You Need

The ANC and President Jacob Zuma have taken a tough stance on Cosatu and the SA Communist Party (SACP), saying that it was pointless to sit in a meeting with them if they were not prepared to listen to Zuma anywhere else.

City Press has learnt that plans to hold an important alliance political council a fortnight ago ground to a halt after Zuma persuaded officials to instead seek a bilateral meeting to clear the air on ongoing leadership squabbles.

Zuma apparently wanted to know why the ANC’s alliance partners would listen to him at that meeting when Cosatu has banned him from speaking at its events and the SACP has publically called on him to step down.

On the back of Zuma’s protest, ANC secretary-general Gwede Mantashe met with alliance secretaries who accepted the decision to seek clarity.

“[Zuma] persuaded us to say, let us engage the alliance partners before we go there, rather than … walking away from each other in the political council.

“Let us engage them bilaterally and remove the obstacles.”

Mantashe said it was incorrect to suggest that Zuma had said he would not attend the political council.

“We want to understand their thinking. They have taken decisions, but they have not spoken to us,” Mantashe said.

However, insiders in Cosatu and the SACP this week dismissed the proposal for separate meetings as a fruitless exercise intended to “nurse Zuma’s feelings”.

A sign of disrespect

Both organisations this week publicly said the priority should be to reschedule the alliance council, which is now two weeks past due.

The ANC’s unilateral decision to cancel the meeting was also seen as a sign of disrespect, reigniting the long-held view that the ANC treated Cosatu and the SACP as junior partners in the alliance.

There was a sentiment that Zuma was “running scared” because he thought that he was “going to be ambushed” with Cosatu and the SACP in the same room.

Alliance insiders said that, instead of cancelling the political council, “which was in the first place not supposed to be the ANC’s decision to make”, Zuma should have stayed away if he was reluctant and sent the remainder of the top six officials.

They said that, even if the bilaterals were to take place, the ANC’s top six did not have the constitutional power to review any decisions taken by the party’s allies, including the call for Zuma to step down and banning him from attending their events.

“They called for bilaterals pandering to Zuma’s whims. Everyone must meet as mandated by their structures under the alliance political council banner to debate,” said an insider.

Cosatu owed its decision not to attend the bilateral meeting with the ANC to the fact that its general secretary, Bheki Ntshalintshali, was out of the country.

Its spokesperson, Sizwe Pamla, said that they would accept another invitation from the ANC should it propose another date.

“We will meet the ANC for a bilateral. They just have to give us a date [and] we will meet them because we want the alliance political council to take place.”

But City Press understands that there was no appetite from the majority of Cosatu’s national office bearers and that such a meeting would also be snubbed until the ANC convened the alliance political council.

In addition, the SACP took a decision at its central committee meeting to reject any attempt by the ANC to drag it into a bilateral.

The party, which, like Cosatu, has become a staunch critic of the ANC and particularly Zuma, is said to have written a letter giving notice to this effect.

The SACP said it did not need a bilateral as there had been many of those recently.

Cosatu has upped the ante, taking a resolution at its recent central committee that the alliance political council must be reconfigured and be given new powers, making it a strategic centre of power.

This would mean political decisions, deployments and the passing of ANC manifestos would be managed and approved by the alliance council.

The reasoning is that too much power is centralised in the ANC and in an individual (Zuma).

Cape Town – The 2017 Springboks are showing signs of plenty more, but the recapturing of their collective self-respect is the best feature of all in two Tests thus far.

Warren Whiteley’s urgent, passionate team put the three-match series against France to bed early as they opened up a 2-0 lead by way of a pleasingly multi-layered 37-15 triumph in Durban on Saturday.

Against a stronger visiting XV than started the first Test (a 37-14 outcome) in Pretoria, the score-line was virtually identical but the Bok performance actually better in several respects.

Not only did they take their own opportunities clinically and sometimes attractively, but they were put to a really searching, prolonged examination of their defensive mettle and ticked that box outstandingly on a day when they were forced into nearly three times as many tackles as their opponents.

There were standouts galore in the Springbok ranks – how often could you say that in miserable 2016? – but Siya Kolisi was official player-of-the-match and headed the Sport24 card compellingly as well.

