Now why would anyone want to think South Africa is in deep crisis? If yesterday’s open letter to Jacob Zuma by Alec Hogg wasn’t enough to convince you, how about a deadly shootout between opposing police forces?

It appears there is now open warfare between the South African Police Service (SAPS) and the Johannesburg Metropolitan Police Department (JMPD). The former is the national police, run by fat-cat gangsters. The latter are a bunch of glorified traffic cops, most related to each other, who spend their days getting fat, extorting bribes, and beating up girls in bars.

Writes the Sowetan’s Mfundekelwa Mkhulisi:

Members of the South African Police Services (SAPS) fired rubber bullets during a stand-off with their Johannesburg Metro Police Department (JMPD) counterparts on the M2 Highway in Johannesburg last night.

“Metro police blocked the flow of traffic on the M2 and when police intervened they fired live ammunition and police returned with rubber bullets,” police spokesman Julia Claassen said.

The entire city centre came to a grinding halt, as bystanders fled for their lives and hid under their cars. The Times reports that a police spokeman couldn’t get to the scene, and couldn’t get a report on the gun-battle because police officers had switched off their cellphones. Its coverage, by Werner Swart and Thabo Mkhize, also says one cop may have died in the stand-off:

Protesting Metro police caused chaos yesterday when they sealed-off the Johannesburg CBD, preventing thousands of motorists from leaving the city centre and sparking a deadly clash with the South African Police Service.

The violence may have resulted in the death of one metro officer, but the SAPS were unable to confirm this last night. Seven metro officers were injured.

The clash came after hundreds of metro policemen, in full uniform, blocked access to highway on-ramps and off-ramps ringing the city last night, in protest over a salary dispute with their employer.

SAPS officers fired rubber bullets to disperse their unruly metro colleagues, said spokesman Supertintendent Eugene Opperman.

He said the metro officers returned fire with live ammunition. The police are now investigating cases of attempted murder against the metro police officers.

Terrified motorists told The Times how officers had threatened motorists and brought traffic to a standstill. At some intersections, officers used concrete bins to block the path of motorists trying to make their way home.

Here’s the Mail & Guardian Online’s take on the story:

Protesting metro police officers fired live ammunition at South African Police Service (SAPS) members in Johannesburg on Wednesday.

SAPS Gauteng police spokesperson Superintendent Eugene Opperman said the police had been forced to fire rubber bullets at metro police members who had blockaded the city, causing traffic gridlock.

Seven metro police officers — three women and four men — were injured during the police action, Opperman said.

The exchange occurred in the Eloff Street/M2 highway area.

The protests were triggered by complaints over salaries and nepotism. Strikers said they would not return to work until their grievances had been addressed.

Major roads and highways were blocked, causing traffic havoc.

Said Opperman: “The SAPS deplores the conflict-seeking type of protest by the Johannesburg metro police.

Come foreigners! Come football fans! Welcome to our fair land, and bring your euros with you! (Dollars can be exchanged for real currency or a flack jacket upon arrival at OR Tambo International Airport. Even Metro cops won’t accept dollars for bribes.)

If I were an honest cop in that department, I would resign in disgust, today, and publicly announce this fact. Anyone who doesn’t, deserves the stigma of being a Johannesburg Metropolitan Pig Thug.

More than that, this appalling behaviour calls for the immediate disbandment of the Metropolitan Police. Arrest anyone who took part in the protest, and lock them up. Make sure they never work in a position of responsibility again, lest innocent companies (such as private security firms) accidentally hire disgruntled homicidal maniacs.

The concept of a Metro police force is a good one. A national force isn’t very good at local policing, traffic management and by-law enforcement. After all, they have police commissioners to catch. But when local police start shooting at national police, something appears to be somewhat wrong. I don’t mean to whinge, you understand, or sound pessimistic, but perhaps someone over at SA Rocks can explain how else one should feel about this sort of thing, or exactly what we should do about it. Other than grin, bear it, and send Nelson Mandela birthday wishes.

I’ve sent him a wish. It read, “Sorry, Madiba, that you had to live to see this.”

