to resolve issues, Courts may also rely on the use of documentary informational to settle the said issues. To this end it is not unconstitutional for the NA to chose between the two. Based on already existing and available evidence, including documentary and recorded evidence, the majority of the applicants represented in the NA have without resorting to the use of an enquiry or investigation determined that the ground for impeaching President Zuma regarding the Nkandla saga, is “self-evident” and “well-established”. Furthermore the CJ was correct in holding that such a determination is not unconstitutional.

12. The CJ correctly points out as follows at paragraph 260 of the judgment:

“It ought to be open to the Assembly to be content with what is already common knowledge or what the President does not deny. That possibility may well exist now or in the future. The Public Protector’s findings have never been set aside by a court and this Court’s judgment in relation to Nkandla stand. So, the Assembly has them readily available to it. All this points to the discretion the Assembly has, to hold an inquiry only when it is justifiable or necessary but to otherwise rely on documented or otherwise recorded evidential material and proceed to debates and votes in circumstances where an enquiry would be a robotic and pointless exercise to embark upon. It cannot be emphasised enough that it is for the Assembly or any of its Members alone to assess the available information and to decide whether an impeachment motion based on that information would be sustainable or proves the existence of a ground. On all the Nkandla material available to the Assembly, its Members may well be in a position to decide on the existence of the ground, and that extends to the seriousness of a constitutional violation. Based on that assessment an individual or group may then decide whether or not to table an impeachment motion. Judges themselves never hold an inquiry to resolve very difficult issues in direct access or exclusive jurisdiction applications. Why should it be always unconstitutional for Members of the Assembly in relation to all impeachment matters?”

13. The NA has already initiated the rule-making process that the majority judgment has now ordered it to create. It is also instructive that there has not been any fault that has been established with the said process of rule-making which the members of the applicants are evidently engaging in. The Court order in this regard is accordingly futile as it has no relevant purpose.

14. Aptly alluding to the relevant pronouncements in “Economic Freedom Fighters v Speaker of the National Assembly; Democratic Alliance v Speaker of the National Assembly [2016] ZACC 11; 2016 (3) SA 580 (CC); 2016 (5) BCLR 618 (CC) (EFF 1)” the CJ pointed out that the judiciary’s role is “less intrusive” in that it should not dictate to the NA what mechanism it should adopt to hold the President to account. To this end the pronouncements in EFF 1 indicates as follows:

a. It is beyond the “parameters of judicial authority” to dictate to the NA “how to scrutinise executive action, what mechanisms to establish and which mandate to give them, for the purpose of holding the Executive accountable and fulfilling its oversight role of the Executive or organs of State in general”.

b. Furthermore “[t]he mechanics of how to go about fulfilling these constitutional obligations is a discretionary matter best left to the National Assembly”.

To this end the role of the Courts “is a much broader … less intrusive role (and) is to determine whether what the National Assembly did does in substance and in reality amount to fulfillment of its constitutional obligations. That is the sum-total of the constitutionally permissible judicial enquiry to be embarked upon. And these are some of the “vital limits on judicial authority and the Constitution’s design to leave certain matters to other branches of government”.

c. Moreover, “[c]ourts should not interfere in the processes of other branches of government unless otherwise authorised by the Constitution. It is therefore not for this Court to prescribe to Parliament what structures or measures to establish or employ respectively in order to fulfil responsibilities primarily entrusted to it. Courts ought not to blink at the thought of asserting their authority, whenever it is constitutionally permissible to do so, irrespective of the issues or who is involved. At the same time, and mindful of the vital strictures of their powers, they must be on high alert against impermissible encroachment on the powers of the other arms of government.”

15. Coming back to the issue of the existing rule-making process, the CJ states the following at paragraph 277 of the judgment:

“The sub-Committee that already exists to develop the apparently preferred regulatory framework has not been dissolved. It will naturally resume its duties as soon as Members return with a mandate from their parties. What different purpose then would the declaratory order in the second judgment serve? Is it to treat that sub-Committee as if it does not exist? Is it to disband it and effectively order the establishment of a new committee? Or is it to prod Members of the National Assembly, like the applicants, to do what they always had the opportunity and the constitutional obligation to do but simply did not do for unexplained reasons? In sum, to what end is the order being made?”

16. The majority decision has held that before impeachment proceedings were even launched, except in circumstances that were exceptional, a determination by a prior factual enquiry was required into whether any one of the three grounds indicated in section 89(1) of the Constitution was present namely “a serious violation of the Constitution or the law, serious misconduct and an inability to perform the functions of office”.