Here’s how I rated the Boks out of 10 at Kings Park:

Andries Coetzee: 6

Few opportunities to be properly influential. Defensive alignment left bit to be desired as French struck with early try, but otherwise did basics competently enough.

Raymond Rhule: 7

Little came his way … so went looking for work, and pretty illuminatingly. One dangerous early snipe, and then got stuck into earnest defensive chores, including key intercept with Boks under huge pressure, and committed track-back tackle on flying French wing Virimi Vakatawa. 

Lionel Mapoe: 6.5

Once again, on his 12th Bok appearance, stopped just a bit short of announcing “here to stay”. One or two handling lapses, but also ran a couple of shrewd lines, and adhesive in the tackle department.

Jan Serfontein: 8

One of his best Bok games; former national captain and inside centre Jean de Villiers went so far as to brand him “sublime” at No 12. Heartening organisational presence, fiercely committed, and scorer of possibly SA’s most easy-on-the-eye try.

Courtnall Skosan: 6.5

French kept their game-plan stubbornly tight, so not much regular activity for anyone in wider channels. But one deft dart during second half, and usually well alert to danger on retreat.

Elton Jantjies: 7

Belatedly beginning to show he CAN play with polish and composure for a South African team that isn’t the Lions. Tenacious and calm at flyhalf, despite one missed touch from a penalty, kicked his goals to near-perfection and on hand to apply finishing touches for final Bok dot-down.

Ross Cronje: 7

Long way to go yet before he becomes a Fourie du Preez, but budding signs of the type of sensible game management overdue at scrumhalf from Boks. Some decent box kicks, crisp service at right times, and one try-saving last-ditch tackle.

Warren Whiteley: 7.5

When the whole team plays with such gusto, you have to assume at least some credit to the captaincy, yes? Individually, Whiteley shone in this one too, with lovely occasional running lines, vigorous kick chasing, lineout assuredness and energetic work over the ball at breakdowns.

Oupa Mohoje: Not rated

Fairly innocuous in the difficult Bok first few minutes before his game-ending injury in 13th, but just too little time for a justifiable rating, in fairness.  

Siya Kolisi: 9

Absolute humdinger. Arguably even superior to his famous 2013 debut against Scotland at Nelspruit, where he was a fifth-minute “supersub” for luckless Arno Botha. Classic opensider’s performance: eternally industrious at breakdown, marvellous handling, cunning opportunism, and some quite thrilling spells of linking and stretch-the-legs play.

Franco Mostert: 8

We always knew he was a tight-five workaholic for the Lions; underlined here in just his second Test start. Ran a tight lineout ship, hit rucks, and above all put in untiring defensive shift – best evidenced when French applied long periods of nail-biting goal-line pressure in second period. Somehow almost seems to lift a notch while others tire as the sands run out …

Eben Etzebeth: 7.5

Easily the more senior of this budding new lock firm, the big bruiser played his part in ensuring a commendable tackle count from the SA second-rowers. Has had more assertive days on the rampage and in lineouts, but that’s not saying he lacked endeavour in any way.

Frans Malherbe: 7

Good to see bits of “mongrel” from the tighthead not always demonstrated during Super Rugby for Stormers thus far. Robust presence at close quarters in general play, made an aggressive steal, and no special problems at the set-piece.

Malcolm Marx: 7.5

Just a little less barnstorming than at Loftus a week earlier, but another dynamic, muscular display from the emerging hooker. Fast losing that Super Rugby reputation for lineout-throw yips, too.  

Tendai Mtawarira: 6.5

Conceded two penalties (one for pulling scrum down, another for tackling man without ball) so must be marked down a tad. But also won a scrum penalty back, and celebrated animatedly to demonstrate how up for this Test he was, too.

Standout substitute:

Jean-Luc du Preez: 7

Energetic second-half stuff from Steven Kitshoff, Pieter-Steph du Toit and Coenie Oosthuizen as well, but the strapping Sharks blind-sider got on in the 13th minute and grabbed this extended chance with both hands. Fine leg drive, brawny hold-up tackles, broad enthusiasm … should become a starter imminently.

*Follow our chief writer on Twitter: @RobHouwing

NORRISTOWN – A US judge declared a mistrial on Saturday in Bill Cosby’s sexual assault case after the jury remained deadlocked on whether the fallen star was guilty of drugging and molesting a woman in 2004, but prosecutors vowed to seek a retrial.

It was a stunning development — and a momentary victory — for the 79-year-old pioneering black entertainer who had risked spending the rest of his life in prison if convicted of assaulting Andrea Constand at his Philadelphia mansion.

READ: Cosby told police he gave accuser pills before ‘petting’

Prosecutors announced immediately that they would retry the case, leading to the prospect of the now frail and disgraced comedian, once adored by millions as “America’s Dad”, could yet return to court.

For now, Cosby is free on bail.

About 60 women have publicly accused the Emmy-winning actor in recent years of being a serial sexual predator, alleging that he drugged and assaulted them over a span of 40 years across the United States.

But Constand’s allegations were the only criminal case brought against him as most of the alleged abuse happened too long ago to prosecute.

Her case was initially settled by a civil suit but re-opened in 2015 when prosecutors claimed that new evidence had come to light.

The sequestered seven-man, five-woman panel spent 52 hours deliberating in the Philadelphia suburb of Norristown, Pennsylvania — far longer than the amount of time dedicated to testimony and legal arguments.

They first informed Judge Steven O’Neill on Thursday that they were deadlocked, but were instructed to keep trying.

Less than 48 hours later, and working into the weekend on the 11th day of the trial, the panel informed the judge that they were still deadlocked on all three counts of indecent aggravated assault.

Overtly ambitious

Legal experts had always warned that the “he said, she said” nature of the case was always going to be difficult to prove in court, not least because it happened so long ago and due to a lack of physical evidence.

But the trial has irrevocably damaged his legacy as a towering figure in US popular culture, once adored for his seminal role as a lovable father and obstetrician on the hit TV series “The Cosby Show”.

The actor, who says he is now legally blind, hung his head or looked up to the sky as he stood outside the courthouse flanked by his defence lawyers and representatives, but made no public comment.

“We came here looking for an acquittal, but like that Rolling Stones song says, ‘You don’t always get what you want, sometimes you get what you need’,” defence lawyer Brian McMonagle told reporters.

Cosby’s wife, Camille, who attended just one day of the trial, issued a fierce statement on Saturday, read out by a representative.

She condemned the district attorney as “heinously and exploitatively ambitious”, the judge as “overtly arrogant”, lawyers for the accusers as “totally unethical” and “many” in the media as “blatantly vicious”.

“I am grateful to any of the jurors who tenaciously fought to review the evidence, which is the rightful way to make a sound decision,” her statement said.

Cosby declined to testify and the defence spent just minutes presenting their case, calling one witness and arguing that the evidence just did not exist to convict their client.

The prosecution spent five days, painstakingly trying to build its case, calling Constand to the stand, her mother and another woman who alleged that Cosby also drugged and assaulted her in Bel Air in 1996.

Humiliated

The slew of allegations has disgraced Cosby, who was lauded as a hero by African Americans and revered by whites for smashing through racial barriers over a five-decade career in entertainment.

Cosby attained his greatest fame for his role as Cliff Huxtable on “The Cosby Show” from 1984 to 1992.

One of the most popular television series in history, it propelled a man raised by a maid and a US Navy cook into a life of fame and wealth.

Constand was composed on the stand under a fierce barrage of cross-examination from the defence, which sought to portray their relationship as consensual, and Cosby’s accuser as a liar.

At the time director of women’s basketball at Temple University, where the actor sat on the board of trustees, she said the assault left her “humiliated” by someone she had thought of as a friend and mentor.

Cosby maintained in a 2005 deposition that he gave Constand the antihistamine Benadryl to relieve stress and had consensual relations. But he admitted obtaining sedatives with a view to having sex.

Gloria Allred, an attorney representing more than 30 Cosby accusers, welcomed the prosecutors’ decision to seek a retrial.

“It may not be over yet,” she told reporters.

“Sometimes a second jury will render a different outcome than the first jury and sometimes that’s conviction.”

AFP