 |
| August 04 2012 update. A Jacob Zuma who, when he got "politicized" at about age-15 had got neither basic education nor political ABC, is even as of this 2012 following moribund ideas of politically-naive-and -naughy Mr Nelson Mandela's ideas which when logically-distilled, are reducible to racial superiority of Mandela's thembu-tribe-fellow-Xhosa-speakers of the Eastern Cape hence in Zuma's governmnent Mandela Super-Sycophant-Jacob-Zuma dishes out most senior government posts to Mandela relatives (e.g . on one hand, temba templeton matanzima and, on the other hand, through-prostitution-made-brigadier-general-made-Zini-Bobelo and both cousins of Zuma's demigod Mr Nelson Mandela (if not Zuma's Robben-Island-Prison-Fellow-Inmate who has now, irrespective of ability of even paragraph capabilities in constructing one grammatically-correct grammar, has ever since 1994 succeeded to put his relatives in immovable government positions where Jacob Zuma in his little educations has no choice but but to buttress them!) |
CONTEXTUAL DEFINITIONS:
PORNOCRAT 1.“A WOMAN COMMANDING OFFICER WHO GAINED RANK THROUGH SEXUAL OR SIMILARLY-EMOTIONAL LIAISON WITH SENIOR(S) RATHER THAN THROUGH PLAIN MERIT”
2. "A believer that such practice is too common in South Africa and should therefore be viewed as an accepted norm never to be linked to corruption."
PROSTITUTOR: 1.“A MALE SENIOR OFFICER WHO HAS CAUSED AT LEAST ONE WOMAN OFFICER TO BE PROMOTED THROUGH HIS FAVOURS VIA SEX OR SIMILAR EMOTIONAL ATTACHMENT TO HIM”
2. "A believer that such practice is too common in South Africa and should therefore be viewed as an accepted norm never to be linked to corruption."
PREAMBLE
BONE OF CONTENTION: EXPLOITS OF MANDELA-MATANZIMA-COUSIN 2001-COLLEGE-PROSTITUTE BRIGADIER GENERAL BOBELO-ZINI AND PHIRI’S BLOWING OF THE WHISTLE 06 FEBRUARY 2001 AGAINST PROSTITUTION IN THE ARMY OF THEN PRESIDENT THABO MVUYELWA MBEKI)
ARCH-CONSTRUCTOR OF CHARGES: ATTEMPTED “PROSTITUTOR” ARMY INSPECTOR GENERAL EX-EASTERN CAPE ENOCK MUISENG MASHOALA, MAJOR GENERAL, AND HE WHO “WAS DEMANDING SEX AND ON SOUR GRAPES ENDED UP VICTIMISING STAFF SERGEANT MABEL MBATHA” ON OUR PREVIOUS POST. MASHOALA’S OFFICE NOT ONLY REJECTED PHIRI’S 06-FEBRUARY-2001 REPORT TO HIS OFFICE ABOUT AMONG OTHER THINGS SEX-FOR-PROMOTION BETWEEN 2001 PROSTITUTOR RAYMOND LENTSOE COLONEL AND 2001-PROSTITUTE BOBELO-ZINI, BUT MASHOALA’S OFFICE ALSO LIAISED WITH ANTI-PHIRI STATE WITNESS EDDIE DROST TO GIVE THE LATTER A GO-AHEAD WITH THE ANTI-PHIRI TRUMPED-UP CHARGES OF 09 MARCH 2001, THAT LINDIWE SISULU IS FORCING PHIRI TO ANSWER TO IN 2011 DESPITE SISULU’S FULL KNOWLEDGE ON HOW THABO MBEKI WAS ABUSING COURTS (EXAMPLE PRESIDENT ZUMA’S UNFAIR LEGAL TROUBLES IN THE PAST) TO FOSTER AND PROMOTE TRIBALISM AND REGIONALISM IN FAVOUR OF THE EASTERN CAPE WHERE LINDIWE SISULU’S FATHER AND FRIEND
NELSON MANDELA WERE BORN.
THE PROSECUTOR: A SMOKE-FILLED-ROOM CHARACTER Ms KAREN BOSHOFF WHO IS NOT ONLY UNDER THE COMMAND OF BOTH “PROSTITUTOR” DUNSTAN SMART REAR ADMIRAL OR HIS BLUE-EYED BOY SEGOMOTSO BAILEY MMONO MAJOR GENERAL, BUT HAS GONE A MILE EXTRA TO REMOVE FROM THE OFFICE OF ARCH-CONSTRUCTOR OF CHARGES MASHOALA THE ONE OTHER DOCUMENT CONFIRMING THE PROSTITUTION IN 2001 BETWEEN MANDELA/MATANZIMA COUSIN BOBELO-ZINI- AND LENTSOE, A DOCUMENT AND SIMILAR ONES JOINTLY WRITTEN BY STUDENTS COMPLAINING ABOUT THE LIFE ABOVE THE LAW LED BY MILITARY OFFICERS BORN IN NELSON MANDELA’S EASTERN CAPE PROVINCE OR RELATED to HIM, WAS AS PER A SWORN AFFIDAVIT FROM MASHOALA'S OFFICE [TAKEN AND CAUSED TO DISAPPEAR BY NO ONE ELSE EXCEPT PROSECUTOR Ms KAREN BOSHOFF].