Considering specific corruption cases in isolation may provoke outrage, but it’s a cop-out. It’s a defence mechanism against despair. Because a full litany of the depth of the crisis in South Africa makes depressing reading. Alec Hogg, the editor in chief of Moneyweb, writes such a litany in his open letter to ANC president Jacob Zuma, prompted by the finding in a recent survey that nine of every ten South Africans consider corruption to be a way of life.

The letter is worth reading in its entirety, if only to be reminded of the weight of evidence against individuals involved in public and private corruption in recent years — some of whom remain unmolested by public reproof or legal censure.

I’m doubtful whether it will have much impact. The fact that Hogg feels the need to resort to transparent flattery, and to gloss over Zuma’s own proximity to, tolerance for, or involvement in corruption, suggests that he knows the letter will not find a sympathetic ear. Nonetheless, it is a letter that had to be written, and should be read. Widely. Well done, Alec.

“The mark of an educated mind is the ability to entertain a thought without accepting it.” That’s one lesson to take from the Big Bad Bullard Barney.

The quotation is attributed to Aristotle. He noted another mark of an educated mind: “to rest satisfied with the degree of precision which the nature of the subject admits and not to seek exactness where only an approximation is possible.”

Last week, I posted (here and on ThoughtLeader) the argument I thought David Bullard was attempting to stir, namely that colonialism, for all its evils, had benefits too. In particular, that in many places it established institutions and infrastructure that formed the basis for later prosperity growth. This may or may not be a valid argument, but despite Bullard’s careless and condescending approach to the subject, it seemed worthy of discussion among civilised, intelligent people. (As it happens, I was wrong: Bullard didn’t intend to go that far. He told Lerato Mbele on CNBC Africa on Thursday morning that he intended only to say we shouldn’t keep blaming present ills on past injustices. But first, he went to see his lawyer.)

As often happens with controversial subjects, the argument quickly turned absolutist, divisive, and personal.

Sadly so. It would be not only more polite and entertaining, but also more instructive, to suppose that someone who raises an interesting argument might wish to discuss its merits and implications, rather than stating it as cold fact or firm belief so partisans can shout each other down. Why would they raise the debate if the issue was simple and settled in their own mind? It seems reasonable to assume they’re able to see more nuances than just a simplistic, binary distinction between good and evil.

It seems fair to assume it isn’t very likely they run down neighbourhood cats in their spare time. I’m sure Bullard doesn’t, for example. I’m willing to give him the benefit of the doubt, at least.

Anyway, the argument on colonialism, which I hadn’t thought much about until I read it in an editorial by an Indian economist a few years ago, was put forward for consideration.

If parts of the argument appeal to me, that is irrelevant. I may well be wrong, but that is also irrelevant. The merits of, perspectives on and conclusions from the argument is what matters in public debate. In a public forum such as a blog, anyone is welcome to try to convince readers the argument is invalid. I dare say they won’t do so by calling their opponents Holocaust deniers or unreconstructed racists.

I did not, for example, state a conclusion on whether colonialism was, on balance, good or bad. On the contrary, I noted several caveats, several grave iniquities of colonialism. Yet half the responses, both in support and in opposition, seemed to assume that even just raising the argument was tantamount to unequivocal support of colonialism. On the contrary, there isn’t even an intellectual need to reach a definitive good-or-evil conclusion. The subject is far too complex for such a simplistic judgement, it would involve exactness that simply is not in the nature of the subject, and the point is moot in a world that has moved on and looks toward future progress.

Manmohan Singh, the prime minister of India, in 2005 said the following:

Today, with the balance and perspective offered by the passage of time and the benefit of hindsight, it is possible for an Indian Prime Minister to assert that India’s experience with Britain had its beneficial consequences too. Our notions of the rule of law, of a Constitutional government, of a free press, of a professional civil service, of modern universities and research laboratories have all been fashioned in the crucible where an age old civilisation met the dominant Empire of the day.

These are all elements which we still value and cherish. Our judiciary, our legal system, our bureaucracy and our police are all great institutions, derived from British-Indian administration and they have served the country well.

Just look at him, in those colonial clothes! He must be a racist lapdog of British imperialism who thinks Indians are an inferior race!

Or is it possible to consider that his statement does not amount to nostalgia for colonialism? That it does not claim Indians could never have built these institutions and infrastructure without the British Raj?

Lest this post reopens the colonialism argument, let’s consider a few different examples.

