Just incase some people dont know this. Telkom gives a whole lot of firms in south africa a little bit of work each. This way they make sure that those firms will not come up against in court against them. Mr Buys appears to be from one of those firms in my opinion.
-
Join the MyBroadband community
South Africa’s biggest forum. Discuss, discover, and connect with thousands of members.
-
Question of the Day: What is the ultimate French toast topping?
Telkom scandal -- Help needed
- Thread starter danielm
- Start date
Debbie
Banned
Instead of discussing the merits of the cases being brought against Telkom, lets look at another issue brewing - the behaviour of the Judges in these cases.
I have, in my hands, the copurt transcripts from a few of these cases. In every cases, the application to the court has been thrown out for some extremely dodgy reasons. Comments about the Constitution have been made that would scare any citizen. I am not suggesting a conspiracy here, I merely present the evidence and encourage you to think about what could possibly be going on, as I refuse to believe that this is normal behaviour from the judiciary:
Okay, now, forgive me, but to see a high court judge (Judge Preller) speak about the Constitution of our country in this way disgusts me. People died for that Constitution. SA is so highly praised internationally for having one of the most liberal and inclusive Constitutions in the world, but what good is it if we have judges who don't respect it?
This judge should been thrown out of office and fined.
I have, in my hands, the copurt transcripts from a few of these cases. In every cases, the application to the court has been thrown out for some extremely dodgy reasons. Comments about the Constitution have been made that would scare any citizen. I am not suggesting a conspiracy here, I merely present the evidence and encourage you to think about what could possibly be going on, as I refuse to believe that this is normal behaviour from the judiciary:
Okay, now, forgive me, but to see a high court judge (Judge Preller) speak about the Constitution of our country in this way disgusts me. People died for that Constitution. SA is so highly praised internationally for having one of the most liberal and inclusive Constitutions in the world, but what good is it if we have judges who don't respect it?
This judge should been thrown out of office and fined.
crbuys
Legal Expert: Internet
Cry Wolf!
Hi all,
I don’t think it’s necessary to prove me and my firm’s credentials to some Johnny Comes Latelies in this forum again. Been there. Done that.
Michael Alachouzos – no need to try and discredit me or question my motives. We’re on the same side here. We afrikaans people refer to what your trying to do as "playing the man and not the ball"!
Yes, we are one of a few law firms on the Telkom panel. We never received any instructions from Telkom to act against Gregg or Hellkom. Most members will remember that Adams and Adams was asked to do that. We were just asked to provide a legal opinion on the matter. I fail to understand how some members can jump to the conclusion that our opinion was by default against Gregg and pro Telkom… The fact that the matter has not proceeded much since then should give an indication of what our opinion was. More I cannot say.
In any event, we lately received much more instructions from MyADSL and MyBroadband than we ever received from Telkom. In this regard I had a long chat with RPM and explained our position should a conflict of interest ever arise. If so, we won’t be able to act for either Telkom or MyADSL. So everybody can rest assured that we’ll never litigate against MyADSL on behalf of anybody, including Telkom. I’ll loose my job if we do!
Bitching and moaning is not the only way in which to promote the issues this forum stands for. Sure, public debate has got its place, but equally important is that we promote our believes through more personal diplomatic channels. Unfortunately the positive results of behind-the-scenes diplomacy are not the stuff we can shout from the rooftops. But trust me, the benefits are tangible and would not have been possible if we did not have Telkom’s trust.
In any event, I’m not fishing for complements. The purpose of my earlier posting was not to cover for Telkom, I was actually covering for this forum. There’s so much good news and positive things happening with MyADSL at the moment – more members, website stats that sky rocket, clever future plans, corporate interest, media attention… The last thing we need now is a nasty defamation case resulting from unfounded statements or imaginations running wild. Do we really want to loose the support of the media? Do we want to loose the moral high ground? Do we want to looks like fools?” I guess not and I’m worried that the letter that started this discussion may just result in that. We should not be our own biggest enemy.
Our firm is currently involves in no less than three bulletin board defamation matters. In one of the cases, the operators received a subpoena to disclose the identity of a person who made an anonymous defamatory posting. Defending such actions is costly, time consuming and truly harm a forums reputation and credibility. I’m not going to apologise for trying to keep this forum out of a similar legal mess. It is irresponsible and disrespectful to expose RPM and this forum to legal liability.