THE JUDGE: A PORNOCRAT OR SOMEONE UNDER THE COMMAND OF BOTH “PORNOCRAT” ANNEMARIE MYBURGH {BRIGADIER GENERAL} AND “PROSTITUTOR” DUNSTAN SMART REAR ADMIRAL OR HIS BLUE-EYED BOY SEGOMOTSO BAILEY MMONO {MAJOR GENERAL})
ANTI-PHIRI STATE WITNESSES: PROSTITUTORS, THE COLLEGE INSTRUCTOR OR TWO WHO, LIKE RAYMOND LENTSOE, WERE HAVING ILLICIT AND CORRUPT SEXUAL RELATIONS WITH WOMEN LIKE MANDELA-MATANZIMA COUSIN BOBELO-ZINI 2001 IN ORDER TO CORRUPTLY PROMOTE THEIR COLLEGE STATUS OR RANK. STATE-WITNESS JOHAN HENDRIK BEYERS KLEYNHANS HIMSELF WAS “HAVING A 2001 EXTRA-MARITAL AFFAIR ON COLLEGE WITH LIEUTENANT COLONEL RENTIA DEINER” WHICH ROBBED HIM OF THE MORAL HIGH-GROUND TO CHARGE RAYMOND LENTSOE FOR A CORRUPTING SEX ENGAGEMENT WITH MANDELA/MATANZIMA COUSIN, BOBELO-ZINI).
ACCUSED: WHISTLEBLOWER ON SISULU’S SEX-FOR-PROMOTIONED SOUTH AFRICAN NATIONAL DEFENCE FORCE: GOODMAN MANYANYA PHIRI, LIEUTENANT COLONEL.
LINDIWE NONCEBA SISULU’S OWN LITTLE DIRTY TRICKS AND ILLEGAL TACTICS: THE UNLAWFUL REFUSAL TO PAY TO THIS DAY +-R300 000 DUE TO PHIRI’S HIGH COURT LAWYERS AND THEREBY UNLAWFULLY PREVENTING PHIRI FROM LAUNCHING AN APPEAL AGAINST PRO-SISULU’S JUDGE-SOUTHWOOD-MISGUIDED-IF-NOT-NIEU-COLONIALIST-JUDGEMENT AT THE EXPENSE OF INNOCENT PHIRI.
THREE CONCLUSIONS
Conclusion One: Seeing that the entire legal system of ethnic-Eastern-Cape-Lindiwe-Sisulu is tainted with the corruption of sex-for-promotion whereas PHIRI blew the whistle on the sex-for-promotion by Mandela/Matanzima Cousin Bobelo-Zini Brigadier General, PHIRI can never have a fair trial in Sisulu’s Military Courts.
Conclusion Two: Seeing that the initial bone of contention back in 2001 was an Eastern-Cape-born woman officer who was selling her body for promotion, yet all three or more judges that have sat in Sisulu’s military courts so far have been lily-white ethnic Europeans, all three or more prosecutors in the case have similarly been lily-white ethnic Europeans, and all state witnesses have been predominantly lily-white ethnic Europeans with none of them from the Eastern Cape of Nelson Mandela, the assumption that people from the Eastern Cape are more intelligent that other black people of the Republic of South Africa or the rest of the Continent and thereby “deserve the right to occupy all the strategic positions in South Africa particularly in the military” is a British nieu-Colonial myth. These tribal characters on ivory towers pro-Mandela-tribe are just stooges of a nieu-colonialist rule over South Africa; AND, AS ALL OTHER STOOGES ANYWHERE IN THE WORLD, THEY ARE TOTALLY INCAPABLE OF FIGHTING A LEGAL BATTLE, OR ANY OTHER BATTLE FOR THAT MATTER, DEMANDING OF BRAINS AS IS THE BATTLE AGAINST PHIRI, HENCE THE WHITE MASTERS OF POST-1994 SOUTH AFRICA'S "FREEDOM" COME OUT IN THEIR GREAT NUMBERS AND THEIR TRUE COLOURS TO DEFEND THEIR BLACK EASTERN-CAPE STOOGES AND HOUSE-SLAVES CLUTCHING ON THE FORMER'S COATTAILS!
Conclusion Three: Since the loading of the dice by means of filling a court process with one racial group, particularly members of the tiny-minority white group who formerly colonized and oppressed black people in South Africa is against all policies of both the government of the Republic of South Africa and the ruling party (the great African National Congress of Pixley Seme), if Mr Zuma allows Ms Lindiwe Nonceba Sisulu, like a tail wagging the dog, to continue with the military kangaroo court against Phiri as directed by Sisulu’s fellow-tribesman-at-High-Court B.R. Southwood the Briton, such allowance will mark the beginning of a painful end to the rule of Jacob Gedleyihlekisa Zuma... a Grand Adios EVEN BEFORE THE ANC’S CENTENARY IN 2012!