Roe vs Wade is a 1973 ruling by the courts in the US. Based on the constitutional right to privacy, it ruled that a woman had a broad and unequivocal right to choose to have an abortion, no matter what the circumstances before the foetal viability, and for the sake of her health afterwards. Since “health” was defined very broadly, the legal hurdle for third-trimester abortions was set low.

Some people argue that this ruling is wrong. They base their argument on the fact that the US constitution says nothing about abortion, and that there is a clear conflict between the constitutional right to life and other legal rights. By ruling as it did, the court created a sweeping legal right where none existed before. Such a decision, opponents argue, should have been made by the people’s elected representatives in the legislature, and not by appointed judges from the bench.

Obviously, moral conservatives and religious opponents of abortion use this argument. It suits their political agenda to overturn the ruling that made it legal. I happen to agree with the argument, purely on principles of law and political philosophy. There are good reasons for separation of powers between the executive, the legislature and the judiciary, and this ruling crosses that line. It does not interpret law, but writes it.

Given the knowledge that I oppose the Roe vs Wade ruling, would you think I’m pro-life (anti-abortion), or pro-choice (in favour of abortion)?

It surprises many people to discover that, bar a few important caveats for the purposes of this argument, I am pro-choice. I oppose the Roe vs Wade ruling because of legal principle, not because of its substance. I would want that question to come before an elected legislature, to be openly debated, and decided according to the will of the people. I would want that decision to be pro-choice. If that is indeed the outcome, opponents would have suffered a fair, democratic defeat. If not, I would accept an anti-abortion decision in the knowledge that democratic principles were preserved. Moreover, I’d take comfort in the fact that should society change its mind in future, and wish to change the law, it would not be blocked by legal precedent declaring such legislative decisions to be unconstitutional.

How about the death penalty? As a white guy, affected by and deeply concerned about crime, you might think I’d support the death penalty. Let’s establish a few facts in support of that view. First, I’m no bleeding heart. I have little sympathy for the scum that murder and rape and victimise our townships and suburbs. More importantly, I accept the pro-death-penalty argument that honest, innocent and hardworking taxpayers should not have to support the life imprisonment of such murderous scum. But even though I agree with that argument, I oppose the death penalty. Not, I might add, because I have reached definitive conclusions on whether the state should have the right to kill citizens, whether the risk of executing innocent people outweighs the benefit of executing the guilty, or whether the death penalty would be an effective deterrent. Such questions are, to my mind, preceded by the more mundane consideration that if you can’t catch criminals, can’t prosecute them and can’t keep them in jail, it is premature even to begin debating the likely success of reintroducing the death penalty, and the complex philosophical conundrums posed by something like the death penalty. Supporting the death penalty, in my opinion, is putting the cart before the horse.

Or let’s take another common source of generalisations: party affiliation. In South Africa, ANC supporters include communists, unionists, welfare statists, left-liberals, black racists, non-racists, crony capitalists, market-oriented capitalists, and a few classical liberals. I’d have much in common with some of them, and strongly oppose the views of others. Likewise, DA supporters include left-liberals, welfare statists, white racists, free-market capitalists, classical liberals and chihuahuas. When they gain power, they’ll include crony capitalists too.

In the US, the Republican Party is aptly named the “Grand Old Party”, and is commonly described as a “big tent”. That’s because the GOP includes libertarians of both the Austrian School, such as Ron Paul, and the Chicago School, such as Alan Greenspan. It includes religious conservatives like Mike Huckabee, religious nuts like Pat Buchanan, and non-religious social conservatives. It includes foreign policy hawks who envision a global Pax Americana, but it also includes small-government isolationists and libertarian pacifists. It includes big-government conservatives and crony capitalists. It includes socially conservative minority groups who believe in the American Dream and don’t believe the welfare state is it. It includes rural rednecks and sophisticated urban capitalists. It includes sophisticated rural capitalists, and urban rednecks too. It includes xenophobic nativists and free traders. There’s a big ol’ rumble going on in that there big tent. Likewise, the Democrats include a disparate collection of unionists, socialists, free-market liberals, marxists, free traders, anti-free-traders, big-government welfare statists, and spending hawks. If someone tells you they support the Republicans, or the Democrats, which of these many conflicting positions would you assume to be their policy positions and philosophical beliefs?

