What good comes from exposing high profile South African politicians?

You guys have really jacked up the quality of your articles.

Did you send Jan on a journalist course or something? :p
 
You guys have really jacked up the quality of your articles.

Did you send Jan on a journalist course or something? :p

maybe the hired an extra Jan to give him more time to work on stuff. Jan has always been on board but the impression that more time is needed and a larger journalistic and editorial staff contingent are needed - and some columnists
 
alas, until the guy at the top, who has all the power to make things better, starts to give a f* about the people that keep voting for him, and the rest of us who hand over our taxes to pay him and his cronies, nothing much will happen.
zuma doesnt really have any desire to make things better. if he starts acting ethically and responsibly, and employs competent ministers, he will soon find himself out of a job, and have a real hard time in popularity stakes.
not likely he'll give all the benefits up.

but, as they say, the wheel turns... the ANC will certainly not be in power forever

but big ups to Thuli for having the guts to put pressure.
 
Last edited:
So a whole big bucket full, of nothing.

Its almost as bad as the UN...
 
In her office’s 2012/13 annual report, Madonsela said they handled 37,770 cases, which was an increase from the previous year’s 27,376

That's an awfully high number of cases. It doesn't inspire confidence in Government spending or accountability.
It is sad that political interference can derail the good work done by the Public Protector.

ps. Very good article, thank you.
 
That's an awfully high number of cases. It doesn't inspire confidence in Government spending or accountability.
It is sad that political interference can derail the good work done by the Public Protector.

ps. Very good article, thank you.

Makes you wonder how many cases are out there that they didn't find...
 
At the very least, Ms Madonsela has brought more public focus to the goings-on in government. Whether this will generate enough indignation and determined action from the voters, is a whole different issue IMO.
 
Would it be deemed unlawful if the collective long suffering taxpayer were to arrange hits on them? :whistling:
 
We need to change the constitution to give her office some teeth, what good is a public protector if she cannot protect the public from these vultures?
 
We need to change the constitution to give her office some teeth, what good is a public protector if she cannot protect the public from these vultures?
unfortunately if the Constitution gave the PP's office too much teeth those teeth would bite the public in the ass when a bad appointment is made - I am quite sure several people would have been very unhappy if her predecessor had the powers

The real power of the PP is moral authority and the long term value of the truth and institutional independence to make the PPs office more powerful is to make it more dependent on the executive (there is a power paradox here) and this is a problem. Like the superior court judiciary independence and integrity are the greatest teeth the office can hold. Unfortunately the hallmark of the sordid and corrupt Zumastration is that it is a political objective to render high offices dependent on a patronage system for execution. Be very fearful of the moves to give Zuma's chosen Chief Justice more power and always carry Acton's wise words of power corrupting to heart.

The warning in the Cape Law Journal (now South African Law Journal) back in 1889 resonates through:
I have always thought, from my earliest youth till now, that the greatest scourge an angry Heaven ever inflicted upon an ungrateful and sinning people, was an ignorant, a corrupt or a dependent judiciary.
'The English Bench' Cape Law Journal (1889) pp 50-53
 
You guys have really jacked up the quality of your articles.

Did you send Jan on a journalist course or something? :p

Seriously?
LOL, please do yourself a favour, find the worst possible article on mybb then find the best possible article on News24 and compare the two :D

Mybroadband is leaps and bounds ahead in quality as well as grammar :)


Anyway, with the topic at hand all it has done is bring issues to the public's attention.
I am hopeful that some day in the future accountability will become a reality but that would need a total shift in the general populations outlook on politics.
 
Last edited:
unfortunately if the Constitution gave the PP's office too much teeth those teeth would bite the public in the ass when a bad appointment is made - I am quite sure several people would have been very unhappy if her predecessor had the powers

The real power of the PP is moral authority and the long term value of the truth and institutional independence to make the PPs office more powerful is to make it more dependent on the executive (there is a power paradox here) and this is a problem. Like the superior court judiciary independence and integrity are the greatest teeth the office can hold. Unfortunately the hallmark of the sordid and corrupt Zumastration is that it is a political objective to render high offices dependent on a patronage system for execution. Be very fearful of the moves to give Zuma's chosen Chief Justice more power and always carry Acton's wise words of power corrupting to heart.

The warning in the Cape Law Journal (now South African Law Journal) back in 1889 resonates through:

'The English Bench' Cape Law Journal (1889) pp 50-53

What use is moral authority against someone who has none? That's like trying to shame a psychopath into doing the right thing, not gonna happen. And by someone I mean not just Zuma, he couldn't have gotten away with it if the ANC didn't push, support and protect his every move.

I read somewhere the constitution requires the president to act on the PP's reports, but didn't foresee the case of the president being the actual problem so makes no mention of such a case. Surely that's the kind of thing that needs to change for the PP to be more effective?

Any case, what good is the law when it cannot act against an obvious transgressor? Or for example when it favors the rich?
I was raised to believe the law is fair and just, instead the law is an ass.
 
Back
Top