17. In this respect the fact that the Court in its majority judgment rejected the submission of the Acting Speaker that the current Rules of the NA could be utilized to address the section 89 impeachment process; and the fact that the applicants’ submissions that the NA’s current Rules for setting up the Ad Hoc Committee were appropriate for a section 89 process – is instructive. So too is the fact that the Court held that there were no Rules in place to govern the section 89 process and to this end the NA was compelled by the Constitution to put such Rules in place.

18. To this end the Court had erred in its majority judgment in holding that the NA failed to put appropriate rules in place to regulate the section 89(1) procedure; and that the NA’s failure to determine properly if President Zuma breached section 89(1) was a violation of its constitutional duty of scrutiny and oversight regarding the executive’s actions, as required by section 42(3) of the Constitution. In this regard the NA was ordered by the Court to – within 120 days of the date of the order – create rules to regulate the section 89(1) procedure.Furthermore the NA was directed by the Court to – within 180 days from the date of this order – start the impeachment process in terms of section 89(1) in accordance with the new rules.

19. In so ordering the NA, the judges who composed and made the majority judgment had engaged in judicial overreach and interference into the affairs of another arm of state – conduct that judges are prohibited from engaging in as South Africa is a constitutional democracy that subscribes to the doctrine of the separation of powers.

20. Regarding interference in the processes of other branches of government and referring to a similar situation in United Democratic Movement v Speaker, National Assembly [2017] ZACC 21; 2017 (5) SA 300 (CC); 2017 (8) BCLR 1061 (CC) (UDM), the CJ elaborates how in that case the Court “chose not to prescribe a secret ballot voting procedure to the Assembly for a motion of no confidence. This, in circumstances where there is already a strong constitutional pointer to a secret ballot, for electing the President and other constitutional office-bearers, as the implicitly appropriate method for voting him or her out of office. Our appropriate self-restraint was again informed by our ever-abiding consciousness of the vital strictures of our powers and our super-alertness to impermissible encroachment on Parliament’s powers. We could, many would reasonably argue with some force, have decided that a secret ballot was the only appropriate voting procedure for a motion of no confidence. But sensitivity to the dictates of separation of powers forbade us. For, it is for the National Assembly to make that choice, not the Judiciary. Respect for separation of powers again constrained us from directing the Speaker to schedule a debate on a motion of no confidence on a particular date. We remitted the request to the Speaker to have the motion tabled in terms of whatever procedure she considered appropriate”.

21. The problem with the case at hand is that we are apart from specifying “size, representations, procedure, provision for the entirety of the process, avoiding abuse of majority representation, institutional predetermination of grounds before debating and voting on impeachment” – also giving an order to the NA “to table an impeachment motion” (which has not been tried by any other party before) for it to be debated within a specified time period. This is correctly regarded by the CJ as “an unprecedented and unconstitutional encroachment into the operational space of Parliament by Judges”. Furthermore “[p]aragraphs 3 and 5 of the order highlight the absurdity. Rules are to be made within 120 days, which includes the festive period and Parliament’s recess period. And in effect the impeachment, to be initiated in terms of those rules, is only allocated 60 days – 180 days minus 120 days”.

22. “Worse still”, the CJ painstakingly points out, “under substantially similar but far less permissive circumstances than in UDM, we are now prescribing to the National Assembly to only process impeachment after an inquiry and a collective predetermination of the seriousness of the violation of the Constitution or the law or the existence of any ground has been established. And we do so when there is a tension between what “we” consider appropriate as against the mechanism the Assembly already has, that it has previously used, and most applicants deem appropriate, and the possible improvement that the Assembly seeks to effect through its own sub-Committee based on legal advice already received from the Chief State Law Advisor and Parliament’s in-house legal team”.

23. To this end the CJ said that, “[t]here exists no jurisdiction in the whole world, that I am aware of, where a court has decided for Parliament how to conduct its impeachment process. Respect for separation of powers explains why this is so”.

24. There are legitimate existing mechanisms to address concerns which the Courts majority judgment, that amounts to judicial overreach, expects to be disregarded. This approach for disregard of legitimate existing mechanisms is unlawful.

25. The CJ has correctly concluded at paragraph 276 of the judgment, that most of the applicants regard the Ad Hoc Committee mechanism as being sufficient to facilitate a section 89 inquiry where this proves to be necessary. The applicants are constitutionally obliged to utilize this mechanism and the fact that it may lead to them losing on the basis of not securing a certain percentage of the vote in the NA does not change their obligation in this regard. There was accordingly no need for them to approach the Court to be ordered to do what they were obliged to do without delay, “draft the section 89 specific rule”. Moreover the Court had via its majority judgment misdirected itself in making the ruling in paragraph 3 of its order read with paragraph 2 thereof namely:

“2. The failure by the National Assembly to make rules regulating the removal of a President in terms of section 89(1) of the Constitution constitutes a violation of this section and is invalid.