The point of this long list of examples is this: It does not improve the quality of discussion, on a blog or anywhere else, to assume that someone who presents an argument for debate necessarily accepts it. Or if they do, that this implies a more general stereotypical, partisan or extremist position. It neither addresses the merits, nor raises the tone, to get personal, denounce someone’s character, or reduce their argument to simplistic caricature.

Those who do this end up demonstrating only one thing. That while their opponent is able to entertain a thought without accepting it, and can rest satisfied with the degree of precision which the nature of the subject admits, they sadly lack these marks of an educated mind.

In a previous post I used a throwaway line about shooting a fleeing suspect in the back, as proxy for lazy, unprocedural, untrained, unconstitutional and in the end unacceptable behaviour by the police. I thought it would be obvious, but now it seems I was wrong about such behaviour being unacceptable, if I am to believe a foaming-at-the-mouth deputy minister of safety and security, Susan Shabangu.

The Pretoria News reports that she spent a good while whipping up a crowd in Pretoria West, with phrases like these:

You [police] must kill the bastards if they threaten you or the community. You must not worry about the regulations. That is my responsibility. Your responsibility is to serve and protect…

I won’t tolerate any pathetic excuses for you not being able to deal with crime. You have been given guns, now use them.

I want no warning shots. You have one shot and it must be a kill shot. If you miss, the criminals will go for the kill. They don’t miss. We can’t take this chance.

Criminals are hell-bent on undermining the law and they must now be dealt with. If criminals dare to threaten the police or the livelihood or lives of innocent men, women and children, they must be killed. End of story. There are to be no negotiations with criminals.

The constitution says criminals must be kept safe, but I say No!

Well, okay then. Right. That was exciting. It reminds a friend of mine of Sylvester Stallone: “I am the law”. It reminds me of the more expressive Al Pacino: “Hoo hah!”

First, we have corruption. Then, we have incompetence. Shabangu is right in pointing out that police are often slow to respond, reluctant to investigate and generally lackadaisical in the face of high rates of violent crime.

But is it really a good idea for a senior member of the government to stand before an angry crowd and blatantly undermine our law and constitution? Wasn’t it a serious scandal, and a major claim of human rights abuses, when apartheid-era police forces were suspected of shooting to kill first, and firing warning shots only afterwards? Doesn’t this sort of fiery rhetoric make vigilantes, kangaroo courts and lynchmobs look like the reasonable actions of concerned citizens?

She appears to labour under the misconception that the executive — the ministry in which she is the deputy — is the ultimate source of law. It would serve police officers well to grasp that this is not the case, before they take her advice and find, inexplicably, that “her responsibility” is of little use when a court decides to “worry about the regulations”.

I’ve written before about suggestions for improving policing in South Africa, noting in particular a piece by Jim Harris of the Free Market Foundation that argues despite high crime numbers, actual numbers of criminals are comparatively low, so well-motivated, well-trained forces, private if necessary, should be able to find and squash them.

Given the hamfisted and abusive record of the police, however, I’m not entirely convinced that Shabangu’s incitement is a good idea. The crowd she addressed, however, gave her a standing ovation. So now we have Keystone Kops with a licence to kill and orders to shoot on sight, with a baying, bloodthirsty crowd at their backs.

Would someone please fire the dangerously irresponsible deputy minister, before she gets someone innocent killed? With that speech alone, I suspect she’s broken so many laws, surely even the Keystone Kops can make charges of incitement or conspiracy stick.

Hoo hah, indeed.

Updated at 12:50 on 12 April 2008: It is deeply disturbing that Jacob Zuma, the president of the ruling ANC and presumptive next president of South Africa, agrees with Shabangu: “If you have a deputy minister saying the kind of things that the deputy minister was saying, this is what we need to happen.”

No wonder he’s all put out about corruption investigations, when that’s his view of the authority of the executive and the origin of law. It is true that politics is among the few careers for which no formal qualification is required (journalism being another). It is true that, “owing to his deprived childhood, Jacob Zuma did not receive any formal schooling.” I’d suggest, however, that an introductory basic course in Political Science might be in order for senior politicians. Nothing fancy, you understand. Just to get an idea of who does what in a constitutional democracy. Perhaps a special extra session on basic budgeting might be added in Zuma’s case. It may come as a surprise to our unschooled lord and master, for example, that neither his nor the deputy minister’s word is law. If she wants to change the law, she’s welcome to table a bill in the legislature, where it can be debated, examined by the Law Commission, and voted upon. In supporting her advice to the police to simply disregard laws and regulations, Zuma is gravely undermining the rule of law in this country. Not that he’s shown much regard for such quaint concepts in the first place, I guess. Now at least we know how literally he takes his campaign song: “Bring me my machine gun”.

The Free Market Foundation’s Jim Harris did some back-of-the-envelope calculations, and found some interesting statistics:

Anthony Minnaar, a crime researcher at Unisa, has conducted a … survey. He finds that house robbers have committed on average between 80 and 105 crimes before being caught and convicted. And captured heist gang members have been involved in between 30 and 40 heists, of which there are between 300 and 400 a year. So there are probably between 20 000 and 30 000 criminals in South Africa involved in most of the crimes. That happy notion implies that the remaining roughly 48 million of us are not criminal. Not yet, anyway. It hardly seems impossible for a determined and focused police force to capture 20 000 – 30 000 criminals within a year or so of single-minded investigation. Thereafter, presumably some low-level mopping-up effort would keep the authorities on top of opportunists rushing in to refill those emptied job-opportunity niches.

That does indeed sound manageable, though it raises the rather depressing question of how on earth South Africa’s criminals manage to clean out 100 houses before getting caught.

More interesting, though, is Harris’s stab at a solution:

The market-like trick would be to incentivise the police with variable wages dependent on captures, convictions and crime levels. Better still, outsource the task and its rewards to the private sector for quicker and more effective profit-driven action.

In principle, I’m okay with the notion of incentive pay (especially if it counters the allure of bribery). I’m also okay with the notion of a private police force. There’s no reason why such a force can’t be subject to the law, including special laws designed to apply only to them. There’s every reason to believe such a force, if subject to free-market competition, can be more efficient and effective than a public monopoly. Besides, it’s not like the notion of private armed security is foreign to South Africans. They’d have no market for their services if the public police force were sufficiently effective.

I do, however, have some questions on the subject, on which free-market philosophers may be able to enlighten me.

First, if a pay incentive is offered for captures and convictions — whether to private or public police officers — does this not create a perverse incentive to invade privacy, plant evidence, beat up the guilty, harrass the innocent, and otherwise abuse the extraordinary rights a police officer has over individual liberty? How could such an unintended consequence be neutralised?

Second, if a private police force is established, how does one minimise the problem — already common in our public police forces — of focusing largely on cash-generating activities like enforcing minor traffic infringements on perfectly safe roads?

Third, if bribery and corruption are rife in our current public police force, what guarantee — other than trusting in the self-interest of shareholders — is there that the problem will be less severe in the case of a private police force?

As I said, in principle I like the idea. It’s not like our current police force is very effective, or immune to the lure of easy money, either of which would make a good case for retaining the status quo. However, one would have to not only prevent abuse of a police force’s extraordinary powers, but sufficiently reassure those who are instinctively skeptical of private firms and free markets. A legislative framework that achieves these goals will have to be fleshed out considerably if the concept of a private (or private-like) police force is to get any traction.

To lighten the mood before departing to meet his destiny at the ANC conference in Polokwane, South African president Thabo Mbeki signed an absurd law you’d expect to find in a Monty Python farce.

The new Sexual Offences Act says that teenagers under the age of 16 caught kissing, petting, touching or even hugging each other can be criminally charged. It bans any sexual behaviour, from touching on down, among teenagers, even if it is consensual. The law doesn’t specify whether being in possession of teenage hormones will constitute a crime, or whether you’ll have to prove they were for personal use only. Either way, if you’re not 16 and you’re horny, be careful you don’t earn yourself a spanking.

Read the rest of this entry »

That’s the impression you’d get if you read this BBC report. It says that a teenager in the UK has been arrested under the Terrorism Act for, wait for it, possessing a copy of the Anarchist Cookbook. According to the story, this appears to be sufficient to warrant charges of “possession of material for terrorist purposes” and “the collection or possession of information useful in the preparation of an act of terrorism”.

Outrage!