Yes I’m Afrikaans. Yes we did work for Telkom. But even if I was English and Telkom’s arch enemy I still would have thought the reference to the judge’s race and the Broederbond is uncalled for.
Debbie2 is right and I agree that the judge’s statement is indeed strange. I also think the media should take this further and the judge should be asked to explain what he said. I would love to read his explanation in the newspapers.
I would just be sad of the real story gets over-shadowed by allegations of racism, defamation and conspiracy. We deserve better. How can we demand respect for the constitution if we don’t even respect its core values of equality and freedom of speech.
It looks as if the judge made a serious mistake… but connecting the dots through race and the Broederbond to end up at Telkom’s door is a stretch of the imagination. We Afrikaans people have a very descriptive three letter word for it.
We’re shooting ourselves in the foot… that’s all I want to prevent. We should demand a retraction and an apology. We should show that we’re not like the judge. Or are we?
Hi all,
I don’t think it’s necessary to prove me and my firm’s credentials to some Johnny Comes Latelies in this forum again. Been there. Done that.
Michael Alachouzos – no need to try and discredit me or question my motives. We’re on the same side here. We afrikaans people refer to what your trying to do as "playing the man and not the ball"!
Yes, we are one of a few law firms on the Telkom panel. We never received any instructions from Telkom to act against Gregg or Hellkom. Most members will remember that Adams and Adams was asked to do that. We were just asked to provide a legal opinion on the matter. I fail to understand how some members can jump to the conclusion that our opinion was by default against Gregg and pro Telkom… The fact that the matter has not proceeded much since then should give an indication of what our opinion was. More I cannot say.
In any event, we lately received much more instructions from MyADSL and MyBroadband than we ever received from Telkom. In this regard I had a long chat with RPM and explained our position should a conflict of interest ever arise. If so, we won’t be able to act for either Telkom or MyADSL. So everybody can rest assured that we’ll never litigate against MyADSL on behalf of anybody, including Telkom. I’ll loose my job if we do!
Bitching and moaning is not the only way in which to promote the issues this forum stands for. Sure, public debate has got its place, but equally important is that we promote our believes through more personal diplomatic channels. Unfortunately the positive results of behind-the-scenes diplomacy are not the stuff we can shout from the rooftops. But trust me, the benefits are tangible and would not have been possible if we did not have Telkom’s trust.
In any event, I’m not fishing for complements. The purpose of my earlier posting was not to cover for Telkom, I was actually covering for this forum. There’s so much good news and positive things happening with MyADSL at the moment – more members, website stats that sky rocket, clever future plans, corporate interest, media attention… The last thing we need now is a nasty defamation case resulting from unfounded statements or imaginations running wild. Do we really want to loose the support of the media? Do we want to loose the moral high ground? Do we want to looks like fools?” I guess not and I’m worried that the letter that started this discussion may just result in that. We should not be our own biggest enemy.
Our firm is currently involves in no less than three bulletin board defamation matters. In one of the cases, the operators received a subpoena to disclose the identity of a person who made an anonymous defamatory posting. Defending such actions is costly, time consuming and truly harm a forums reputation and credibility. I’m not going to apologise for trying to keep this forum out of a similar legal mess. It is irresponsible and disrespectful to expose RPM and this forum to legal liability.
Yes I’m Afrikaans. Yes we did work for Telkom. But even if I was English and Telkom’s arch enemy I still would have thought the reference to the judge’s race and the Broederbond is uncalled for.
Debbie2 is right and I agree that the judge’s statement is indeed strange. I also think the media should take this further and the judge should be asked to explain what he said. I would love to read his explanation in the newspapers.
I would just be sad of the real story gets over-shadowed by allegations of racism, defamation and conspiracy. We deserve better. How can we demand respect for the constitution if we don’t even respect its core values of equality and freedom of speech.
It looks as if the judge made a serious mistake… but connecting the dots through race and the Broederbond to end up at Telkom’s door is a stretch of the imagination. We Afrikaans people have a very descriptive three letter word for it.
We’re shooting ourselves in the foot… that’s all I want to prevent. We should demand a retraction and an apology. We should show that we’re not like the judge. Or are we?
Debbie
Banned
I think that alachos, W1z4rd and crbuys have now had their say, and now we should get back to the topic at hand.