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[Five days ago], Woman A was found assaulted and raped at a school in Malmesbury. The young lady was found lying naked on the sports field of the Schoonspruit Secondary School by a passerby... She had severe head and facial trauma as if she was beaten with a blunt object. It was also confirmed that she was raped]. The attack happened in the early hours of Saturday [11 December 2010] morning and she was found a few hours later. The woman, in her twenties, was taken to Tygerberg Hospital and was unable to speak....[she may be brain-damaged from the attack],...Anyone with information should call...Crime Stop on [+278600 10111].
Woman B is a bright and prideful soldier who sits as a junior non-commissioned officer of Lindiwe Nonceba Sisulu’s South African National Defence Force unpromoted for the past 10 years while her junior and far more incompetent female colleagues have since surpassed her by rank to become senior officers. The difference between Woman B and them being the acceptance or otherwise to have extramarital sexual intercourse with their over-sexed male General Officer Commanding who usually is a white South African of ethnic-British stock or a black South African of the same Thembu tribe wherein also belongs our icon, Nelson Rolihlahla Mandela, to say nothing of the other (British) ethnic half of Lindiwe Sisulu.
What is the difference between the plight of Woman A from the plight of Woman B in South Africa? Also, how does Perpetrator A differ, if at all, from Perpetrator B?
In this post, Blogger Goodman Manyanya Phiri argues very anecdotally, if from his personal bitter experiences for standing alongside his SANDF sisters who dared say “no to becoming a male general’s sex-toy”, that both crimes are equally heinous, but Perpetrator B is even worse than Perpetrator A not only because the exploits of Perpetrator B are under Lindiwe Nonceba Sisulu’s watch committed with impunity by military officers who are supposed to be any nation’s most exemplary citizens, but by virtue of the fact that since too many women in Lindiwe Nonceba Sisulu’s South African National Defence Force do yield to the coercion to sex from their male generals and colonels, South Africa has essentially descended into a PORNOCRACY rather than the DEMOCRACY the world has come to know it by, all with the approbation rather than opprobrium of Lindiwe Nonceba Sisulu who in her capacity as Minister of Defence and Veterans’ Affairs, instead of supporting whistleblower Lieutenant Colonel Goodman Manyanya Phiri, would rather pursue 10-year-long vexatious charges for his blowing of the whistle on Mandela/Matanzima Cousin Bobelo-Zini: just because the perpetrators and sex-pests are, as would naturally happen in a xenophobic country like South Africa, her own double-tribe of ethnic-British on one hand and, on the other, Thembu as shared with “our icon” Nelson Rolihlahla Mandela.
The question now is: Why on earth is Your Excellency Zuma still keeping Sisulu as cabinet minister? Blogger hopes it is for the purpose of making her mend her ways. And Blogger wishes her well in that process more so as the President and SANDF Commander in Chief (Power be to him only), has not on this reconciliation days called for discipline from every soldier (the demanding of sex from juniors obviously being not part of it) but His Excellency has also given Lindiwe Sisulu a soft landing for every hiccup she faces on her rise to proper, tribally-disinterested military standards: there is now a fellow Thembu (Mr Themba Templeton Matanzima) appointed by the Presidnet as an acting Chief of SANDF as current Chief, Mr Godfrey Ngwenya, is as of several days ago now, summarily redeployed to an ambassadorship to Angola.
Mr President Zuma
1. A fortuitous fortnight-and-two-days-campaign called it quits last weekend for the Mandela and Sisulu families, two of the biggest architects of nieu-colonial South Africa, to make a clean break with their tolerance (and even abetment) of sexual harassment against hapless women of all walks of life in South Africa.
2. Another 16 days of Activism (“No violence, emotional or physical”) against the abuse of women and children has as of tomorrow week come and gone with a dismal failure to destroy the most strategically-placed stereotypes towards South African women and children as sex objects for the politically powerful, or to serve as punch-bags-cum-sex-pots for their politically-weaker majority of husbands and neighbours.
a. I mean, what working woman in South Africa will not know that the country’s archetypical husband understandably views it as his God-given right to rummage through his wife’s cellphone contents clearly because of the sexual harassment and coercion the women are normally subjected to by at least 90% of their male supervisors in government and their military sector in particular?
3. A fortuitous fortnight-and-two-days-campaign has come and gone for South African Icon and Former President His Excellency Nelson Rolihlahla Mandela, he who invited the British Military Training and Advisory into South Africa to effectively Thembufy the Department of Defence, particularly the its SANDF component, with his relatives (the Matanzimas and their own extended families), his fellow tribesmen of Thembu stock and other blacks born in the Eastern Cape of environs of Transkei, if not South African of British stock some of whom further mistook their free ride to power for a licence into any woman’s body wearing the uniform of the SANDF, thus starting a form of pornocracy in command of the SANDF.
4. A fortuitous fortnight-and-two-days-campaign has come and gone for Lindiwe Nonceba Sisulu MP, she who had all the chance to be crowned princess of all South Africans if he’d used the chance given by Your Excellency to lead the Department of Defence to rid it of its Thembu-cum-ethnic-British tribocracy.
