Respect, Mr Mtawarira: A stepdown in style
There are few sadder sights than a punch-drunk, once great boxer effectively turning late-career palooka, lurching from one career-twilight pay cheque to another while lamentably never recapturing past glories.
Statement of Assets and Liabilities
The police in Mpumalanga are on the lookout for a number of suspects after six trucks were set alight in separate incidents on Monday.
One incident took place in Hendrina, four at Arnot and the sixth truck was reportedly set alight in Kriel.
According to police spokesperson Brigadier Leonard Hlathi, the three incidents took place on Monday night.
“At Hendrina, the complainant was reportedly asleep inside a parked truck when he was awoken by a noise of a breaking window of the truck,” Hlathi said.
“It is alleged that the complainant saw an unknown male suspect who ordered him to get out of the truck. He then reportedly saw other seven unknown male suspects who are suspected to be accomplices of the one that was next to him.”
The suspect that initially ordered the driver to get out of the truck allegedly took out a box of matches and set alight the blankets that were inside the truck.
The suspects then fled the scene in a White Toyota Corolla after noticing that police were on the way. Police gave chase to the suspects, but they have not been arrested yet.
READ | Violent truck attacks: Ministers convene urgent meeting to plot way forward
“Four other trucks were also reportedly burnt in Arnot. This was after one of the truck drivers was allegedly ordered to take out his belongings by an unknown male suspect who made accusations that the truck driver was among people that continued to work while others were on strike.
“Thereafter, the said driver saw other trucks that were in the same queue that he was in, burning. The reports suggest that the trucks were queuing to deliver coal at Arnot Power Station,” Hlathi said.
The estimated damage caused by the burning of these trucks amounts to approximately R5m. No arrest have been made as yet.
“At this stage police are investigating cases of malicious damage to property and request anyone with information that can lead to the arrest of the suspects involved in burning of the trucks.”
Members of the public can contact the police on 10111 or anonymously call Crime Stop on 08600 10111.
The Minister of Correctional Services and a manager at a Western Cape prison were found liable for damages to a social worker who was sexually assaulted in the manager’s office, the Western Cape High Court ruled on Tuesday.
“It is declared that the first and second defendants are jointly and severally liable for such damages as the plaintiff may prove she has suffered in consequence of the sexual assault upon her on January 9, 2009, at the Dwarsrivier Correctional Centre,” ruled Judge Judith Cloete.
In a lengthy judgment, Cloete went over the voluminous submissions on the prison’s organogram, as well as the minister’s submissions that even though the assault happened at the prison during working hours, the minister could not be responsible for a sexual assault.
ALSO READ: Police minister must pay R300 000 plus costs in wrongful arrest case – ConCourt
However, the minister was found vicariously responsible – which means he was responsible through the actions of the staffer. The staffer was also found liable.
The case turned on the social worker, identified only by her initials, being at work at the prison on the day in question when there was a fight between inmates at the end of a corridor when she was on her way to a therapeutic session with offenders.
The fight was dealt with by prison officials and she went on with her daily tasks.
Later, she went to the manager’s office to fetch a key that he had borrowed to get into a storeroom to fetch a spare modem because he was not getting any emails.
She wanted the key because she was responsible for the inventory office. In his office, he gave it back to her, and at his request, she helped him send an email. As she was leaving he asked her to sit, and she assumed it would be to discuss the altercation in the corridor earlier. He gave her a pamphlet about a restorative justice programme, and also asked after her daughter.
As she was leaving, he suddenly told her that he was having dreams about her. He then stood between her and the door and grabbed her, pinning her arms against her body, feeling her buttocks and pushing the lower part of his body against hers.
He kissed her and tried to put his tongue in her mouth.
She was shocked and managed to break away. Another colleague saw her and told her to report it.
Internal disciplinary hearing
She said she just wanted to get out of the building and also had to catch the staff bus home with the manager who had assaulted her.
She reported it on the Monday, was subsequently booked off work for weeks, and went to hospital due to the trauma caused by the incident.