What I wrote above, about Judge Preller's comments on the Constitution, was taken further. A complaint was lodged with the Judicial Service Commission about a range of aspects concerning this Judge's behaviour (continually interrupting; speaking in his judicial capacity in the court in Afrikaans to Telkom's lawyer when Mr Alachouzos does not understand Afrikaans; etc).
The Judicial Service Commission came back with a reply that basically said this: Yeah, Preller was wrong but he has apologised so that's the end of it.
A slap on the pinky finger for degrading and disrespecting the highest law in the land whilst performing judicial duties in the High Court? I'm sorry, but that is NOT acceptable.
What I wrote above, about Judge Preller's comments on the Constitution, was taken further. A complaint was lodged with the Judicial Service Commission about a range of aspects concerning this Judge's behaviour (continually interrupting; speaking in his judicial capacity in the court in Afrikaans to Telkom's lawyer when Mr Alachouzos does not understand Afrikaans; etc).
The Judicial Service Commission came back with a reply that basically said this: Yeah, Preller was wrong but he has apologised so that's the end of it.
A slap on the pinky finger for degrading and disrespecting the highest law in the land whilst performing judicial duties in the High Court? I'm sorry, but that is NOT acceptable.
crbuys
Legal Expert: Internet
Removal of a Judge
Hi Debbie2,
Section 177 of the Constitution:
A judge may be removed from office only if— (a) the Judicial Service Commission finds that the judge suffers from an incapacity, is grossly incompetent or is guilty of gross misconduct; and (b) the National Assembly calls for that judge to be removed, by a resolution adopted with a supporting vote of at least two thirds of its members.
(2)**The President must remove a judge from office upon adoption of a resolution calling for that judge to be removed.
(3)**The President, on the advice of the Judicial Service Commission, may suspend a judge who is the subject of a procedure in terms of subsection (1).
See:
http://www.info.gov.za/aboutgovt/contacts/bodies/jsc.htm
http://www.witness.co.za/content/2005_04/32617.htm
http://www.pretorianews.co.za/index.php?fArticleId=2492151&fSectionId=670&fSetId=521
http://www.law.wits.ac.za/rula/b41.pdf
http://www.mg.co.za/articlePage.aspx?articleid=236765&area=/columnist__richard_calland/
http://www.suntimes.co.za/business/legal/2001/08/26/carmel02.asp
http://www.mg.co.za/articlePage.aspx?articleid=235214&area=/breaking_news/breaking_news__national/
http://www.theherald.co.za/herald/2002/09/02/news/n08_02092002.htm
http://www.da.org.za/da/Site/Eng/campaigns/Judicial.asp
Hope all this articles and links help!
Regards,
Hi Debbie2,
Section 177 of the Constitution:
A judge may be removed from office only if— (a) the Judicial Service Commission finds that the judge suffers from an incapacity, is grossly incompetent or is guilty of gross misconduct; and (b) the National Assembly calls for that judge to be removed, by a resolution adopted with a supporting vote of at least two thirds of its members.
(2)**The President must remove a judge from office upon adoption of a resolution calling for that judge to be removed.
(3)**The President, on the advice of the Judicial Service Commission, may suspend a judge who is the subject of a procedure in terms of subsection (1).
See:
http://www.info.gov.za/aboutgovt/contacts/bodies/jsc.htm
http://www.witness.co.za/content/2005_04/32617.htm
http://www.pretorianews.co.za/index.php?fArticleId=2492151&fSectionId=670&fSetId=521
http://www.law.wits.ac.za/rula/b41.pdf
http://www.mg.co.za/articlePage.aspx?articleid=236765&area=/columnist__richard_calland/
http://www.suntimes.co.za/business/legal/2001/08/26/carmel02.asp
http://www.mg.co.za/articlePage.aspx?articleid=235214&area=/breaking_news/breaking_news__national/
http://www.theherald.co.za/herald/2002/09/02/news/n08_02092002.htm
http://www.da.org.za/da/Site/Eng/campaigns/Judicial.asp
Hope all this articles and links help!
Regards,
If the Judge was wrong and has apologised, surely the implication is that the way that the action was handled was incorrect or "below standard"
Is there not grounds for a rerun of this hearing where a mistake IS NOT MADE
What will the ruling be then
Is there not grounds for a rerun of this hearing where a mistake IS NOT MADE
What will the ruling be then
The_Unbeliever
Honorary Master
Does this mean that we cannot rely on the Constitution anymore should somebody violate our constitutional rights? This is very worrying...