“In the UK, possession of the Anarchist’s Cookbook is terrorism,” screams a Slashdotter under the subtle pseudonym Anonymous Terrorist, linking to the BBC piece. The item is tagged with the terms “censorship”, “court”, “politics”, “policestate”, and “fahrenheit451″, which itself constitutes an eloquent editorial.

Of course, only the Jihadis’ useful idiots in the West would believe this. Some of us might think there is something more to the story, given the curious fact that the Anarchist Cookbook is freely available for download online, and Amazon.com unabashedly sells paperback copies for less than $20.

So you go in search of a less biased report, from a rather more competent and less biased organisation than the BBC. Say, the Yorkshire Post.

According to this version, the teenager in question had half a kilo of potassium nitrate under his bed. This is saltpetre, a perfectly legal chemical, useful for curing meat and a number of things other than as an ingredient in explosives. Besides, who hasn’t made firework mischief as a kid with science lab chemicals?”

Fair enough. But there’s more. Like a quarter-kilo of calcium chloride they also found. This is another legal chemical used in refrigeration plants and for road de-icing, but also an ingredient in explosives recipes in the Anarchist Cookbook. And more still: the boy had videos of terrorist attacks and beheadings. Innocent entertainment, no doubt. References to “jihad” were found at the address. Who doesn’t?

The boy had recently travelled to Pakistan. “Oh, so he’s brown-skinned! Racists,” the useful idiots cry.

It is true that all of these things might, on their own,  be perfectly legal. Combined, however, they’re mighty suspicious. They’re a fairly strong indication that our boy might not be quite as innocent as the sympathetic BBC story makes him appear. Nevermind whatever details the police chose not to disclose, in order not to jeopardise a potential prosecution.

I’m fairly sure the police didn’t get up one day deciding to make a nuisance of themselves by wasting their time arresting someone just because he’s brownskinned (an assumption that isn’t supported by any information in the media), or to make him a scapegoat. Nor would they bother charging him if they didn’t think there’d be a reasonable chance of a conviction.

It always amazes me: when police don’t stop an attack before it happens and evidence such as this emerges, they are derided as incompetent buffoons who had the evidence right under their noses but couldn’t connect dots a toddler could connect. And when they do, they’re accused of being racist pigs who arrested some innocent rube before they even committed a crime. Can’t win, eh?

It has emerged that acting head of the national prosecuting authority, Mokotedi Mpshe, who stepped into suspended boss Vusi Pikoli’s shoes, succeeded in having the arrest warrant for Jackie Selebi cancelled. He failed, however, to get a related search and seizure warrant withdrawn. This strongly supports the speculation that Pikoli’s suspension by president Thabo Mbeki was not because, as Mbeki claimed, because of a breakdown in relations between him and the justice minister, Brigitte Mabandla, but because he obtained, and refused to request the recission, of warrants against Selebi. The political interference has prompted Cosatu’s Zwelenzima Vavi, the Independent Democrat leader Patricia de Lille, and the United Democratic Movement’s Bantu Holomisa, to join the Democratic Alliance’s urgent appeal for Mbeki to take the country into his confidence on this issue. The longer he remains silent, the worse things get. By now, everything points to executive interference in the operation of the judicial branch of government. Obstruction of justice by the president of the country would precipitate a full-scale constitutional crisis. Presidents have been impeached for less.

Recent, decent coverage:

• A good analysis: Tell Us the Truth, Mr President! — Sunday Times, 7 October 2007
• A scathing column: Lavatorial milestone flushed away by horror of SA dream in tatters — Mondli Makhanya, Sunday Times, 7 October 2007
• More reporting: Police, NPA in for a ’shake-up’ — Cape Times, 8 October 2007

News is emerging that four warrants had been issued for national police commissioner and chairman of Interpol, Jackie Selebi, one of which was for arrest. However, all four have reportedly been withdrawn, which raises an entirely new set of troubling questions for the conspicuously silent president Thabo Mbeki, suggesting as it does political interference in potentially embarrassing investigations by the national prosecution authority. Opposition parties are trying to obtain copies of the warrants.

Separately, the case against Agliotti, over the murder of prominent businessman Brett Kebble, and the investigation into what role, if any, Selebi played, is said to be unravelling.

Update: The last story in particular suggests an alternative explanation for the suspension by Thabo Mbeki of Vusi Pikoli.

Pikoli’s fitness for office is now the subject of an inquiry headed by former parliamentary speaker, Frene Ginwala. It would surprise me very much if he were found to be fit for office and reinstated. Perhaps this inquiry is not just about the relationship between him and justice minister Brigitte Mabandla, as Mbeki originally claimed, but about something a lot more serious. Such as obtaining judicial authorisation for arrest warrants without first building a prima facie case. The warrant in question appears to have been issued, but then withdrawn. Some ongoing investigations by the national prosecuting authority, which Pikoli headed, are now subject to review. Agliotti, facing trial for the Kebble murder, rather curiously refused a plea bargain that would involve giving evidence in the investigation against Selebi. This might indicate that he had nothing to offer. All of this points to the possibility that Pikoli may have played at inter-departmental politics, or worse, at presidential succession politics, instead of seeking impartial justice no matter how high the trail of evidence led. In that case, Mbeki would be perfectly in the clear. Better yet, he’d be able to claim the moral high ground for preventing abuse of institutional power against a political rival, Jacob Zuma.

But if so, why doesn’t Mbeki simply make a clear and forthright statement to that effect?

Some new developments on the Pikoli-Selebi story, which I first posted about here and here. This is from a South African Press Association story:

“Why do you ask me these questions?” [president Thabo] Mbeki asked journalists… He was asked whether or not he had seen the widely reported warrant of arrest for Selebi.

“You cannot be serious; have you ever heard of a president issuing a warrant?” a bemused Mbeki asked.

When he was pushed for a answer (sic), he said the questions should be asked of prosecutors.

You cannot be serious, Mr President. The question wasn’t whether you’d issued the warrant. Have you ever heard of a president who suspends the head of the prosecuting authority, after he obtained a warrant for the chief of police and chairman of Interpol, and doesn’t know anything about it?

I guess there’s no innocent answer, then.

Listening to Redi Direko’s show this morning on 702, I was struck by the number of people calling in who (once again) blame the media for the speculation over the as yet unresolved questions about the suspension of the head of the National Prosecuting Authority (NPA), Vusi Pikoli. He had allegedly obtained an arrest warrant for police commissioner Jackie Selebi, over links (including alleged bribes) to Glenn Agliotti, whom Selebi calls a friend. Besides for his arrest over the Brett Kebble murder, Agliotti has no rap sheet and is listed in Who’s Who of Southern Africa, but he acts the wealthy gangster and has a pretty substantial rep sheet involving fraud, smuggling, tax evasion and (would you believe it) bigamy.

“The media is trying to destabilise the country. They have an agenda,” callers say (to paraphrase). This is doubtful, actually. I can’t speak for all publications, but I’ve been in many editorial meetings and most have been notable only for their lack of agenda.

Why is it, however, that when critical questions arise about key figures in government, the media is taken to task for it? That it is accused of having some unstated “agenda” when it simply reports the facts and asks the questions? Isn’t the media there to ask questions? Is it not reasonable to ask why our national police commissioner counts well-known crime figures among his friends? Is it not reasonable to ask why it emerges, after an explanation for the suspension of Vusi Pikoli is given, that he had obtained an arrest warrant for Jackie Selebi? Should any suspicions roused by these events not be laid to rest? And if all this is also connected to the ongoing fraud investigation by the NPA’s special investigative arm into former deputy (and possible future) president Jacob Zuma, is it not the lack of clear answers that is the real destabilising influence?

This speaks to a broader canard about the media. It often stands accused of negativity, of being overly critical of government, and of therefore not being sufficiently patriotic or respectful of the wishes of the electorate. However, the role of the media is to shine a light on problems. We can all smile at success, or celebrate progress, but problems are where action is needed. Government — like the business world — will trumpet its own success loudly enough. Government failure is why the electorate needs independent, critical media coverage. That is what focuses effort on improving our society. So by pointing out failures, challenges and corruption, and by asking the tough questions, the media are not being unpatriotic. They’re not out to undermine the legitimate ruling party. They’re not being overly negative, or being unfair to the people of whom these questions are being asked. In reality, asking these questions is a sign of patriotism, of a desire to strengthen our democracy and governance. The most unpatriotic thing the media could possibly do is to discover something questionable and responding with a shrug.

