This week, the newspaper has been fighting a court battle with Bosasa. The company wants the newspaper to reveal its sources – an unreasonable request considering the freedom our media enjoys in the country.

As I write this, both the company and the newspaper are awaiting judgment on the matter.

It would be a sad day if the court ruled in the company’s favour: that the newspaper should reveal its sources and hand over all the other requested documents (that it may want to use as evidence in proving its innocence, if ever). If the court should rule in the M&G‘s favour, it will be a great victory for the newspaper especially taking into account its commitment to fight to the bitter end (my emphasis) to protect its sources.

Bosasa sought to use the UK’s Leveson Inquiry into the “hackgate” saga involving News International titles. Like the M&G’s lawyers argued before the court, I doubt this UK argument by the company would stick because surely the laws regarding media freedom are not the same in the two countries.

I am not sure if I’m being unreasonable or if it is indeed the case that the South African media – be it print, online and/or broadcast media except the M&G itself – has been very quiet on the challenge the newspaper faces. I pray to God it is not the former.

My concern (assuming the above observation is true) is that if the judgment sways on the side of Bosasa and not the M&G, it would have a great and detrimental impact on not only print, but also broadcast and online media. It would mean all media platforms (broadcast, print and online) would from now on be forced to reveal their sources despite undertaking to fight tooth and nail (my emphasis) to protect them. It is therefore very clear that no one with information – however incriminating – would dare approach newspapers with the hope of an independent investigative journalism exposé as they would have before. No one would dare risk their lives.

The case, sadly, happens at the time when the media is under great threat by the government’s proposed regulations – the Protection of State Information Bill, the Media Appeals Tribunal etc – which are widely regarded as attempts to silence investigative journalism and whistleblowers. This is despite the fact that freedom of the press and freedom to receive/impart information is enshrined in the Constitution.

My concern is exacerbated by the fact that there were only two organisations – the South African National Editors’ Forum (Sanef) and the press freedom NGO Section 16 – that joined the battle to help the M&G fight to protect its sources. Although Sanef represents many newspapers in the country, one would have expected individual newspapers to use their editorials (especially during this week) to express their concern about the impact Bosasa’s threat – if confirmed by the court – would have on the industry in general.

It is in cases such as this one – another example being Independent Newspapers’ successful court bid to gain access to the ANC’s “brown envelope journalism” report involving one of its titles – that the media has to stand together, hand in hand, and not seen to be drifting apart especially when the judgment, if ruling against one of their peers, would have a greatly negative impact on them doing their jobs.

One would have also expected opposition parties who were pro-press freedom (Cope, DA and IFP) to back the newspaper. In fact the DA and IFP asked government to launch a probe into the Bosasa saga a few years back, but none of these parties have come forth to defend media freedom and the protection of sources and whistleblowers in this case.

What does this say about our media? Is this a sign that each media house should fight its own battles?

I remember vividly that when Sunday Times journalist Mzilikazi Wa Afrika was arrested after exposing the multi-million rand property rental scandal involving Bheki Cele in 2010 – an act which, it later emerged, was politically motivated – many newspapers and editorials expressed great concern on the negative impact his arrest would have on the Sunday Times and investigative journalism in this country.

Another case in point involves the M&G and the Presidency over the latter’s refusal to release a report on Zimbabwe’s 2002 election, claiming it contains confidential information for the eyes of the president only (my emphasis). The case, which began in 2009, has since been sent by the Constitutional Court back to the court that last heard the case to determine (probably by reading) whether the report contains sensitive and confidential diplomatic information, as has always been claimed by the Presidency.

I do not remember reading newspaper editorials in support of the M&G at that time, which should’ve said that the report – commissioned by former president Thabo Mbeki to investigate whether the 2002 election was free and fair as was declared by South Africa and Zimbabwe’s ruling Zanu-PF at the time – should be released as it is in the public interest. None.

It is therefore sad, if not shocking, that at the time when all pro-press freedom supporters should be coming together and supporting each other – whichever way possible – the M&G seems to be fighting its battles alone, with just two other organisations supporting them.

I personally support the M&G‘s fight to protect its sources because, like the Guardian‘s Nick Cohen eloquently put it on February 5, “The maxim that journalists must never reveal their sources is about the only moral principle we have. At its noblest, it recognises debts of honour.”

Cohen said: “Informants give you information in the public interest and say that their career, liberty or life depend on keeping their name confidential. You promise to protect them and must keep your word. More prosaically, journalists reason that if we reveal sources, other sources will not take the risk of speaking to us in the future.”

But M&G, it seems you’re on your own.

Akanyang Merementsi is a 26-year-old male working in the South African mining industry. He is a self-confessed media freak and is passionate about the industry. He also enjoys politics. Akanyang blogs at www.akanyangafrica.wordpress.com

This article was published on Mail & Guardian’s Thought Leader blog on 16 February 2012.

Of course Whitney had come across great challenges in her life: abusive marriage to Bobby Brown, drug problems that her mother apparently even forced her into rehab and financial problems as a result. Since her death over the weekend there have been many reports – obituaries rather, some good and some terrible – doing the rounds on the internet.

According to the Guardian Whitney was born in Newark, New Jersey, to a musical family. She is the daughter of gospel star Cissy Houston, a cousin of Dionne Warwick and goddaughter of Aretha Franklin. Whitney began her singing in her church choir at the age of 11, and as a young teenager she occasionally performed at her mother’s concerts. Her voice attracted attention, and when she was 15, she and mom sang backup on Chaka Khan’s 1978 hit I’m Every Woman, according to the Guardian.

The controversial and tabloid The Daily Mail claimed that Whitney had not died after drowning in a bathtub as had been widely rumoured but that she died after mixing a cocktail of Xanax and other powerful prescription drugs with alcohol. Quoting the gossip website TMZ, the tabloid said one of the Los Angeles County Coroner officials told Houston family there was not enough water in her lungs to conclude she had drowned in her hotel bathtub, concluding that she died before her head went under water.

The report said this came just after it emerged that her daughter allegedly fell asleep in a bathtub in the same Beverly Hilton hotel just 24 hours before her mother died. It further claimed security was even called to unlock the door and to help the 18-year-old. According to the tabloid, there are fears that her daughter might be suicidal after she was rushed to hospital twice in the 24 hours following the discovery of her mother’s dead body in the bathtub.

As said earlier – these are just rumours and will continue be until autopsy report is made public and confirms or rejects them.

The death of Whitney did not only affect us her fans, but that it also touched her apparently abusive former husband, Bobby, who was in Nashville at the time of her death and his daughter’s trips to the hospital. Message of support came in flooding from all over the world.

The Daily Mail had compiled a list of message from many of those who worked with Whitney and those who are in the music industry, including: Dolly Parton, Elton John, Mariah Carey, Barbra Streisand,  Christina Aguilera, Lionel Richie, Wyclef Jean, and Paris Hilton. Even Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg thanked Whitney for “the amazing music you brought into the world”.

Yes, Whitney was not perfect, not a saint or an angel. And neither are we those who are now judging her for the life she lived, especially towards its end. She had her problems just like all of us and had her own ways of dealing with them – ways many of us might not approve of. Therefore she should be remembered for the great artist she was and a marvelous and beautiful voice she had – one that will left as a treasure to remember her with. Forever.

During her lifetime – unlike many of her critics – Whitney achieved the following, among others:

• Sold over 200 million albums worldwide
• Became the first female artist to debut an album at No1 on the Billboard 200 Albums Chart
• Guinness World Records cited her as the most awarded female artist of all time
• Won six Grammy Awards and was nominated twenty-six times
• She was the only artist to chart seven consecutive No1 Billboard Hot 100 hits, and
• Appeared in four films, including 2012′s Sparkle with Jordin Sparks.

And to her daughter – she needs to be strong, she is not alone. Your daddy, granny and two uncles from your mommy’s side are therefore ya.

As I said on my Facebook status following her death:

“To Whitney Houston’s critics – and those obituary writers – do not let her drug problem over-cloud her great work and achievements (she probably lost) and ONLY focus on her problems. Like many of ya’ll – she was a mother, and a sister, too, to many. To us her fans – she was and will continue to be a great artist and a role model too. Whitney was our female Michael Jackson. Oh, her music will now start flying off the shelves like never before. It’s become tendency of a late artist”.

I also mentioned that: 

“Born in 1963 – the same year as my mom, but only 4 months older than her – Whitney Houston lost her life, sadly, 6 years and 5 months after my mom. #SadStories, #SadMemories, #Formidablewomen”.

May the Soul of Whitney Houston rest in peace…

On 11 February 2012 South African President Jacob Zuma released a statement announcing that before the end of the year all South African bank notes would have the face of Mandela. The announcement was of course welcomed by all political parties and even ordinary South Africans. In his announcement, Zuma said Mandela was an “outstanding leader and patriot” among a “group of exceptional men and women in our country who demonstrated their unfailing love for this country and its people, even in the face of repression and possible death”. 

As the first democratically elected president at time Mandela led South Africans towards a free, non-racial, non-sexist, democratic and prosperous society, said Zuma. “It was a difficult period. It was an era of uncertainly for all South Africans. At the same time it was a period of great expectations. They wanted to see all their problems of centuries disappearing overnight. They wanted to see their political freedom translating to tangible socio-economical freedom without delay”. To do this, said Zuma, South Africa needed a president like Mandela to “lead a bruised nation like ours on a journey of forgiveness and reconciliation, and he acquitted himself exceptionally well, as he has always done, in every aspect of him life”.

And it was because of his exceptional leadership that the government honoured him by having South African bank notes bear his image.

The announcement also marked Mandela’s anniversary since his release from prison in the early 90s, after being arrested for 27 years. “With this humble gesture”, said Zuma, “we are expressing our deep gratitude as the South African people, to a life spent in service of the people of this country and in the cause of humanity worldwide”. Announced on the same day Mandela’s sister, Nokuthanda Mandela was buried – also the afternoon of which musician Whitney Houston lost her life – Zuma said the notes would “make us remember and appreciate our achievements in order to continue the journey towards a more prosperous society”.

Granted, Mandela is an exceptional leader – one I am yet to see in the current African National Congress’ crop of leaders, if not looters – or any other opposition political party for that matter.

Of course I understand that our government only wanted to show gratitude and honour to Mandela, but this is just too much.

And as I said on Facebook: “The next thing they will be changing South Africa to Madiba (mania). I think the notes we have are enough and there definitely is no need for the notes to be rebranded Madiba [Mandela’s clan name]. Yes, he’s admired by all [political parties and the world over] but this is just too much…”

That Mandela is loved by all was therefore no surprise that there was no opposition to the government’s announcement. I mean we have streets, roads, buildings, university, some squatter camps and or residential areas – all named after him. Worse, we now have International Mandela Day celebrated the world over. And it is expected – as did a friend of mine – that many would see my stance of his matter as uncalled for, saying my opposition to this gesture that of an “ungrateful” man.

My friend – who will remain anonymous unless he dictates otherwise – said Mandela was “very well deserving of every little thing that comes his way”. He asked if I was not tired of the animals we have on our notes – some of which [rhinos] are an endangered species.

He said this would not be the first time our notes had the image of a leader. Jan van Riebek apparently had his image all over the bank notes too. My friend asked why I did not complain of Van Riebek’s to which I could not have objected because I was not around at that time. “At the time when our notes had him (Van Riebek) I was not around and therefore cannot speak for those who were”.

Because of views such as mine, said my friend: “I think the notion of public consultation is abused and misinterpreted, bona hela gore jaanong lo bua eng”, adding that “You should have just woken up one [day] and found his [Mandela’s] face on your notes” as it happened during the Van Riebek era.

As I noted on Facebook:

It is not that we are not “ungrateful” as you claim. To what extent and how far (if your argument stands) do we really have to show our gratefulness of Mandela?  Wasn’t our renaming of the streets such a sign of ‘gratefullness’ of him? What of the university, the streets, the roads, the Mandela Day? Weren’t these enough?

I bet every town has Mandela Street or Driver. Others even have Mandela house. Worse, there are even places officially or unofficially named after him like Mandela squatters in Mamelodi East and you might as well find similar sections in many parts of the country.

So, will our ‘gratefulness’ of Mandela ever end somewhere, if it ever will, which seems very unlikely given this notes development? My friend believes that our gratitude to Mandela cannot be limited but I disagree because if that is the case and many would want to honour him to infinite then they should probably name their children after him because “that way you can cherish him privately (or even publicly) after he’s no more”.

The other reason why I think imaging Mandela on the bank notes is wrong is that – and this is an issue that I believe has been overlooked here: “It might be that (which is never going to happen anyway) is DA [Democratic Alliance] to become the ruling and leading party in a zillion year – one of its struggle and freedom fights (I wonder who, but there are a few) might have our notes named and branded after him/her. It is a possibility whose precedence now ruling party [ANC] is doing by branding our notes after Mandela”.