Debbie
Banned
Thanks crbuys, I appreciate it. I would be interested in hearing whether you think that these comments made by Judge Preller warrant further action, and if so, what punishment would you consider to be appropriate?
I would like to know as I have my own views, but I would like some perspective about whether or not I am overreacting to this.
I would like to know as I have my own views, but I would like some perspective about whether or not I am overreacting to this.
crbuys
Legal Expert: Internet
To Judge a Judge
Hi Debbie,
Its very difficult to speculate without all the facts...
I think no judge will be so stupid as to imply that the Constitution may not be relied upon. That would be denying the document that establish the courts in the first place...?
I think one of two things MIGHT have happened:
1. The judge was referring the fact that the there was no case ito the Comnstitution IN FRONT of the High Court and that the matter should be heard by the Supreme Court or the Constituitional Court. Ito section 169 and 172 of the Constitution the High Courts cannot make judgments on all matters of a constitutional nature; and
2. The second option is rather unlikely, but I've heard juDges getting upset about it before. There seems to be a common belief that once you have tried all possible arguments ito the laws applicable to you case without success, you throw in a constitutional issue as a desperate last attempt to gain the courts favour. Whether it is true or not I cannot say, but I have heard the story before.
But like I said, I do not have all the facts in front of me (e.g. which provision of the Companies Act were disputes) and is also not really a constitutional boffin.
Why was the matter not taken on appeal?
Regards.
Hi Debbie,
Its very difficult to speculate without all the facts...
I think no judge will be so stupid as to imply that the Constitution may not be relied upon. That would be denying the document that establish the courts in the first place...?
I think one of two things MIGHT have happened:
1. The judge was referring the fact that the there was no case ito the Comnstitution IN FRONT of the High Court and that the matter should be heard by the Supreme Court or the Constituitional Court. Ito section 169 and 172 of the Constitution the High Courts cannot make judgments on all matters of a constitutional nature; and
2. The second option is rather unlikely, but I've heard juDges getting upset about it before. There seems to be a common belief that once you have tried all possible arguments ito the laws applicable to you case without success, you throw in a constitutional issue as a desperate last attempt to gain the courts favour. Whether it is true or not I cannot say, but I have heard the story before.
But like I said, I do not have all the facts in front of me (e.g. which provision of the Companies Act were disputes) and is also not really a constitutional boffin.
Why was the matter not taken on appeal?
Regards.
The_Librarian said:
Does this mean that we cannot rely on the Constitution anymore should somebody violate our constitutional rights? This is very worrying...
I agree 100% that it is worrying The_Librarian. I have worked in a legal profession for just over 5 years and have never seen a comment like that. If I had not seen it with my own eyes I would have thought it was a lie.
The judge's comments were posted to show you what an uphill battle alacos has faced. I find it extremely refreshing (and gives me hope) that someone is actually challenging Telkom.
Legal merit
Debbie2 or others,
I just want to be clear on what the scandal is about. I'm not very clued up on the legal side of things or company law. But from what I understand from the quote is that you (as a company) are NOT allowed to purchase your own shares with your own share capital without a shareholders meeting?
Is this correct?
By definition, share capital is the money invested directly in a company by its shareholders. So what Telkom is doing is not consulting it's shareholders and going over their heads to purchase more of it's shares on the JSE/NYSE, and this is what is illegal by law?
If my understanding of this is correct, then it's very difficult for me to see why the judges failed to address this illegal action in the 3 attempts mentioned in the quote.
Debbie2 or others,
danielm said:
I just want to be clear on what the scandal is about. I'm not very clued up on the legal side of things or company law. But from what I understand from the quote is that you (as a company) are NOT allowed to purchase your own shares with your own share capital without a shareholders meeting?
Is this correct?
By definition, share capital is the money invested directly in a company by its shareholders. So what Telkom is doing is not consulting it's shareholders and going over their heads to purchase more of it's shares on the JSE/NYSE, and this is what is illegal by law?
If my understanding of this is correct, then it's very difficult for me to see why the judges failed to address this illegal action in the 3 attempts mentioned in the quote.
crbuys said:
I read a book recently about a broedebond in the pretoria courts, so I personaly would believe a comment like that.
