Zuma Breached the Constitution: COPE

Fulcrum29 said:
That is why I want to know this:



I want details on our law and obligation in regard to authorisation on international level and duty.
Click to expand...

Afaik we don't have an international obligation to be in the CAR. An arrangement between the presidents of the two countries does not make for an international obligation, although any deal with a foreign country is, by definition, an international 'obligation'. Now that we have that statement confusing everyone....the international obligations, as understood by everyone, are those agreed to by members of an international body such as the UN or the AU etc. and are enforceable under international law.

Talk of international obligations in the CAR is double speak. We have no such obligation. Just some deal between two dodge dictator wannabes.

What this means is that the deployment of troops to the CAR is unconstitutional. There is nothing that happens in the CAR that impacts on our security. Take Lesotho as an example. If there were people attacking SA from within Lesotho we could deploy troops there in defence of SA in terms of our constitution. It might cause a stink internationally but not with our constitution.

Another little quirk afaik is that there isn't such a thing as a military obligation. There might be responsibilities but no nation can ever be forced to deploy its army. By responsibility we could look at treaties such as mutual defence etc. I can't be forced to come to your aid, but if I do the person who attacked you can't complain if I do step in.
 
JStrike said:
Yes. And?
It seems he has only been wrong a couple of times.
His record is outstanding. And for good reasons. Just look at his qualifications. There is no one else in SA outside of a ConCourt judge who knows the constitution better than him
Click to expand...

Rubbish. There are many people who know the constitution.
 
R13... said:
Wasn't this mission started under Lekota's ministership of '07?
Click to expand...

Maybe. There is nothing wrong in providing training as part of an agreement.

Doesn't make it an international obligation.

But paratroopers make useless instructors because they operate less conventionally than other troops and think running around with a lamp post is a good thing. Also, instructors tend to be senior NCOs, not riflemen.
 
Garyvdh said:
Uh yeah... Google is your friend. Start reading.
Click to expand...

This is a pretty weak way to argue. Why not show a cite for occasions when he was wrong?


Else, your argument is pretty much "it's on the internet so it must be true"
 
Albereth said:
Afaik we don't have an international obligation to be in the CAR. An arrangement between the presidents of the two countries does not make for an international obligation, although any deal with a foreign country is, by definition, an international 'obligation'. Now that we have that statement confusing everyone....the international obligations, as understood by everyone, are those agreed to by members of an international body such as the UN or the AU etc. and are enforceable under international law.

Talk of international obligations in the CAR is double speak. We have no such obligation. Just some deal between two dodge dictator wannabes.

What this means is that the deployment of troops to the CAR is unconstitutional. There is nothing that happens in the CAR that impacts on our security. Take Lesotho as an example. If there were people attacking SA from within Lesotho we could deploy troops there in defence of SA in terms of our constitution. It might cause a stink internationally but not with our constitution.

Another little quirk afaik is that there isn't such a thing as a military obligation. There might be responsibilities but no nation can ever be forced to deploy its army. By responsibility we could look at treaties such as mutual defence etc. I can't be forced to come to your aid, but if I do the person who attacked you can't complain if I do step in.
Click to expand...

So then in regard to this: or in fulfilment of an international obligation.

The President went above the Constitution in military authorisation.

Lekota said Zuma had no right to deploy soldiers on a mission to disarm and demilitarise citizens of a foreign country.
Click to expand...

So when did this happen?
(3) When the defence force is employed for any purpose mentioned in subsection (2), the President must inform Parliament, promptly and in appropriate detail, of *the reasons for the employment of the defence force; any place where the force is being employed; the number of people involved; and the period for which the force is expected to be employed
(4) If Parliament does not sit during the first seven days after the defence force is employed as envisaged in subsection (2), the President must provide the information required in subsection (3) to the appropriate oversight committee.

In my opinion the President made this decision on his own (and FEW others), DEMOCRACY FAIL...

EDIT: I would like a hard copy on these Constitutional matters... don't know where to find one.
 
Last edited:
Fulcrum29 said:
So then in regard to this: or in fulfilment of an international obligation.

The President went above the Constitution in military authorisation.



So when did this happen?
(3) When the defence force is employed for any purpose mentioned in subsection (2), the President must inform Parliament, promptly and in appropriate detail, of *the reasons for the employment of the defence force; any place where the force is being employed; the number of people involved; and the period for which the force is expected to be employed
(4) If Parliament does not sit during the first seven days after the defence force is employed as envisaged in subsection (2), the President must provide the information required in subsection (3) to the appropriate oversight committee.

In my opinion the President made this decision on his own (and FEW others), DEMOCRACY FAIL...
Click to expand...

The President only needs to inform Parliament after the fact, not before
 
Albereth said:
As opposed to 'have you seen his qualifications' or 'he helped write it'.
Click to expand...

He is quite a public person, and his details are freely available.
I am not a fan of De Vos, but his Constitutional Law knowledge is without peer
 
Fulcrum29 said:
So then in regard to this: or in fulfilment of an international obligation.

The President went above the Constitution in military authorisation.



So when did this happen?
(3)When the defence force is employed for any purpose mentioned in subsection (2), the President must inform Parliament, promptly and in appropriate detail, of *the reasons for the employment of the defence force; any place where the force is being employed; the number of people involved; and the period for which the force is expected to be employed
(4)If Parliament does not sit during the first seven days after the defence force is employed as envisaged in subsection (2), the President must provide the information required in subsection (3) to the appropriate oversight committee.

In my opinion the President made this decision on his own (and FEW others), DEMOCRACY FAIL...
Click to expand...

Constitutionally speaking we cannot send soldiers to provide training to anyone in CAR whether Free Willy tells anyone or not unless the need for that training was sanctioned under some international obligation. Ie the UN decided that the troops in the CAR are so crap that they need training and that there is a General Assembly or Security Council resolution to that effect, or whatever it is that the AU does.
 
JStrike said:
The President only needs to inform Parliament after the fact, not before
Click to expand...

When were the SA defence force deployed in CAR? The media answered most of these details before the President could and hell already broke loose.
 
Albereth said:
It is the use of the soldiers that is unconstitutional. Nevermind whether Zumatello told anyone.
Click to expand...

The Constitution is very clear about this.
The President is Commander-in-chief and can deploy the SA military at his own discretion
 
Albereth said:
But paratroopers make useless instructors because they operate less conventionally than other troops and think running around with a lamp post is a good thing. Also, instructors tend to be senior NCOs, not riflemen.
Click to expand...

^ This. Then more of this and then a third helping of this.
Instructors are trained as instructors and were any there? Paras are trained to jump out of planes (and I'm not sure there are any in the CAR). Also, there was mention in some articles of special forces and I assume that means Recces. What the Hell would they be doing there? Teaching the militia demolition and insurgency via submarine?
BS this has ever been a training operation.
 
JStrike said:
The Constitution is very clear about this.
The President is Commander-in-chief and can deploy the SA military at his own discretion
Click to expand...

The constitution is very clear on this - there is no discretion involved.

He may do it:

(a) in co-operation with the police service;
(b) in defence of the Republic: or
(c) in fulfilment of an international obligation.

Where does it say because he thinks it is a brilliant idea?
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X