5. Imagine, Your Excellency Zuma ,the effect it would have on their entire nation if Sisulu on Friday (December 10, 2010) or on any other of the previous 15 Campaign days had announced:
“I have called for charges to be laid against General Thembuman X and General Englishman X for sexually harassing Female Soldier X”?
6. Imagine, Your Excellency Zuma the impact an announcement by Mandela would have had if he’d said:
“The abuse of women and children has gone too far in this nation, and I want to admit that in my personal conduct as a man who fathered maybe one abandoned kid too many I’ve been a bad example. I also admit that my long-admitted Anglophilia has added to the pain of South Africans by bedevilling the SANDF exactly the way Blogger Phiri has adumbrated. This must come to a stop, starting with the army, starting today”.
7. Of course, neither of the two “most important families” for our freedom have bothered about such things, save maybe to bother about Charles Taylor’s undeclared blood diamonds!
8. I daresay, Your Excellency Zuma, His Excellency Mandela and protégé Sisulu have lost that opportunity forever because, by the 25th of November 2011, the beginning of the next 16 days’s campaign, their decrepit minds, creatures of arrogance made in colonial Britain, will be totally removed from the issues of women and children which in any case time itself has proven is an arena of their lip service; they will not be concerned how the campaign of 16 Days of Activism against abuse of women and children should be panning out a year hence.
9. Rather, and I bet Your Excellency my last dime, they will both of them families be concerned:
a. “What super-role is given the Thembu Mandela and the Thembu-British Sisulu families next month January 8 2012 as the ‘ANC our two families have practically reformed when founder Seme wanted to destroy it, finishes 100 years’”. The situation is so dire, I surmise, depending on how strong this British-sponsored drive to keep both ANC and state power a private property of Eastern-Cape individuals, Your Excellency Zuma will be very lucky to be still alive by 11 December 2011, even luckier to be still President of both the Republic of South Africa and the President of the African National Congress formed indisputably by your fellow-KwaZulu-Natal giant, Pixley Seme, financially assisted by Blogger’s maternal First Cousin, Queenmother Labotsibeni of the venerable Kingdom of Swaziland.
10. Mandela’s silence on the suffering of women and children on this land is not surprising if one considers his similar silence when Zambians, Mozambicans and Africans all over were butchered and their houses torched in xenophobic attacks. This is so because Mandela does not know or does not care about the historical fact that when the founder of the ANC Seme had his Johannesburg dream to form the ANC (which dream he shared with his fellow advocates), it was a dream to have all Africans united under his ANC. That is why leaders of countries other than South Africa (e.g. Labotsibeni mentioned above) got involved as founder-members (rather than the criminal misnomer “co-founders” spread by colonial British propaganda and their house-slaves in South Africa). This is also the reason why “God Save Africa” (bar the rainbow-nation-rendition-where-the- red-orange-yellow-green-blue-indigo-violet-rainbow-bears-no-colour-black-for-black-country-South-Africa) is sung word-for-word-melody-for-melody as the national anthem of the United Republic of Tanzania, these latter unifying African efforts being the joint venture of Julius Nyerere of Tanzania and South African exiled James Jobe Hadebe whom, as stated in my previous posts, Mandelocrats joined him later in exile to ignobly destroy with propaganda that he went to the grave without being give a chance to refute.
11. The language of the statistics. Statistically speaking, the sixteen days of activism pro-women and children in South Africa has seen at least one male ethnic-Thembu or ethnic-British senior officer of the Lindiwe Sisulu’s SANDF making aggressive penile overtures o n one female subordinate or to the wife (civilian or uniformed) of his subordinate. The woman will say bugger off, General but then a series of ploys will be initiated to see her getting little or no promotion till the Second Coming of Christ. If successful, the overtures will usually result in one more fistula in the widespread pornocracy in Sisulu’s armed forces... the woman is set for promotion if she’s the, yet on the obverse side of this mandelocratic tribocratic exploit of leading women or wives of young leaders in South Africa, a more drastic and often violent if not fatal chain reaction is torrentially unleashed from that just one hard-on from Sisulu’s general: a torrent of emotional, physical or just simply fatal assault from the jealous husband.
12. If these anti-women, anti-democracy and anti-family activities taking place in Sisulu’s SANDF, and perpetrated by majors, colonels and generals do not have a domino effect on the entire society of the Republic of South Africa, then I must get myself off this blog and register myself to the nearest psychiatric institution having suffered (on this particular post), from a new disease called “massive loss of reason”. (a female full colonel concerned about the silent plight of gay soldiers in Sisulu’s SANDF sent me the following note last week: “Phiri, don’t you forget the dastardly exploits of one too many rear-admirals”)
13. Yet none of these sex pests have in the past 16 days gone on the media as having been prosecuted by Lindiwe Sisulu, quite understandably so, if you consider that she herself is of both British and Thembu stock. And if one admiral or general non-Thembu and non-British-ethnicity has in this recent past been found to be abusing his power a-la penis, Sisulu has boxed herself in a corner of blackmail: “why pick on me, Ma’am when your fellow-tribesman so-and-so has been doing this for the past several years without impunity”
14.
Whence this Sisuluist rule of the SANDF by tribocracy-cum-pornocracy.
15. Maybe a bit too simplistically-put, it all started around 1994, when Mandela (true to Thembu flunkeyism towards colonial Britain since King Vusani in the 19th century,) spurned the Chinese, the Namibians, the Russians, the Zimbabweans, the Cubans, the Libyans, the Ugandans and several other national armed forces of the world who had worked intimately with Mandela’s politically own Umkhonto WeSizwe and its sister-organization, the Azanian People’s Liberation Army to facilitate the integration with the former South African Defence Force whereas they complemented their pro-MK experience with a healthy respect for the SADF with whom the Russians, the Zimbabweans and the Cubans, to name but a few, had crossed several swords in the murky field of military intelligence, if not in the battles for Namibia, Angola etc. Mandela went to his personal masters, former-colonial-Britain and said “Help me build a model army for Africa”. And the British responded by giving him an outfit called the British Military Advisory and Training Team for that purpose. It was led by a guy called Dick Trigger; and the pun is well-intended!
Casanova Impressions Left by Mandela’s ethnic-British Adjutant-General Smart.
16. An adjutant general of a national defence force is a very important post, it is also so strategic that the President of the country takes it upon himself solely to find and appoint the right individual. Reader of this blog can already imagine as to what ethnicity, in an SANDF already Thembu-tribocratized by Nelson Mandela with the assistance of Britain, at the cusp of the Mandela-Mbeki administrations. An ethnic British with a pretty questionable track record was appointed by the name of Charles Hudson Dunstan Smart.
17. For those unfamiliar with the elements of state power is the equivalent of national prosecutor so that if any country succumbs to a military coup d’état, that adjutant general will at least be “national prosecutor” choosing who (“enemies”) in the nation to prosecute and who (fellow-putchists) to let off the hook despite heinous crimes in the course of that coup. In the case of Blogger, the Smart under discussion is the one who, working underground and unlawfully with the likes of Mashoala, Eddie Drost, pseudo-prosecutor Boshoff, pseudo-witnesses Lentsoe and Kleynhans, and finally pseudo-director of South Africa’s Military judges Anne-Marie Myburgh to charge Phiri for exposing sex for promotion by Mandela/Matanzima cousin Bobelo motivated by the fact that Smart was fearing that Phiri could as well end up exposing Smart’s own probable campaign of pornocratizing the SANDF with the reportedly unethical and unlawful Brigadier-promotion he facilitated to less-deserving Colonel Anne-Marie Myburgh, hence “pseudo-director of judges”. Thus, Phiri’s pseudo-prosecutor Boshoff went to Mashoala’s office to destroy with the collusion of the latter, to get and to cause to disappear, among other documents vital to the military court trial of Phiri, a joint statement written by white fellow-students of Phiri highlighting the pornocracy involving the mutual cousin of Mandela and Matanzima back in 2001. This sabotaged piece of evidence to show Phiri’s innocence, is part and parcel of the Mashoala report that wayward Judge Southwood (another child of Britain), said he is satisfied“[Phiri has already got it]” when clearly Blogger has it not.
18. On this post, Mr President, I highlight the case of this one Mrs Anne-Marie Myburgh, a brigadier general and a legal major-domo who has detrimentally attended practically all military-court appearances of Goodman Manyanya Phiri for the purpose of closely coaching the judges in order to make findings adverse to Phiri. For if indeed, Myburgh is a pornocrat as suggested by one too many soldiers who worked close with her (I stress again, a mere suggestion, and allegation), what chance, my President Zuma Your Excellency, is Phiri going to have for a fair trial at that military court handled by judges acting under the command of a suggested pornocrat against a Phiri who has been in any case charged because of exposing a then-burgeoning pornocrat Bobelo-Zini related to Lieutenant General Matanzima and Nelson Mandela? For consideration of national security, hereunder follows a highly sanitized, digitized and demilitarized sworn Statement (that Lindiwe Sisulu has long got copies of without bothering of course).
19. The statement relates how, according to the observer, one Adjutant-General Charles Hudson Dunstan Smart emotionally corrupted a comparatively junior Mrs Anne-Marie Myburgh in order to make preference for her to be promoted Director of Military Judges in South Africa in lieu of otherwise colonels far more senior and suited than Myburgh to be promoted to the rank of brigadier general.
20. As n additional information illustrative opinion from Blogger, Your Excellency will understand this whole rot as a sequel of Nelson Mandela’s proverbial preference of ethnic-British appointments where he could find candidates, for the SANDF’s most senior generals, if he couldn’t appoint a fellow-Thembu. So, Mr Smart was appointed around the tail-end of Mandela’s rule, Smart who, many legal officers black and white has said he is not correct material for the senior post of Adjutant General of the SANDF, Mandela nonetheless (if not yes-man Mbeki during the first months of his office as President) still appointed ethnic-British Smart. Furthermore, the dissatisfaction over then candidate Smart, did not come only from the legal fraternity of the Army, but also from the intelligence source. Despite that or because of those aspersions Mandela appointed his favourite Anglo-Saxon to work alongside characters like Thembuman Matanzima in the highest echelons of military power.
21. But maybe before we go into the pro-Myburgh shenanigans Smart is being wildly accused of by soldiery (even though as of this writing he is long gone, it may be very useful to examine, albeit briefly what strategic mess he left behind looked from a different vantage point.
a. Like he did for his alleged work-station sweetheart, Director of Military Judges Myburgh, he Africanized his post by leaving it to his blue-eyed boy, Mr Bailey Segomotso Mmono
b. My Commander in Chief and larger readership may recognize Mmono
i. Mmono is the husband to Constitutional Court Judge Bess Nkabinde-Mmono of the anti-Judge-John-Hlophe saga)
ii. Reader will recall how ethnic-British after ethnic-British judge attacked 52-year-old John Mandlakayise Hlophe, one of the most promising legal stars on the rise in Africa for sometimes the flimsiest of reasons as if the other judges were Messrs Clean by virtue of their British ethnicity!
iii. In the pack of ethnic-British dogs, one found the fang of one found the embodiment of a fang going by the name of Baaitse Elizabeth Motsatsi or Baaitse "Bess" Nkabinde-Mmono
iv. While Bailey Mmono is playing the unwitting tool of nieu-Colonialist Britain to misrule the SANDF by pursuing Lindiwe Sisulu’s undemocratic ideals
v. Bessie Nkabinde-Mmono is apparently is playing the same Mandelasque role in the Justice Department..
1. Of course one result of the doings of the likes of the Bessie Mmonos of the Department of Justice, is the lily white Bench, led by ethnic-Briton Mr B.R. Southwood that a month ago closed its eyes to all tenets of justice in the civil case Minister of Defence Versus Goodman Manyanya Phiri.
In Mandelocratic South Africa, Rule Britannia Rule.
Rule the military, Rule the Justice system!
22. Even though, as the English say, birds of the same [Mmono] flock together...I should like now to return to Mandela’s favourite white man in the military, with British links interfering with a judge’s work in order to save a fraudster who, among the many others of kindred spirit, Blogger was reliably informed, did not keep the most exemplary relations ---Smart called that “an asset”, if Your Excellency will recall from the 8 DVD material sent your office two months ago....with male topmost SANDF brass (Lindiwe Sisulu’s current Chief of Defence Intelligence Lieutenant General Shilubane, Rear Admiral Smart himself, General Sphiwe Nyanda he who was reportedly seen by soldiers on weekend with this woman at a Johannesburg entertainment Mecca called Monte Casino, the list is endless with them who rubbed shoulders with her. Shilubane is a protégé of a Motau, rumoured now to be on his way back to run the Department alongside Sisulu as her Chief SANDF, with an obvious rank promotion to General, rather than “Lieutenant General”. If this rumour be true, I am very happy, Your Excellency Zuma, because Motau knows exactly how to undo the pornocratic machine of the SANDF as it is his close comrades who were involved with this anti-African practice of objectifying the bodies of our poor women in uniform, and Blogger regularly kept Motau informed of this rot when Motau had personally asked Blogger to put a double hat of intelligence and counter-intelligence particularly over the Boeremag then only still starting their troublemaking around 2000. As I from the bottom of my heart wish Motau all success whether he is coming back to the SANDF or not, I just wish to draw the attention of Your Excellency Zuma and readers of my blog to the fact that, while it is standard practice that a full jury be made available during a trial in the SANDF, the transcript hereunder show you clearly how a corrupt judge corrupted by ethnic-British Smart conspired together with an unidentified defence counsel to do away with the jury, this of course to ensure that the scandal is not exposed to the larger community how women, and men for that matter, associated with powerful generals, just as women associated with the Mandelas and Matanzimas live above the law because of Lindiwe Sisulu’s military legal system with her acquiescence corrupted by Mandela’s Thembu tribe and their ethnic-British mentors in Pretoria and London. And the same corrupt judge in this transcript, will, as Your Excellency will see on a next post, the same Judge that Smart initially used for his kangaroo court against a Phiri whose crime was the expose on sex-for-promotion by Mandela/Matanzima cousin Brigadier General Winnie Ntombizodwa Bobelo-Zini)
 |
| Moreti Johannes Motau (with bared teeth) born Tuesday, 10 March 1953 |
COURT OF THE DEPARTMENTAL JUDGE : 96851217PE : CAPTAIN NUTENG ROWENA REBECCA MOETI ("ACCUSED") : HEADQUARTERS SA MILITARY HEALTH SERVICES : HELD ON 2 MAY 2002
23. HENDRIK JOHANNES LÜÜS, SENIOR MILITARY JUDGE: By the court, the code of conduct has been read. Thank you. Captain, morning, could you just indicate to this court whether you need an interpreter or may we proceed in English?
24. ACCUSED ROWENA MOETI: We may proceed in English, Sir.
25. HENDRIK JOHANNES LÜÜS, SENIOR MILITARY JUDGE: Thank you. If you are uncomfortable at any stage just notify your counsel so that we can make the necessary arrangements to accommodate you. And in the meantime the court is going to proceed in English. I'm going to introduce myself, I'm number 74535139PE, Colonel Hendrik Johannes Lüüs, Senior Departmental judge for Army Law Enforcement Satellite Office Thaba Tshwane, as such you are now entitled to make an objection against me. This objection can be on any relevant grounds. I'm going to give you certain examples and these are only examples. It might be that I have knowledge about the case. It might be that I have personal interest in the matter. It might be that I'm prejudiced against you. These are examples. Is there anything that you want to put on record, why I should not be the judge?
26. ACCUSED ROWENA MOETI: No, Sir.
27. HENDRIK JOHANNES LÜÜS, SENIOR MILITARY JUDGE: Thank you. Counsel, is that in accordance with your instructions?
28. DEFENCE-COUNSEL-LIEUTENANT COLONEL ROSSOUW: Yes, indeed, Judge.
29. HENDRIK JOHANNES LÜÜS, SENIOR MILITARY JUDGE: Counsel did you have adequate time and were you provided with the preliminary investigation?
DEFENCE-COUNSEL-LIEUTENANT-COLONEL-ROSSOUW: Yes, indeed Judge. We are ready to proceed this morning and at this stage we waive then the right of the [presence of the jury/assessors]. As the court pleases.
HENDRIK JOHANNES LÜÜS, SENIOR MILITARY JUDGE: Thank you. I just want to confirm your counsel indicated that at a stage you might have requested the assessors and at this point in time you wish to proceed without assessors. Is that correct?
ACCUSED ROWENA MOETI: Yes, Sir.
HENDRIK JOHANNES LÜÜS, SENIOR MILITARY JUDGE: Thank you. I just want to confirm your counsel indicated that at a stage you might have requested the assessors and at this point in time you wish to proceed without assessors. Is that correct?
ACCUSED ROWENA MOETI: Yes, Sir.
30. HENDRIK JOHANNES LÜÜS, SENIOR MILITARY JUDGE: Thank you. You just have to speak into the microphone because we need a proper transcription or else nobody will know what is going on in the case. Thank you. Court orderly just help there, please. Prosecutor, do you apply for any amendment to the charge sheet?
PROSECUTOR UNIDENTIFIED: No, Judge.
HENDRIK JOHANNES LÜÜS, SENIOR MILITARY JUDGE: Any withdrawals?
PROSECUTOR UNIDENTIFIED: None, Judge.
HENDRIK JOHANNES LÜÜS, SENIOR MILITARY JUDGE: Thank you. Just read the charge sheet, please.
PROSECUTOR UNIDENTIFIED: As the court pleases, Judge.
PROSECUTOR UNIDENTIFIED: No, Judge.
HENDRIK JOHANNES LÜÜS, SENIOR MILITARY JUDGE: Any withdrawals?
PROSECUTOR UNIDENTIFIED: None, Judge.
HENDRIK JOHANNES LÜÜS, SENIOR MILITARY JUDGE: Thank you. Just read the charge sheet, please.
PROSECUTOR UNIDENTIFIED: As the court pleases, Judge.
(Prosecutor reads charge sheet)
31. PROSECUTOR UNIDENTIFIED: I ask leave from the court to hand in-the-charge sheet, the DD1s and the Section 29 and Rule 10. As the court pleases, Judge.
HENDRIK JOHANNES LÜÜS, SENIOR MILITARY JUDGE: Thank you. Annexure "A" will be the DD1 Annexure "B" will be the Rule 10 and pre-trial procedures certificates, Section 29s and Annexure "C" will be the charge sheet.
DEFENCE-COUNSEL-LIEUTENANT COLONEL ROSSOUW: As the court pleases, Judge.
HENDRIK JOHANNES LÜÜS, SENIOR MILITARY JUDGE: Obviously the DD1 will be starting up to number (b)7 of whatever it might be while the charge sheet will be Annexure "C". Is there any objection to the handing in of the contents of those documents, Defence?
HENDRIK JOHANNES LÜÜS, SENIOR MILITARY JUDGE: Thank you. Annexure "A" will be the DD1 Annexure "B" will be the Rule 10 and pre-trial procedures certificates, Section 29s and Annexure "C" will be the charge sheet.
HENDRIK JOHANNES LÜÜS, SENIOR MILITARY JUDGE: Obviously the DD1 will be starting up to number (b)7 of whatever it might be while the charge sheet will be Annexure "C". Is there any objection to the handing in of the contents of those documents, Defence?
32. DEFENCE-COUNSEL-LIEUTENANT COLONEL ROSSOUW:: We have no objections, Judge. As the court pleases.
33. HENDRIK JOHANNES LÜÜS, SENIOR MILITARY JUDGE: Thank you.- The court will just switch off to peruse the documents. Madam, please be seated.