Also, threatning people with silly threats like this is really stupid. You can see clearly have telkom for a client.
From what I understand here, these people would play the ball as you put it...if they could get onto the court.
On the same note, I agree, lets stear clear of the likely broedebond ties for the moment and concentrate more on what is clearly an abuse by the pretoria courts
Last edited:
Debbie
Banned
Peter7 said:
Yes Peter, you are correct in everything you have said. And yes, it is extremely difficult to understand the behaviour of the Pretoria judges. What confounds me even more is that the media does not seem to have picked on this - does the media think this behavior is acceptable? Is it ok to talk about the Constitution like that, by the very people who's job it is to protect and uphold the Constitution?
aborg
Senior Member
When did this happen? Is there evidence of these transactions?
The_Unbeliever
Honorary Master
crbuys said:
Just want to know what would qualify as an defamatory posting, so that I can keep myself out of trouble here... I don't want to post something that I might come to regret later.
Thanx
Debbie
Banned
In January and October last year these meeting were held. We charge that the meetings are not legitimate, for reasons I cannot discuss. The problem here is the courts.
Yes, there is ample evidence. At the time, there were several media reports about it. We are now in the courts about it, and the problem is that every case has been thrown out for the most bizarre reasons.
As a result, the cases has never been listened to on its merits. We have to now basically fight with the courts to get our case heard, in order to fight with Telkom.
It's ridiculous. I mean, in one case, the judge threatened to make a person who had simply signed an affidavit pay the court costs.
Now imagine, if you will, that you are driving along nice nice oneday, and you see a truck cut illegally off a motorbike. The motorbike crashes, and the driver of the motorbike loses a leg. The motorbike guy takes the truck driver to court, asking for the driver to pay damages. You sign an affidavit simply describing what you saw. The court then dismisses the case (because it's a Friday/a page isnt double spaced etc etc) and then the judge tells you that you now need to give a reason why you shouldn't have to pay the court's costs. That is pretty much what happened in another (different) case:
Yes, there is ample evidence. At the time, there were several media reports about it. We are now in the courts about it, and the problem is that every case has been thrown out for the most bizarre reasons.
As a result, the cases has never been listened to on its merits. We have to now basically fight with the courts to get our case heard, in order to fight with Telkom.
It's ridiculous. I mean, in one case, the judge threatened to make a person who had simply signed an affidavit pay the court costs.
Now imagine, if you will, that you are driving along nice nice oneday, and you see a truck cut illegally off a motorbike. The motorbike crashes, and the driver of the motorbike loses a leg. The motorbike guy takes the truck driver to court, asking for the driver to pay damages. You sign an affidavit simply describing what you saw. The court then dismisses the case (because it's a Friday/a page isnt double spaced etc etc) and then the judge tells you that you now need to give a reason why you shouldn't have to pay the court's costs. That is pretty much what happened in another (different) case:
Last edited:
crbuys
Legal Expert: Internet
More About Forum Defamation
Hallo Librarian,
These links are to cool articles and examples:
http://www.gigalaw.com/articles/2001-all/hilden-2001-02-all.html
http://www.thestar.co.za/index.php?fSaectionId=327&fArticleId=57154
http://www.cyberlawsa.co.za/cyberlaw/cybertext/chapter12.htm
http://www.phillipsnizer.com/library/topics/defamation_cda.cfm
Regards,
Hallo Librarian,
These links are to cool articles and examples:
http://www.gigalaw.com/articles/2001-all/hilden-2001-02-all.html
http://www.thestar.co.za/index.php?fSaectionId=327&fArticleId=57154
http://www.cyberlawsa.co.za/cyberlaw/cybertext/chapter12.htm
http://www.phillipsnizer.com/library/topics/defamation_cda.cfm
Regards,
Great, now we should all live in fear of those corporations that continue to provide us with fraudulent services, and constantly self-censor what we say out of fear lest we criticise them. I understand why there needs to be defamation laws and all, but the law seems to go too far to protect businesses and does not protect wronged consumers. I have received criminally fraudulent service now from many supposedly reputable South African companies, and what can I do - nothing? Those companies just continue to steal from customers. I mean, I know about the "worst 4x4" case, and that precedent should in theory protect the little guy who makes a valid statement, but who really has the resources to defend themselves in court against defamation litigation?The_Librarian said: