Ensuring that African languages are offered in all schools is a critical step toward actively promoting it, the ANC said on Heritage Day.

“Apartheid and colonialism degraded and marginalised African languages. In this regard, we support President Cyril Ramaphosa when he says, ‘There is no language in this country that is superior to another … There is no language we can say belongs to the past and must stay there … Every single language spoken in this country has equal value and equal worth’,” party spokesperson Pule Mabe said in a statement.

“All South Africans must be encouraged by President Ramaphosa’s commitment that by the end of next year, we are aiming to ensure that all of South Africa’s 23 000 public schools offer an African language. This is a very progressive and revolutionary intervention.”

Heritage Day 2019 was observed under the theme “Celebrating South Africa’s literacy classics in the year of indigenous languages”, Mabe said.

“The United Nations General Assembly declared 2019 as the International Year of Indigenous Languages. South Africa’s Constitution guarantees freedom of linguistic, cultural and religious association. The ANC believes that this is critical for nation-building and social cohesion.”

Mabe said the party agreed with Ramaphosa that preserving SA’s heritage involved the “restoration of land to the landless”.

“As part of affirming our heritage and identity, we have a responsibility to urgently address the land question. The culture and history of South Africans remain rooted in the land. Stripping our people of their land was tantamount to stripping them of their identity and heritage. The ANC believes that people without land are people without identity and culture,” he said.

“Let us make a solemn commitment to promote and defend the rights of all South Africans as part of our struggle heritage. We must never rest nor tire until the rights of women, children, people with disabilities and every South African are protected and respected. Then and only then can we truly say that we are true to the democratic and human rights ideals that constitute part of our collective heritage.”

Cultural tolerance is critical to building a nation that is united in its diversity, Mabe said.

“All of us, despite our different cultures and traditions, remain one nation and have a duty to live together in peace and harmony in pursuit of a shared identity.

“The ANC calls on all South Africans to dig deep their collective heritage of struggle in order to defeat poverty, unemployment and inequality. Rising up everyday to conquer adversity and divisions is part of our proud heritage.”

– Compiled by Tammy Petersen

The Department of Correctional Services was found to have acted in a discriminatory manner and against the Constitution by not allowing Jade September to express herself as a trans woman in a men’s jail, the Western Cape High Court ruled on Monday.

“The respondents have failed in their duty to accommodate the applicant reasonably,” ruled Judge Chantal Fortuin. 

Fortuin ordered that all of Jade September’s confiscated underwear and jewellery be returned, that she be allowed to grow her hair long, and that she be addressed with a woman’s pronoun. 

The department also has to introduce gender sensitivity training for new and existing officials.

Fortuin said that just because September was incarcerated did not mean she lost her constitutionally enshrined rights. 

Fortuin received a standing ovation from the public gallery when she finished her judgment. 

The Sunday Times says that after three days of assessing allegations against Tiso Blackstar associate editor Ranjeni Munusamy, it withdrew her column in last weekend’s edition of the newspaper.  

The publication said that it learnt of the allegations last week when Munusamy was informed by the Zondo commission, looking into state capture, that she was to be implicated in testimony before it.

In a statement issued on Wednesday, Tiso Black Star said Munusamy had been placed on special leave while internal investigations were under way. 

On Thursday, News24 reported that Senior Hawks investigator Colonel Kobus Roelofse told the inquiry he had contacted Munusamy at least three times in 2014 about allegations regarding a Crime Intelligence secret slush fund.

“I did, in fact, contact Ms Munusamy. I informed her of what I found and asked her for her version and explanation,” he told the commission on his third day of testimony.  

“I spoke to her about three times and she said she would speak to her legal representative. I didn’t receive any communications from her,” he said.

Defence

Roelofse told the commission the day before that alleged payments made to Munusamy were discovered while investigating claims of corruption between Crime Intelligence officers and Atlantis Motors, which is based in Centurion. 

“We were able to uncover an amount of R143 621.78. It was paid from the Atlantis Motors business account to Wesbank vehicle finance account in the settlement agreement of the vehicle in the name of Ms Ranjeni Munusamy. As far as I know, she is a journalist,” he said. 

The amount was debited on July 30, 2008. 

He alleged that the money came from an account within the Atlantis motors account. 

However, he said his investigations did not establish why Munusamy received the money. 

Munusamy told News24 she would defend herself against the allegations.

“I deny the allegations made against me at the Zondo commission today. They are baseless. I am working with my lawyers to draft a response to the allegations for the commission, with whom I am co-operating fully,” she said.

The Tiso Blackstar statement said Munusamy joined the media house in 2017 after leaving Daily Maverick.

“The company was unaware of any investigation involving Munusamy. At the time she was engaged as an independent contractor.”

Daily Maverick also issued a statement saying it noted the allegations but added that she was not in journalism at the time. 

“Munusamy was an important part of the Daily Maverick team from April 2012, till July 2017. In those five years as Daily Maverick Associate Editor, she distinguished herself through her peerless understanding of the South African political scene and strong work ethic. We were sad to see her leave for Tiso Media/Sunday Times,” the statement read.

Daily Maverick further stated that it prescribes to the principle of “presumed innocent until proven guilty”.

“Accordingly, we look forward to Munusamy proving her innocence and welcoming her back soon into the journalism fold,” the statement concluded. 

– compiled by Vanessa Banton

The parliamentary subcommittee tasked with the review of the National Assembly rules has raised concern over the lack of clear definitions relating to the ground upon which a Chapter 9 official can be removed.

The subcommittee met on Friday “to consider proposed rules concerning a section 194 enquiry”, according to a statement released by Parliament.

Section 194 of the Constitution deals with the removal of the Public Protector, the Auditor-General or a member of a commission, established by Chapter 9 of the Constitution, from office.

According to the statement, the subcommittee agreed “it was imperative that the grounds be clearly defined to close the vacuum that exists”.

“While the Constitution and the National Assembly rules do set out a broad framework for Parliament to exercise its functions in terms of section 194, the subcommittee agreed that to ensure clarity and uniformity, specific rules are required as mandated by the rules committee.”

Proposals presented to the subcommittee in this regard provide four stages for a section 194 in Parliament.

This includes the initiation, the preliminary assessment of evidence, an inquiry by a committee and a decision by the House.

Currently, there are two ways for an MP to initiate the process – by a “substantive motion in the National Assembly” or by a written request to the speaker of Parliament.

Then, a decision on “whether prima facie evidence exists for the National Assembly to proceed with an inquiry that would be fact-based and rely on legal considerations”.

“Concerning the third stage, options being considered include, a special committee on section 194 processes, an ad hoc committee or a portfolio committee of the National Assembly.”

Then, a decision will be taken by the National Assembly following due process.

Following the meeting on Friday, the subcommittee referred the matters discussed to the administration to develop draft rules. It will consider this for the next meeting scheduled for October.

“In terms of the process map, when the subcommittee reaches an agreement on the guidelines, it will present its recommendations to the National Assembly rules committee, which in turn would submit its recommendations to a plenary sitting of the House for approval/adoption.”

Last month, the portfolio committee on justice and correctional services agreed to approach the rules committee to draft rules on the removal of heads of Chapter 9 institutions before considering the removal proceedings against Public Protector Busisiwe Mkhwebane, News24 reported.

DA chief whip John Steenhuisen laid a complaint against Mkhwebane with Parliament following a series of court findings against her, however, Parliament currently does not have clear rules to be followed.

Mkhwebane indicated at the time she would challenge this process.

President Cyril Ramaphosa disobeyed a court order when he appointed a commission of inquiry into sacked deputy national director of public prosecutions Nomgcobo Jiba, her legal counsel charged in the Western Cape High Court in Cape Town on Thursday.

Ramaphosa’s counsel countered this was not the case and Jiba’s presence at the National Prosecuting Authority (NPA) would harm the institution.

In April, Ramaphosa fired Jiba and senior prosecutor Lawrence Mrwebi after retired Constitutional Court Justice Yvonne Mokgoro recommended he sack them from the NPA, following an inquiry.

The inquiry found that neither of them were “fit and proper to hold their respective offices”, according to a statement from the Presidency.

