admin
Udo Froese Afrika: The other side of the Coin
Does South Africa’s Public Protector Have Her Own Political Agenda, Masquerading To Be Above Parliament And The President?
WHAT seems clear for the ruling African National Congress’ former military wing, Umkhonto we Sizwe and its Veterans’ Association (MKVA) is, as it is often said, “We know an enemy agent by his/her conduct.”
At the same time they admit, “It is difficult to prove that a spy is a spy. But, as former MK members, we know how foreign intelligence works. We have that expertise among us.”
The ANC is however, not alone with the experience and knowledge, who a foreign-linked agent is and who infiltrated the ruling party and its alliance partners.
Namibia’s Swapo Party, Angola’s MPLA, Mozambique’s Frelimo and Zimbabwe’s zanu-pf have similar experiences and knowledge. Those foreign-linked agents often occupy strategic key positions and some of them even pose as populists such as Ronnie Kasrils. They often stand accused of attempting to ferment factionalism, an age-old tactic to divide and destroy ruling parties that grew from popular liberation struggle movements.
In the case of South Africa it seems that pressure is continuously applied from many sides to discredit and possibly topple the head-of-state. That war of attrition has long been taken to the corporate mainstream media. The president’s private home, Nkandla, is in the focus of a host of political opposition parties, academics, the judiciary, the owners of the economy and their media.
The Public Protector’s head, advocate Thuli Madonsela, leading the investigations of the funds spent on Nkandla, has taken her report to the same public platform. She challenges the head-of-state, using the media. Advocate Madonsela and the corporate media have found president Zuma guilty of having taken R246million from the public coffers.
The Public Protector is a Chapter-9 Institution and therefore, answerable to parliament. According to the constitution of the land, all Chapter-9 Institutions, without exception, have to follow the rules as laid down by parliament. They have to submit their reports to parliament first. The media should not be approached and should certainly not be put above parliament.
Not so, advocate Madonsela seems to argue. She seems above the constitution of the country. In fact, she now seems to be more powerful than parliament and the president together. In other words, she wilfully ignores the existing rules. In that context, her approach could be viewed as unconstitutional and unprocedural.
After careful research, such action could be seen as treasonous. Is Thuli Madonsela aware that she could have committed high treason? As one constitutional lawyer put it, “Advocate Madonsela’s actions of attacking the head-of-state from the public platform of the media, has fallen directly into the ambit of high treason. It could be interpreted as an attempt to assist with overthrowing the head-of-state. There is no debate. She could be charged with high treason.”
By definition, high treason according to the Oxford dictionary is “the crime of betraying one’s country esp. by attempting to kill the sovereign, or overthrow the government.”
“Madonsela engaged in discrediting the president and parliament, taking a stand in the court of public opinion, judging and finding the president guilty”, a senior member of the ANC NEC and NWC explained under the condition of anonymity.
In addition to above, Madonsela was meant to have a meeting in Harare, Zimbabwe, last year to address the media there on her report on president Jacob Zuma’s private home, Nkandla. She was to attack Zuma from a public platform there coming in from outside South Africa. That would have caused division in the Sadc region.
However, President Mugabe would not have this. He did not allow Madonsela to use Zimbabwe as her platform to conduct her nefarious political agenda against South Africa’s head-of-state and commander-in-chief.
In addition to above, Zimbabwe’s authorities, as well as Kenya’s government know the Kenyan academic, professor Shedrack Gutto and his role as a political commentator and agitator well. He became a naturalised South African where he is now based as a constitutional law expert and director for the Centre for African Renaissance Studies at UNISA.
A reliable source explains, “In that capacity he acts as Madonsela’s political advisor. He has become a media celebrity, always commenting from every media platform on political and so-called constitutional matters. Gutto uses Madonsela to attack South Africa’s president.”
Many senior ANC NEC and NWC members angrily insist, “Gutto’s South African citizenship will have to be revoked with immediate effect. He should return to his home country (Kenya) and face the music for reasons of political agitation.”
“Forget reducing the attack from ministers and deputy ministers on Madonsela as a mere political attack. She is viewed to have committed high treason and should be charged for it.”
It has been clearly put to this writer, “South Africa’s public protector is not above the head-of-state and commander-in-chief. Neither are she and her chapter-9 institution above parliament. Madonsela should not be allowed to discredit the country’s souvereign structures.”
Udo W. Froese, non-institutionalised, independent political and socio-economic analyst and columnist, based in Johannesburg, South Africa. Twitter Handle: @theotherafrika. His blog is: theotherafrika.wordpress.com.
Online Reporter