Gigaba's 'untruths' need to be 'given serious attention' - Ramaphosa

[ForceFate]

Gigaba going back to court, a court already called him a liar...

Gigaba trying to save face, face already deep up certain emirati residents' butts.

 

[ProfA]

errr, the president has complete and full mandate over ministers, they serve only at his pleasure, he can get rid of any one of them for any reason, or no reason, whatsoever and it will NEVER be challenged in court.

italics?

Wasn't Zuma challenged in court to present his reasons for the midnight re-shuffle? And from what I remember, the challenge was successful in that he had to provide reasonable reasons.

 

[supersunbird]

Wasn't Zuma challenged in court to present his reasons for the midnight re-shuffle? And from what I remember, the challenge was successful in that he had to provide reasonable reasons.

No, and no.

Don't come make up things now and then think they are facts, ya hear!

 

[NarrowBandFtw]

No, and no.

^ this, it was never challenged in a court of law, it was however challenged in the court of public opinion which is why they had a 5 year old write some spy-saga BS in font size 40 in crayons to present as a "reason".

 

[ForceFate]

No, and no.

Don't come make up things now and then think they are facts, ya hear!

^ this, it was never challenged in a court of law, it was however challenged in the court of public opinion which is why they had a 5 year old write some spy-saga BS in font size 40 in crayons to present as a "reason".

He was challenged by the DA AFAIK.

 

[ProfA]

https://www.news24.com/SouthAfrica/News/zuma-must-explain-reasons-behind-cabinet-reshuffle-judge-rules-20170504

 

[NarrowBandFtw]

https://www.news24.com/SouthAfrica/News/zuma-must-explain-reasons-behind-cabinet-reshuffle-judge-rules-20170504

We stand partially corrected then, he still was not challenged in any court of law on the actions he took, only asked for reasons. Had the reasons not been satisfactory (and they were not by the way) it would end there and his actions would stand.

 

[supersunbird]

https://www.news24.com/SouthAfrica/News/zuma-must-explain-reasons-behind-cabinet-reshuffle-judge-rules-20170504

Well then, thats unconstitutional in the extreme, if Zuma had appealed all the way to that level he would have won.

 

[ForceFate]

We stand partially corrected then, he still was not challenged in any court of law on the actions he took, only asked for reasons. Had the reasons not been satisfactory (and they were not by the way) it would end there and his actions would stand.

The Helen Suzman Foundation (HSF) and lobby group My Vote Counts (MVC) have petitioned the court on the grounds that Zuma acted irrationally when he reshuffled the Cabinet and fired Pravin Gordhan and Mcebisi Jonas from the finance ministry.

https://www.businesslive.co.za/bd/n...foundation-challenges-zuma-reshuffle-in-court

 

[ProfA]

Well then, thats unconstitutional in the extreme, if Zuma had appealed all the way to that level he would have won.

:crylaugh:

 

[NarrowBandFtw]

https://www.businesslive.co.za/bd/n...foundation-challenges-zuma-reshuffle-in-court

A court case that was never heard: https://hsf.org.za/litigation/president-of-rsa

It was postponed pending the outcome of the EFF's concourt case to impeach Zuma: https://www.enca.com/south-africa/concourt-to-rule-on-zuma-impeachment-0

Given that judgment also declined to instruct the president to do anything, but basically was reprimanding parliament the HSF case was doomed to fail, it would be judicial overreach. Zuma resigned less than 2 months after the ruling so the HSF case has no purpose anymore.

Still, I suppose this quote was missing a word:

errr, the president has complete and full mandate over ministers, they serve only at his pleasure, he can get rid of any one of them for any reason, or no reason, whatsoever and it will NEVER be challenged in court.

it will never be successfully challenged in court

Better?

 

[Gordon_R]

https://www.news24.com/SouthAfrica/...-ethics-code-over-the-fireblade-saga-20181031

Minister of Home Affairs Malusi Gigaba has landed in hot water again, after the Public Protector found that he not only violated the executive ethics code, but also the Constitution for "deliberately telling untruths under oath".

Busisiwe Mkhwebane recommended that President Cyril Ramaphosa take disciplinary action against the minister of home affairs.

 

[NarrowBandFtw]

https://www.news24.com/SouthAfrica/...-ethics-code-over-the-fireblade-saga-20181031

Jirre, one zuma puppet recommending disciplinary action against another zuma puppet?!?

No honour among thieves I guess. Ten bucks says this f-ing gigupta snake survives to live another day yet again though.

 

[BBSA]

Just fire his ass.

 

[DreamKing]

Yeah, how can't he see that Cyril is worse than Zuma?

even a broken clock is right twice a day

 

[Sneeky]

They could always refer him to the ANC integrity commission.

oh wait

 

[Seriously]

I heard he was headhunted by CNN to make them as great as SABC.

Fox already made him an offer.

 

[Vrotappel]

Since April CR has done nothing.

 

[ShaunSA]

Since April CR has done nothing.

He is applying his mind. That might take a while.

 

[Temujin]

Need to stop with the 'untruths' bs... call it what it is, he farkin lied