Surely we do not want to politicise our money as we’ve done with a lot of things in this country?

Or to twist Mandela’s words do we “consider it permissible to be egotistic and to brag” to the world about him as our “unique” struggle icon?

“A man claiming to be Malema’s father told Drum magazine Feb 2012: ‘Yes, I am Julius Malema’s father. He’s my son. But he does not care about me and when he passes me in the street in one of his big cars he looks at me as if I am a stranger’. What the Hell does he expect? Hell, he deserves that, Juju does not owe his (sic) a shit!”

I said this (provided the story was true) because I certainly did not understand what the old-man expected from Malema because he admitted to Drum that “he actually left when he [Juju] was seven and starting school” – something Juju apparently disputed in his biography An Inconvenient Youth. Malema is quoted in the book saying of his father: “I never had a father in my life. I had my mother and my grandmother. I didn’t know anything else, why do I need a father?”

I admit that everyone and anyone had and still has an opinion on old man’s silly ordeal but such opinions – in my opinion and from experience of living without my biological father who, strangely, as with many things, I stayed in the same village with, the man I used to pass on the streets and never greeted because I did not see the need to just as he did not seen any to greet me – are very limited. Or like I told a friend of mine who I grew up and went to school with: “If you had never grown up without your father you’d know”. This because my friend was taken by surprise to my Facebook comment, saying: “No Moses [my apartheid name, that is], just a greeting, at least to show some respect”. What respect? I wondered deep down in my heart at my friend.

I specifically believe (and excuse me Juju, no offence) people like Malema’s alleged father do not deserve any sympathy from anyone, including their abandoned wife and kid(s) – except their own family. I mean how do you respect a man who had, say, abandoned his wife/spouse and his child(ren) for whatever reason for many years and only to come back into their lives later?

For example, here is what I told my friend when he told me about greeting my bio father “to show some respect”:

“Wilfred here’s something you may not know: Until 2003, the year I completed my matric – despite my biological father living in the same village as I, despite my late mother and everyone in the village (urself included) telling me that he’s my father and that I am as intelligent as he, despite being a Counsellor for my village (God knows for how long) – I had never spoken to my father. This is because of him being my father and out of respect, I expected him to make the first move by coming at home and say his story will parents being there and not on the street.

For 17 years (my age at the time when I completed matric in 2003, and the first time I spoke to my bio father) I had never spoken to him nor had I made any attempts to talk to him. Neither had he made any attempts to come forward and claiming and confessing his being my father. Never. And like Julius does his father – we would pass one another on eh streets without saying ‘hello’. I was bitter then, but I have gone past that stage. Now I greet him and pass.

All these things depends Willy. To show that I have forgiven him, I do not have t build him a house and or give him money as Malema’s alleged father expects of him. No, I don’t have to. and maybe Juju has made peace with it, hence he does not want to see the old man.

For example, back then before I spoke to my bio father one-one-one and even after my mother told me he was my bio father, whenever people told me how intelligent I was like my father or how much I looked like him, I would say, and this is true: ‘My father does a long time ago after he was ran over by a train, i never knew him. So this guy you claim is my father, I do not know him’. I said that then because of anger. But I have moved on now.

In the report, Malema is quoted in his biography ‘An Inconvenient Youth’ as denying knowing or ever seeing his father: ‘I never had a father in my life. I had my mother and my grandmother. I didn’t know anything else, why do I need a father?” Malema said this (I can imagine and I know very well Willy) out of anger and frustration and now that he know his alleged biological father – so what? Build him a mansion like he did his mother?”

As I have warned from the start my analysis of negligent and irresponsible fathers who had abandon their children for years and only to suffer alone with their mothers yet expecting them to accept them back into their lives with open arms might “across as quite bitter, and accompanied with anger and if that is how you see it, so be it. It probably is. Or not”. Frankly, I am not the only one to have been abandoned by my biological father. There are plenty and I sure as hell know of a lot of people in a similar position.

For example, the same friend of mine who bizarrely suggested I greet my bio father “to show respect” said that: “Eish, but sometimes it’s hurting Moses [me, that is]. I know the pain of growing without your biological father, I was once in that situation, but now I’ve made peace with it. Even now I don’t know where he is, and I don’t care. Now it makes sense why Juju is angry”. There are, of course, those who are worse. Some of those who are now family men and women were abandoned by their fathers for more than 20 years. Worse, others have never known their fathers altogether.