3. The National Assembly must comply with section 237 of the Constitution and make rules referred to in paragraph 2 without delay”.

26. The CJ correctly points out as follows at paragraph 277 of the judgment:

“The sub-Committee that already exists to develop the apparently preferred regulatory framework has not been dissolved. It will naturally resume its duties as soon as Members return with a mandate from their parties. What different purpose then would the declaratory order in the second judgment serve? Is it to treat that sub-Committee as if it does not exist? Is it to disband it and effectively order the establishment of a new committee? Or is it to prod Members of the National Assembly, like the applicants, to do what they always had the opportunity and the constitutional obligation to do but simply did not do for unexplained reasons? In sum, to what end is the order being made?”.

27. This is a clear case of judicial overreach on the part of the Judges – namely Jafta J, Kathree Setiloane AJ, Kollapen AJ, Mhlantla J, Theron J and Froneman – which in turn can be viewed as part of the judiciary’s involvement in branches of state outside its purview for political reasons so as to facilitate the removal President Zuma from Office.

28. The effect of judicial overreach on the part of the relevant judges is indicated in the orders made by the Court that are invalid if not unlawful. They are in conflict with the constitutional powers and responsibilities of the NA. The challenge is that the respondents being the Speaker of the National Assembly and President Zuma have no further legal recourse as the Constitutional Court is the highest court in the land and its decisions are accordingly not subject to appeal or review.

29. The judges, whose conduct involves judicial overreach, cannot be allowed to act with impunity.

30. The judicial overreach on the part of the relevant judges, is excessive enough to warrant their removal as Judges of the Constitutional Court. Those members having affiliation to any of the parties in the case at hand should be asked to recuse themselves from deciding this matter in the JSC. No one who has prejudged the complaint, including the Constitutional Court judges, should be involved in hearing the complaint.

31. The relevant instances indicated herein concerning judicial overreach strike at the core of the legal system’s integrity and credibility – including that of the,Constitutional Court and its its judges.

32. The material aspects of the minority judgements of the Deputy Chief Justice and the Chief Justice respectively suggest compelling well founded grounds for the removal of the above Judges from Office.

33. The case at hand demonstrates that the relevant Judges are not administering justice without any fear, favour or prejudice and in accordance with the Constitution and the law.

34. In all the above circumstances it is submitted that the conduct of the relevant judges – Jafta J, Kathree Setiloane AJ, Kollapen AJ, Mhlantla J, Theron J and Froneman – is unprofessional and it is accordingly request that they be removed as Judges of the Constitutional Court of South Africa. They are not fit and proper persons to be Judges of the Constitutional Court or of any other Court in South Africa.

——————————
Zanele Pricilla Lwana

I hereby certify that the deponent knows and understands the content of this affidavit and that it is to the best of his knowledge both true and correct. This affidavit was signed and sworn to before me at on this day of 2018, and the Regulations contained in Government Notice R.1258 of 21 July 1972, as amended, have been complied with.

—————————————
COMMISSIONER OF OATHS

Full names:
Address:
Capacity:”

Nationalize Sibanye-Stillwater

Nationalize Sibanye-Stillwater

The entrapment of over 900 mine workers at the Sibanye-Stillwater’s Beatrix mine is not an accident but a criminal act of reckless disregard for black lives. The mining legislation is clear that contingency generators are a legal requirement for mining operations and these don’t exist at this mine.

Black First Land First (BLF) calls on the Minister of Mineral Resources, Mosebenzi Zwane, to withdraw the mining certificate of this rogue mine and commence a process of nationalising it so that it belongs to the workers and people of our country.

For far too long mining houses have been allowed to endanger the lives of mine workers. The paradigm of exploitation and discarding mine workers have to be stopped forthwith.

BLF puts the responsibility for the endangered mine workers lives in the hands of its Chief Executive Officer (CEO) and owners.

Protect the workers! Nationalise the rogue mines.

Issued by the National Coordinating Committee of Black First Land First (BLF NCC)

1 February 2018

Black First Land First Email: [email protected]
Facebook: Black First Land First
Twitter: @black1stland1st
Website: www.blf.org.za

Zanele Lwana
(Deputy President)
Cell: +27799867225

Lindsay Maasdorp
(National Spokesperson)
Cell: +27 79 915 2957

Brian Tloubatla
(Deputy National Spokesperson)
Cell: +27 82 216 7664