Online Reporter
TREVOR NCUBE’S recent open letter to President Cyril Ramaphosa has drawn attention for its polished language, but its arguments raise a number of questions. While the writing is clear and engaging, some of the positions presented appear selective and open to interpretation.
Trevor claims that President Ramaphosa met certain individuals as representatives of business, although he does not provide supporting evidence for this assertion. He then criticises the President for not engaging what he refers to as “organised business”. This raises an important question about how “organised business” is defined. If President Ramaphosa did meet those individuals, it could be argued that they were regarded as appropriate representatives for that engagement. In addition, being part of a delegation welcoming a visiting Head of State does not necessarily mean involvement in formal business discussions, even though Trevor suggests such a connection.
He also argues that Bill 3 “mutilates” the 2013 Constitution and claims that processes around it involve human rights abuses and widespread violence. However, these are serious allegations that are not accompanied by detailed evidence. While there may have been isolated incidents, it may be difficult to draw broader conclusions without clear and consistent proof of such a pattern.
Trevor’s view that the 2013 Constitution should remain unchanged because it was approved through a referendum is another area of debate. Constitutions are generally designed to evolve over time to respond to changing national circumstances. The key issue is whether any proposed amendments follow the procedures set out within the Constitution itself. In this case, it is argued that the processes being followed are within those legal provisions. This brings into question the necessity of a referendum if it is not explicitly required under the Constitution in this instance.
As someone familiar with legal and constitutional matters, Trevor is likely aware of the difference between election cycles and term limits. Bill 3 focuses on adjusting the election cycle rather than altering term limits. While changes to term limits typically require a referendum, adjustments to election timing may not. Treating these two issues as the same may lead to confusion in the public discussion.
There is also the matter of legal precedent. The Government has relied on the Max Mupungu ruling in advancing Bill 3. Using established legal precedent is a recognised part of legal practice, and in this context, it provides a basis for the approach taken. It could also be seen as a way of avoiding the costs and complexities associated with holding referendums where they are not deemed necessary.
Overall, Trevor’s letter raises issues that are important for public discussion, but some of its arguments would benefit from clearer evidence and further clarification. Constitutional matters require careful and balanced debate grounded in law and fact. As such, ongoing discussions around Bill 3 would be better served by focusing on detailed analysis and broad engagement in the national interest. — O Gutu
derick.khumalo