What worried me was Malema’s alleged father to go missing after Malema told him as a child to buy him a bicycle but never came back, and now after thirty years or so he comes (God knows from where) and expects Juju to accept him back into his life without any anger or some sort of animosity. Sies! Without shame he claims Juju would pass him on the street “in one of his big cars… as if I am a stranger”. Of course he’s a stranger. Hell any father is a stranger to his kids if he had abandoned them for years and for reasons he would only know of.

And what is funny with fathers like these – those who abandon their kids and only to resurface later in their adult-life – is that once you’ve sort of “have them in your life” they have expectations of us their “abandoned kids”. These include, among others, financial demands and or expectations. They would expect to be sent money every now and then (but mine doesn’t) and if they are lucky to have cellphones – they would send callbacks the whole bloody day.

After tracking down her father who had abandoned her and her mother for 29 years, one particular woman said: “Mine also expects that warm attention and he’s asked me for cash twice between the beginning of November [2011] and now. I’m waiting for him to ask again and I’ll remind him he’s been awol for bloody 29 years so he’s got no right to keep asking me for cash”.  The woman went on to mention later that fathers like Malema’s alleged “can go and jump”. “Where was he when Juju battled growing up without him?” she asked.

“The same should go to all the fathers who abandoned their children, including mine”, she said. Many other women had come to Malema’s defence from his alleged father for caring less about him, saying: “H e wasn’t there for Malema and it’s not Malema’s fault that his father never participated in his life. He must deal with his quilt (sic)”.

A week before Drum reported on Malema’s alleged reckless and negligent father – a radio presenter, Stella Sebalo, took her frustration to Facebook regarding such fathers. Sebalo said that “I hate all men who don’t support their kids”. “Don’t tell me about circumstances. No circumstances should make you not maintain your sprongs(sic)”, she warned.

Sebalo said that fathers who failed to maintain and look after their children would one day turn to Khumbulekaya programme on SABC 1 to ask assistance in tracking down the whereabouts of their children who they might have abandoned many years ago. “Which child?” asked Sebalo. “Shame on all of you little boys who shy away from their responsibilities [of looking after and taking care of their children]”.

Her comments had received 57 responses at the time of writing, many of whom, mainly women, agreed with her sentiments that all fathers should take full responsibility of their children and love them while at it. But of course we know this is not what all fathers do. It is again worth mentioning that of course not all fathers are as irresponsible and negligent as those mentioned Sebalo, including my bio father.

Please note that throughout this piece I would refer to Samuel Manyapye as “alleged father” because Malema himself – whose African National Congress Disciplinary Committee findings against him and other members of the youth league were confirmed and upheld by the ruling party’s Appeals Committee on 4 February 2012 – had neither confirmed nor denied Manyapye’s claim as his father because he could not be reached by Drum for comment at the time to print (my emphasis).

In his interview with the magazine 17-year-old Manyapye, said:

• He “want(s) to reconcile with the boy – he’s my flesh and blood. It hurts. I would die a happy man after sitting down and having a talk with him. I can imagine how he feels and I don’t blame him. I deserted him and his mother when I went to work on a gold mine in Orkney, but he’s still my son”,
• Malema has sisters/brothers (Onica, 31; Butsi, 29; Rethabile, 24; Portia, 22, Karabo, 18; Angie, 14 and Dimakatso, 13) from his wife, Rahaba, who he had stayed with after deserting Juju’s mother (my emphasis),
• “Juju wants a better life for all but he forgets, conveniently maybe, that charity begins at home”,
• Malema “promised to come [and visit us], but he still hasn’t. Maybe he’s ashamed of me. People tell him his father is poor and collects scrap metals”,
• “Julius said I disappeared when he was tiny, but I actually left when he was seven and starting school. He [Juju] says I didn’t send money when I was away and that’s why he doesn’t look after me. I wasn’t a good father. However, if he comes here I’ll apologise for hurting him”,
• “I feel hurt when I go past the big houses he built for his grandmother. We live in a shack. When it rains, we don’t sleep; the roof leaks and we get drenched”,
•  “When I went to cast my vote in the general elections in 2009 I saw him. He just looked at me, turned and walked away”,
• “It is true. We have never met as a father and son. We avoid each other, passing one another on the street like strangers”,
• “I loved Mahlodi [Juju’s mother], but I never kept my promise to her. I said I would send her and our child money and promised to write to her. But I didn’t”,
• When juju started school he asked him to buy him a bicycle, but he instead turned his back on him and his mother and now “I don’t feature in his life. But I hope that one day he will forgive me”.