The Brett Kebble saga is getting uglier by the day. It appears that the unexplained and controversial suspension by South Africa’s president Thabo Mbeki of the head of the National Prosecution Authority (NPA), Vusi Pikoli, may be linked to an arrest warrant he obtained for SA’s police commissioner (and the chairman of Interpol) Jackie Selebi, in connection with an ongoing investigation into his links with crime syndicate boss Glenn Agliotti, who has in turn been arrested for suspected involvement in the death last year of prominent businessman Brett Kebble. Earlier, the president, who is away at the UN meeting in New York, said that the suspension was a result of unreconcilable conflict between Pikoli and the Minister of Justice, Brigitte Mabandla. Pikoli curiously reports to both her and to Minister of Safety and Security Charles Nqakula.

Reports the SABC:

SABC News has reliably learnt that the National Prosecuting Authority (NPA) has obtained a warrant for the arrest of the chief of SA Police Service, Jackie Selebi. Sources say the warrant was secured on Thursday last week by NPA head, Vusi Pikoli, before his suspension.

Sources close to SABC News have also revealed that the warrant is accompanied by a search and seizure document obtained from the Pretoria High Court.

The BBC, however, reports that the police would not confirm whether such a warrant had been issued. Speculation has long been brewing over Selebi’s casual admission of his “friendship” with Agliotti. The “Scorpions”, a special investigations unit independent from the police, which reports to the NPA, have been digging away at the Brett Kebble case as well as to charges of corruption involving the arms deal against former deputy president Jacob Zuma, who is a high-profile left-wing contender to succeed Mbeki in 2009. The unit has asked for search and seizure of documents Selebi’s police deparment holds. The repeated links to Selebi, and now Mbeki’s direct involvement in the ongoing conflict between the prosecution authority and the police, raise a lot more questions than they answer.

One of which is who is going to carry out the arrest? “Hey, boss, you have the right to remain silent.” “No, constable. You have the right to remain silent!”

Update 29/09 09:00: Madam & Eve cartoonists thought alike (at least, they didn’t differ):

Update 27/09 20:00: The opposition Democratic Alliance is in such a froth that it “reax” with the following “three points”:

First, a warrant of arrest is only issued if the prosecuting authority — the state — believes there is a prima facie case against the person for who the warrant has been issued. In other words if a warrant has been issued for the arrest of Jacki Selebi the NPA believes there is sufficient evidence against him to prosecute him in a court of law.

Second, subsequent to President Mbeki’s decision to suspend Vusi Pikoli, both the NPA and government have given explicit and express assurances that the move will not affect the performance or function of the NPA and for all accounts and purposes it will be “business as usual”. If this is indeed the case and the reports are accurate then the public will expect
the NPA to both arrest the commissioner and pursue a case against him in a court of law.

Third, if this doesn’t happen and the warrant is suspended or withdrawn, then it will become quite clear that Advocate Pikoli’s suspension was as a direct result of his decision to pursue and prosecute the commissioner.

Fourth, if a warrant has been issued two things need to happen. One, Commissioner Selebi should step down from his position with immediate effect, and two, President Mbeki needs to personally explain why he did not disclose this information to the public when he justified his decision.

Update 28/09 9:00: There’s an excellent (albeit disturbing) take on the legal validity (or, more likely, otherwise) of Thabo Mbeki’s suspension of Vusi Pikoli, by Pierre de Vos over at ThoughtLeader, the Mail & Guardian Online’s opinion pages. He correctly points out the gravity of this situation for our democracy.

Update 28/09 9:00: A thorough and detailed analysis of the events leading up to the arrest warrant for Selebi and suspension of Pikoli, including the political background, by Stefaans Brümmer of the M&G, is here.

Update 28/09 11:00: A far more detailed, considered and well-written response has been issued by Helen Zille, leader of the main opposition. She calls the implications for our democracy “profound”, and says it “constitutes a potential constitutional crisis”. Since the party’s website has not yet been updated with this response, I’ll post the full text at the end of this entry.

Update 29/09 9:30: Waghied Misbach wrote an interesting column in the Sowetan: ANC in the grip of fear.
Read the rest of this entry »