The manager was found guilty in an internal disciplinary hearing, and on April 14, 2011, was found guilty on one count of sexual assault and sentenced to a fine of R600 or 12 days’ imprisonment.
Cloete noted that he had maintained his innocence and was granted leave to appeal, but did not file it.
The manager had claimed that the victim’s accusations were not true, and that the “overwhelmed” social worker, with a heavy case load, actually spoke to him often about her personal problems.
He said he also regularly prayed for the staff.
Cloete rejected the minister’s submissions that the manager was not doing something that he had been hired to do when he assaulted her, so could not be held liable.
There was also a lengthy argument over whether they had discussed work, as she said, and whether the manager was actually entitled to discuss the restorative justice programme.
Damages to be determined
She noted that case law evolved to take into account the creation of risk by an employer as a relevant consideration in determining the required link for liability.
She said case law found that when an employer placed an employee in a special position of trust, the employer bore the responsibility of ensuring that the employee was capable of trust.
Even though the manager was not the victim’s direct supervisor, the balance of power between the manager and the plaintiff was unequal.
Given the de facto closeness of their working relationship, the plaintiff was vulnerable to the wrongful exercise by the man of his authority over her, and the department at least created the opportunity for the man to abuse that power, even though technically he was not her direct supervisor.
It was submitted that the minister did not create the risk, and that even though the manager had discussed the restorative justice booklet with her, he was not supposed to because it was not really her line of work.
The victim disputed this, saying she would have had some input in the programme, so he was discussing work with her when the assault happened.
So therefore, the relationship between the two, was created by the minister.
The second part of the woman’s legal action will be for a court to determine the amount she should receive in damages.
It is not clear yet whether the department will lodge an appeal.
Monthly Release of Selected Data
Former president Jacob Zuma says the Pietermaritzburg High Court “mis-focused” on the gist of his permanent stay of prosecution application and was biased against him when it dismissed it.
Zuma said this in his notice, dated November 1, appealing a ruling by the court which dismissed his permanent stay of prosecution application.
On October 11, it found that he should be prosecuted for a corruption case that had been hanging over him for almost two decades.
Zuma, however, in a lengthy notice of 48 points, argued the ruling was biased and aimed at assisting the National Prosecuting Authority (NPA) in violating his constitutional rights.
READ: AS IT HAPPENED | Jacob Zuma stay of prosecution application dismissed
He said the incontrovertible evidence of constitutional violations by the NPA, which the court failed to accord to, included the fact that its unreasonable delay in charging him was prejudicial and he could not be held jointly liable for the “unreasonable delay”.
The notice also stated the court failed to accord appropriate weight to the NPA’s “unlawful” actions in naming Zuma as Schabir Shaik’s co-conspirator, adding the court’s choice of trial proxy against him and other due process violations constituted an abuse of process and a violation of his right to be presumed innocent.
“The court failed to have regard to the fact that the NPA was, for a period of over 15 years, always advised by its own experts of their unlawful conduct in the handling of Mr Zuma’s prosecution.”
Irrelevant factual considerations
Zuma, through his lawyers, also stated in the notice that the court had “erroneously” concerned itself with irrelevant factual considerations, ignoring those that were relevant in assessing whether the NPA’s conduct in the case justified a permanent stay of prosecution.
“This inadequate approach of the High Court has failed to rigorously engage with the grounds raised in the application.
“Instead, the judgment commences with a concession made in another hearing. This constitutes a misdirection by the High Court,” the papers read.
The papers also outline that the court “erred” in finding that Zuma had a shared responsibility with the NPA on the issues of the delays in the case.
He stated the court should have found that the NPA was the only institution with a constitutional obligation to ensure that his prosecution was brought within a reasonable time as enshrined in the country’s Constitution.
“The fact that Mr Zuma exercised his constitutional rights to challenge the conduct of the NPA in its exercise of prosecutorial discretion does not make him liable for the unreasonable delay. In any event, the factual history clearly demonstrates that the NPA was responsible for significant delays.”