The alleged father had enough time to reconcile with Juju but he did not. He had enough time to patch things up with Malema long because he became famous until 4 February 2012 but he did not. For all these things he said above, he has no-one to blame but himself. And that just because Juju has built his granny a house and he now probably wants the same from him is just ridiculous and absurd.

Assuming the old-man is really Juju’s father as he claimed – he surely should know that by being someone’s father and seeing that person on the street does not give you the father a sudden access to him/her, that you all of a sudden claim fatherhood when you have not done that for many years (17 for me; about more than 30 for Juju; more than 29 for the woman mentioned before, and for others, more than 50 years) does not erase the fatherless years he/she had endured while being raised and sometimes abused by family members, including their grannies. It does not and it never did. Or at least it did not to me.

There is a very beautiful quote I love by Robert Kelly in one of his songs, Reality, that: “Any man can make a baby but it takes a real man to be a father”.

So whenever I come across irresponsibility and negligence on the part of some fathers close to me I make it my duty and tell them that: “the worse mistake as a father you can ever make in your life is to abandon your kids, to never look after them and thereby not loving them”. This is because – especially boys who’ve been abandoned as kids, well, some of them – these kids grow up being bitter and hating every male figure they come across in their lives. In a worse case scenario, others fall on the footsteps of their negligent and irresponsible fathers who had abandoned their mothers when they were still young.

Others, on the other hand and not wanting to be duplicates of their fathers – turn out to being good and responsible fathers to their children. In extreme cases, the latter even become quite overprotective of their children (boys and or girls), which can also be problematic because they do not want to be told one day that “you are [irresponsibly] just like you father”. It is therefore fathers like Samuel who people should not be surprised when some of us grow up to being angrier and bitter because we never had a “father figure” in our lives to show us how to kick a ball, something like that. Further, they should not confusing our “making peace with their negligence and irresponsibility” with forgiveness or with statements like “let us now put all of that behind us and move on” – something Samuel seems to expect of Malema. Which is unfair. No, you can’t, daddy!

When fathers like Samuel want to make peace with us their “abandoned” children they have to be honest and open, sincere and remorseful. And they have to mean every bloody word. That’s if we will ever get to see them before we depart from this world. They should further understand that there might be some resistance from us in that we may never want to see their sorry-ass faces nor hear anything from them. Never. In the end it would probably suite them well to seek forgiveness from their Creator and not us their kids. Where hostility and hatred prevail, they must just deal with and take it because it is of their own doing and no one else’s!

Now if you are a man who has abandoned his children/child and think one day they should accept your mistakes and forgive you for your own stupid irresponsibilities and negligence – daddy, go to hell!

Judge President of the Gauteng division of the High Court Bernard Ngoepe and Supreme Court of Appeal judge Robert Nugent told Parliament on my birthday (26 Jan), according to the report, that the country’s 200 sitting and retired judges were against draft regulation aimed at compelling them to disclose their assets and business interests and those of their children and spouses. This, sadly, despite the judges claiming to occupy occupations that gives them the rightful obligations as the custodians of the Constitution and to uphold it at all the time. The regulation is seen as the minister’s plan to allegedly reform the judiciary.

Senior official at the Department of Justice, JB Skhosana, told the newspaper at the time that the law compelling judges to declare their interests was only passed in 2010, meaning judge are not obliged at this stage to declare their business interests. Skhosana is quoted as saying: “The law [that] requires declaration was only passed in 2010 and the law requires regulations to be passed and this is the processed”.

Many have seem the regulation as the ANC’s impatience with the judiciary as it received what is seen as an attack by the ruling and country’s president Jacob Zuma and ANC general-secretary Gwede Mantashe. Their comments follow after some of the country’s court made judgments that were seen as anti-government by the ruling party and it alliance partners. Zuma is quoted saying in November last year that: “our view is that the executive, as elected officials, has the sole discretion to declare policies for [the] government” and that it (the executive) “must be allowed to conduct its administration and policy-making work as freely as it possibly can”.

