6-09-06, 8:53 am

(National Secretary,YCLSA, Political Notes)



This year marks the 10th Anniversary of our beloved constitution and already some of its sections are torn apart for selfish and desperate reasons.

The President of the dormant South African National Civics Organisations (SANCO), Mlungisi Hlongwane, is one of those who led the now dead flame of a constitutional amendment, suggesting at the time that the current State President should serve a third term.

Although Hlongwane later retracted with shame his statements, the point was made loud and clear that the constitution will not be spared for selfish and desperate reasons.

Hlongwane has not been alone in this constitutional vulgarisation charade, he was joined in chorus by the People Opposing Women Abuse (POWA), the ANC Women’s League through Mavivi-Mayakayaka Manzini, Cheryl Carolous, Barney Pityana and many other organisations and individuals who have been hell-bent in altering the spirit and letter of the constitution.

This, judging from the background of the people voicing their preparedness to chastise the important clauses in the constitution, constituted the coalition of the illogical, chorusing an elite pact against the constitution.

The right of each person to be treated fairly before the law, of being innocent until proven guilty, of privacy, of defending themselves when accused, of non-interference during a court hearing as enshrined in the constitution have all been subjected to disrespect and profanity by these individuals at different moments during the course of and post the Jacob Zuma trial.

Others included some in the media who saw it fit to endanger the life of the accuser in the rape case, and declare the accused guilty as charged whatever the judge’s findings are.

Some of these individuals and organisations have donned upon themselves divine responsibilities so sacrosanct that they believe that they are above the constitution.

Others, like Nomboniso Gasa, have chosen to develop new charges bordering on morality, insinuating that although the Deputy President of the ANC is innocent of rape, but he remains guilty in the court of public morality.

When such a mess is created in the name of the constitution whilst acting against the very same spirit of the constitution, drastic measures are called upon.

Albeit its limitations and shortcomings, we pay our allegiance to the constitution and should act in its defense.

South Africa is currently undergoing a country self – assessment through the Africa Review Peer Mechanism.

It remains a threat to this process for politicians, journalists, civil-society and non-governmental organizations sacrificing our constitution for their own selfish and desperate will.

Our country has led many African nations towards the road of redemption and hope, we therefore should not run the risk of reversing our standing in the continent for egotistic interests.

Already state institutions stand accused for being pawns in political battle. As the battle appears to intensify, so too does the tendency to display unnecessary state force as was evident when Jacky Selebi and all other heads of our security agencies were made to pronounce themselves publicly on the email saga, which is essentially a political fall-out.

Our constitutional rights as citizens does not include the right to take away somebody’s constitutional rights. Our rights are our lives, and thus, tempering with them is tempering with our life.

Cosatu Western Cape Gender Commission have declared their intentions to reverse gains in the constitution in calling for all alleged rapists to be treated as guilty until proven innocent.

This is Apartheid rule in latter day democracy, where no matter what the charge, the accused should merely appear in court to mitigate their case, rather than present a defense.

A lot of men have been castrated and castigated in society because they were accused, tried and judged through a kanga-roo court were their defense matters not.

Is this what those who have declared themselves the sole advocates of women’s rights demand? Are they prepared to abort justice in the name of politically correct positions? Are they prepared to shoulder the blame for the blood that could be lost as a result of such irresponsible advocacies? Are women rights not linked to human rights?

When the Zuma rape trial commenced, we already knew the name of the alleged victim and had seen a picture of her in newspapers.

The newspapers that published these, some even after a court ruling barring them from doing so, have violated the rights of the accuser. Her property and that of those close to her were wrongly vandalised.

The irresponsible actions of some of the newspaper led to a further strain on the taxpayer as the accuser was then given unprecedented security.

Newspapers have a constitutional responsibility to respect the alleged victim and accused to ensure that this does not interfere with the proceedings in and out of court that may lead to an unfair trial.

But all that the mighty – pen wielding club are interested in are headlines and breaking news, with utter disregard to constitutional rights.

POWA and its co-horts came close to demanding that Zuma should drop his defence when they criticized his lawyers for doing what has been agreed to – ask the woman about her sexual history.

In their little compartmental brains they believed that in order for the alleged victim to enjoy her rights, those of the accused must be surrendered. What kind of law is this? POWA’s law, instead of Peoples’ Law?

POWA not only undermined the legal expertise of the prosecution, who did not raise any but one objection, but also that of the judge who allowed the questioning line of the defence to proceed.

Further granted, most trials leads to or influence a change of the law. A lawyer friend of mine tells me that in the case of the State vs Jackson an international precedent was set that the accused can use ‘any means necessary including probing the sexual history of the alleged victim’. Did our fame-seeking POWA friends miss that case? Did they challenge Jackson’s defence not to question on the sexual history of the then alleged victim? Why now?

The judge is yet to receive closing heads of arguments on the case, but already the latter-day Pharisees demands that he, like Pontius Pilate, wash his hands and hand Zuma over to them for crucifixion (not related to any previous reference to Zuma as Christ)

The constitution gives everyone the right to defend themselves, and in fact commits the state to ensure that such people are afforded a lawyer at its expense.

This tenet of the law does not infringe on the right of a plaintiff. In the same manner, the rights of the plaintiff do not necessarily replace those of the accused.

It cannot be argued that in order to accord one affected party their democratic rights, then the rights of the other party must be surrendered.

If POWA and its secondary cronies had expected that the presence of an accusation means an inevitable conviction, they need to read the other side of the constitution that is so inconvenient to them.

There are some organisations who abuse the emotions of the public given the nature of an accusation (such as rape) to ensure that they selfishly contest the constitution, or even change it. Some of these organisations have not minced their words about such intentions.

Admittedly, the constitution has its own limitations, but its general thrust is in line with accepted international practice, especially as it relates to the Bill of Rights.

But for organisations like those calling themselves TSHWARANANG to interfere with a court process, under the name of the friends of court, is a shameful act of trying to interfere with bodies accorded by the constitution the responsibility to uphold its spirit and latter.

Newspapers have accorded opinion-space to such anti-constitution charlatans such as Justice Malala, who have donned the mask of the judges judge even when the judge has not given some of his reasons on some of his judgements.

Whilst Malala’ s charades in newspapers remains one of the most irresponsible and contemptuous texts I have ever read, the so called defenders of the rule of law remained silent conveniently because Malala was speaking for their course, for their revolution, their newly found purging instrument.

When the Young Communist League and the ANC Youth League criticised Judge Hillary Squires for his judgement on Jacob Zuma when he was not on trial, a lot of brouhaha brewed from all corners of sense with an attempt to silence us.

As to where this voices are when Malala et al runs in rampage on papers against the very same ‘rule of law’ we are yet to find out.

We will not allow the constitution to be rubbished by people who want to serve their selfish and personal interests. We will forever remain the friends of the constitution, and not only of its subsidiary courts which are meant to advance its letter and spirit.

We will defend, teach, organise and learn further what the constitution requires of us. In that way, the constitution and the country will not be taken unawares by the post-struggle paper tigers.

Our defence and support for Jacob Zuma is the defence of the constitution.

Let the 10th Anniversary of the constitution be celebrated for its defence, not its sacrilege. Not only are we the friends of Jacob Zuma, we are also the friends of the constitution. Long live our constitution! That's the Bottomline, cos the YCL said so!http:Young Communist League South Africa Website