Violated constitutional right to dignity
Zuma also turned to former NPA heads Bulelani Ngcuka and Vusi Pikoli.
He stated Ngcuka’s July 2003 announcement that the NPA’s strong case against him was not winnable.
Zuma said the court failed to adequately deal with whether Ngcuka’s pronouncement was prejudicial to his right to a fair trial and that he violated his constitutional right to human dignity.
“The High Court concerned itself with whether or not Mr Ngcuka’s decision not to prosecute Mr Zuma despite publicly naming him as a suspect against whom there was a prima facie case of criminal wrongdoing, was legally defensible.”
“The High Court failed to adequately address the prejudice caused by Mr Ngcuka’s conduct in condemning Mr Zuma as a criminal suspect against whom there is prima facie evidence of the nature that the courts would not convict.”
On Pikoli, Zuma said the High Court “erred” in finding that the conduct of the former head was lawful and permissible.
He argued the court should have found that the Constitution, NPA and prosecutorial policies and code of conduct do not permit Pikoli to report the NPA decision to prosecute to the president or minister of justice.
Zuma said there were more than reasonable prospects for his appeal to be successful and for another court to reach a different conclusion in his favour, granting him the permanent stay.
The ANC in Gauteng has welcomed the announcement that former Gauteng economic development MEC Dr Kgosientso Ramokgopa has been appointed to the Presidency.
He resigned from his position in October and will now head the Presidency’s investment and infrastructure office.
READ: UPDATE | Kgosientso Ramokgopa resigns from Gauteng cabinet, Makhura names successor
In October, the party said its provincial executive committee expressed its confidence in Ramokgopa, who was also the City of Tshwane’s former mayor, when it received news that he would soon be assuming new responsibilities.
“The investment and infrastructure office will also enable the Presidency to oversee the co-ordination between all structures dealing with infrastructure development, including the infrastructure fund, which is being incubated at the Development Bank of Southern Africa.
“This will allow the Presidency to monitor progress and address blockages in priority infrastructure projects and private sector projects identified through the investment conference,” the party said in a statement.
According to the Presidency, Ramokgopa would be responsible for “developing the country’s investment strategy, refining the institutional infrastructure for investment mobilisation, and establishing an investment intelligence capability”.
The Gauteng Department of Education has extended the admission placement period for the 2020 academic year to November 30.
It initially commenced on May 20, with parents receiving seven additional days to submit documents until July 22.
“During this period, 310 350 applications were made for grades 1 and 8. Of these, 27 563 applicants have not submitted any documents, while 282 787 submitted documents as required,” department spokesperson Steve Mabona said in a statement on Sunday.
As a result, the placement period commenced in September with an end date of October 31, however, the process is ongoing until all pupils are placed.
“During this period, the department remains committed to placing the 282 787 who submitted documents. To date, 234 290 applicants have been placed, while 43 797 are unplaced,” Mabona added.
The department noted a “concerning” figure of 4 700 applicants who have not accepted their offers.
Parents are reminded that they are only afforded a period of seven days to accept the offer.
In addition, approximately 411 schools are said to have reached capacity.
“Most of these schools have already reached their capacity to accommodate as many learners as possible. Applicants who cannot be accommodated at these schools are placed at schools with available space,” Mabona said.
According to the department, pupils were placed according to the following criteria:
Parents should therefore accept placement offered by the department as these cannot be changed,” Mabona said.
Parents are urged to log on to the system however, if they do not have access to the internet they may visit the nearest district office for assistance.
“Parents should rest assured that the department is obliged to place all learners, and as such all learners will be placed, however, it might not be at schools that they want. It must be noted that schools are making every effort to accommodate all in line with admissions regulations.
“We are aware that some of our officials were assaulted, equipment and buildings vandalised. We wish to call upon parents to be calm and not use violence at our offices,” said Gauteng Education MEC Panyaza Lesufi.
ALSO READ: If an official is attacked we will withdraw our services, Lesufi warns Gauteng parents