Mantashe, on the other hand, is also quoted saying: “one of the things that is dangerous, the independence of the judiciary and the separation of powers, must never be translated into hostility, where one of those arms becomes hostile to the other”. “Unless this issue was addressed, it was going to cause instability. It undermined the other arms of government”, said Mantashe.

According the Times report the judges argued that to date there had not been any evidence to support the introduction of the strict regulation, claiming there has only been one sitting judge found to have carried out questionable financial practices (my emphasis). This refers to an incident in which controversial Western Cape Judge President John Hlophe was found by Judicial Service Commission to have apparently moonlighted for Oasis Asset Management and thereby receiving a R10000 a-month when he gave the company permission to sue fellow judge Siraj Desai.

Nugent claimed, according to the report, that attempts through regulation to have judges disclose their business interests were “irrational intrusion” of privacy. He said there was “no basis on which these regulations, as far as they apply to the family, will have any effect at all other than to be a major invasion of privacy”. Nugent threatened to even challenge the regulations in the Constitutional Court if they were adopted in its current form, according to The Times newspaper and according to minutes of that meeting in Parliament. “They are irrational; they serve no legitimate purpose and they go far beyond any legitimate purpose one might speculate on”, said Nugent.

The Times claimed Nugent said judges would only support a framework where only sitting judges declare their business interests, a register of which should be kept by the Chief Justice. He also planned to have public access to the register to be strictly limited to those who would show reasonable grounds to ask the Chief Justice for it. “If you feel that there should be disclosure by sitting judges, we are amenable to that, but respect the privacy of that judge”.

ANC MP Amos Matila accused the judges of opposing the regulation because some within the judiciary would not explain their wealth. Matila said “a lot of judges with small salary that they earn, as they retire they own huge farms, they own a lot of things, you don’t know where they got these things from. They can’t account”, according to The Times.

John Jeffery, another ANC MP, also supported the regulation, saying although the judges raised valid points – the regulations were meant to ensure a “judiciary that is beyond reproach”. But Ngoepe disagreed, saying the regulation, if successful, “we will not be able to have people appointed as acting judges if these regulations stand as they are, we are going to hamper the administration of justice”. “We don’t appoint acting judges as a favour to them; they get appointed as a favour to us; we need them, they don’t need us”.

Ngoepe said: “I need to run those courts. As it has happened in many instances, some of them just decline”. “Now when you are going to require them to make a disclosure of this nature, how many are you going to get”. He said according to minutes of that meeting in Parliament that if the regulation is passed, “then the administration of justice would be hampered”, adding that there were 22 acting posts available in his court and that in a three week period there could be 66 acting judges serving three weeks each, asking: “Would all of them have to disclose their interests?” I believe that the attitude of the judges – at least represented by Nugent and Ngoepe – is very disappointing and shocking.

In a speech made in that week at the University of Cape Town – appearing on Sunday Times newspaper on 29 January 2012 – former South African Chief Justice Arthur Chaskalson, quoting former Chief Justice of Australia, Justice Murray Gleeson said that: “As the guardian of the constitution, the high court from time to time disappoints the ambitions of legislators and governments. This is [art of our system of checks and balances. People who exercise political power, and claim to represent the will of the people, do not like being checked or balanced”.

It is therefore surprising (or maybe not) that the “guardians” Justice Chaskalson so defended in that week are the very same bunch that do not want to live up to those “checks and balances” that they have set – through their judgements – for other arms of government. It is further worry, for me as a layman, whether both Nugent and Ngoepe had read and analysed the former Chief Justice’s speech and whether it has/had any relevance to their “guardianship” of the Constitution (as always claimed).

As Mpumelelo Mkhabela wrote on Sowetan newspaper 30 Jan 2012: “It is for the same reason the president, ministers and members of parliament declare their interests … to avoid conflict between their public duties and their private interest” that judges as “guardians of the constitution” – just as Justice Chaskalson had noted in that week – should also declare all their business interests, their children’s and spouses’.

This is also because these “guardians” are/will be paid by taxpayers, a bunch of us they should be accountable to. More than anything else, these bunch of “guardians of the constitution” should declare all their interests because they are not and should not be before the law.

And as the Constitution they claim to guard clearly and eloquently states – “Everyone is equal before the law”. Now who the heck are they these judges claiming to the the constitution’s “guardians”?