The decision had to be referred to Parliament to determine whether Jiba and Mrwebi should be reinstated, not whether they should be fired.

Parliament has begun work on this process, but stalled it pending Jiba’s court application in two parts.

In Part A, she is asking the court to order Ramaphosa and the National Director of Public Prosecutions (NDPP) Shamila Batohi to reinstate her to the deputy national director of prosecutions position, “with all associated employment benefits with immediate effect”, News24 reported earlier.

She also wants the court to interdict or prohibit the president and the NDPP from filling the position until the finalisation of the review.

In Part B of the application, Jiba wants the court to order that Ramaphosa violated the Constitution and therefore acted unlawfully when he instituted an inquiry in terms of Section 12 of the NPA Act against her.

Judge Robert Henney heard arguments for Part A on Thursday.

Jiba’s case, as presented by advocate Muzi Sikhakhane, hinges on two points. The first is that Ramaphosa instituted the Mokgoro inquiry in contravention of a court order.

The order in question was handed down by Judge Selewe Mothle in the Gauteng High Court in Pretoria on December 21, 2017, and reads as follows: “The president is directed to institute disciplinary inquiries against Jiba and Mrwebi into their fitness to hold office in the National Prosecuting Authority and to suspend them pending the outcome of those inquiries. It is further ordered that the implementation of this specific order be suspended pending the outcome of their ultimate appeal of the GCB [General Council of the Bar of South Africa] judgment.”

Sikhakhane argued that Ramaphosa should not have established the Mokgoro inquiry before the appeal process in the GCB matter had been finalised. This only happened in June this year, while Ramaphosa appointed the inquiry in November 2018.

“However powerful a president is in a democracy, their actions can’t be that flagrant,” said Sikhakhane who also represented former president Jacob Zuma at the Zondo commission.

Henney wanted to know why Jiba had not interdicted the appointment of the Mokgoro inquiry. Sikhakhane said the legality of Ramaphosa’s decision did not depend on Jiba’s conduct.

The second point was that, according to Sikhakhane, Jiba should only have been fired after Parliament’s process had been finished.

A Deputy National Director of Public Prosecutions is removed in terms of Section 12(6) of the National Prosecuting Authority Act, which gives the president the power to “remove” the incumbent, and Parliament the power to “reinstate” the person. The president must refer the matter to Parliament to consider reinstatement – this is the process currently before Parliament, but stalled pending the court application.

Sikhakhane argued the decision to fire Jiba would only be complete once Parliament had completed its decision.

However, he added: “I know that is not what the text shows.”

“Are you saying an executive decision cannot be complete until Parliament says so?” Henney asked.

He also asked if it was not dangerous for the principle of the separation of powers.

Advocate Heidi Barnes, representing Ramaphosa, said Jiba’s application was “premature and unnecessary”.

She added the parliamentary process was a “complete and effective remedy” for Jiba, instead of the court application.

Barnes said for the president to interfere with the parliamentary process would be an “inappropriate interference” in the separation of powers, adding Section 12(6) of the NPA Act was as “clear as day” and that Jiba did not like what it says.

“It is clear and it is not constitutionally challenged. That argument is stillborn.

“It is entirely incorrect that the president can’t remove her if she is not scrapped from the advocates’ roll,” Barnes said.

In responding to Sikhakhane’s argument around the Mothle order, she said nothing in the order prohibited Ramaphosa from establishing the Mokgoro inquiry.

“There was no interdict, there was no prohibition on the president to institute the inquiry.”

Barnes said there was no “irreparable harm” for Jiba, but there would be harm to the administration of justice and the president’s duty to ensure the effective functioning of the NPA.

“The harm is obvious and serious,” she added.

Advocate Thabani Masuku, also on behalf of Jiba, said whether Jiba would cause harm at the NPA was “not a consideration at all”.

He admitted, to a question by Henney, that Jiba would not have brought the matter if she still received her salary and benefits.

Justice Minister Ronald Lamola, NPA head Shamila Batohi and National Assembly Speaker Thandi Modise are also respondents in the case. Their respective counsel made similar submissions to that of Barnes.

Henney has reserved judgment.