(Recording machine was switched off)
34. HENDRIK JOHANNES LÜÜS, SENIOR MILITARY JUDGE: The court is satisfied that the documents are in order. The court just wants to hear about the previous postponement. There was supposed to be, according to the documentation, on 25 April, a final date. Why did, Defence Counsel, why did this matter not proceed?
35. DEFENCE-COUNSEL-LIEUTENANT-COLONEL-ROSSOUW: Judge, on 25 April we appeared before Lieutenant Commander Singh and he was of the opinion that the matter has prescribed, saying that the DD1 was made out on 11 December 1998.
36. HENDRIK JOHANNES LÜÜS, SENIOR MILITARY JUDGE: The DD1?
DEFENCE-COUNSEL-LIEUTENANT COLONEL ROSSOUW:: Yes, the DD1, Sir.
HENDRIK JOHANNES LÜÜS, SENIOR MILITARY JUDGE: According to this documentation, Counsel, it was made out on 1 December.
DEFENCE-COUNSEL-LIEUTENANT COLONEL ROSSOUW: 1 December, pardon Judge.
HENDRIK JOHANNES LÜÜS, SENIOR MILITARY JUDGE: At 11:00 not...
DEFENCE-COUNSEL-LIEUTENANT COLONEL ROSSOUW: 1 December and the Rule 10 was made out on 2 December 1998 and then the first Section 29 was done on 6 July 2001 and the next one, this one was, done by Major-Laura (sic)and the following Section 29 was done on 15 August 2001. And Judge Singh was of the opinion that there had to be a Section 29 that had to be done on or before 10 December in 1999, otherwise the matter had prescribed, according to his version. If you look at Rule 109, we were in disagreement, saying no, as long as there were a Rule 10, that stopped the prescription and then a valid Section 29 within the period of three years we were happy that the matter had not prescribed. So, the prosecutor then withdrew the case before him and the case then proceeds now today, Judge. As the court pleases.
HENDRIK JOHANNES LÜÜS, SENIOR MILITARY JUDGE: According to this documentation, Counsel, it was made out on 1 December.
HENDRIK JOHANNES LÜÜS, SENIOR MILITARY JUDGE: At 11:00 not...
37. HENDRIK JOHANNES LÜÜS, SENIOR MILITARY JUDGE: Okay, thank you. By the court I can note that there was Rule 10 done on 2 December 1998 and there was subsequently Section 29's on the 6th and the 7th 2001, 15 August 2001, 25 September 2001, 16 October 2001, 6 December 2001 and 18 April 2002. The court is of the opinion that the court is not bound by lower court's decision as given by Judge Singh and being a senior departmental judge, my interpretation of Rule 109 is of such an extent that it is, this court is in agreement with what you just stated regarding that it just have to be done within three years and the court will therefore proceed.
38. DEFENCE-COUNSEL-LIEUTENANT COLONEL ROSSOUW: As the court pleases, Judge.
HENDRIK JOHANNES LÜÜS, SENIOR MILITARY JUDGE: Captain, you have once again now the opportunity to make an objection against the jurisdiction of this court, and secondly on the charge sheet, that it does not disclose an offence. Is there any objection?
ACCUSED ROWENA MOETI: No, Sir.
HENDRIK JOHANNES LÜÜS, SENIOR MILITARY JUDGE: Is that in accordance with your instructions, Counsel?
DEFENCE-COUNSEL-LIEUTENANT-COLONEL-ROSSOUW: Yes, indeed Judge.
HENDRIK JOHANNES LÜÜS, SENIOR MILITARY JUDGE: Captain, you have once again now the opportunity to make an objection against the jurisdiction of this court, and secondly on the charge sheet, that it does not disclose an offence. Is there any objection?
ACCUSED ROWENA MOETI: No, Sir.
HENDRIK JOHANNES LÜÜS, SENIOR MILITARY JUDGE: Is that in accordance with your instructions, Counsel?
PLEA PROCEDURE:
39. HENDRIK JOHANNES LÜÜS, SENIOR MILITARY JUDGE: Obviously there is not only a plea of guilty and not guilty, there are other pleas as well. The court is not going to deal with it. Your counsel, would have taken care of it, the special pleas. Also regarding prescription, the court is not going to deal with it, that there is no plea lodged at this point in time. Regarding the first charge the court would like you to tell the court how do you plead on that. That is the allegation of common law fraud. That during September 1998 that you gave out and pretended to Mrs de Bruin and or the Selection Board of the military academy, that you had a valid certificate, a Standard 10 issued in June 1992 whilst at or relevant ...(unclear)... was not the truth and that there was potential or real detriment to the South African National 30 Defence Force and or other members. What do you plead to that?
40. ACCUSED ROWENA MOETI: Guilty.
HENDRIK JOHANNES LÜÜS, SENIOR MILITARY JUDGE: Then there's an alternative. In that during September 1998 that you unlawfully and intentionally 35 or negligently behaved in an unseemly manner in that you submitted a false senior certificate to with Standard 10 to Mrs de Bruin when you applied for tertiary studies at the military academy. What do you plead to that?
HENDRIK JOHANNES LÜÜS, SENIOR MILITARY JUDGE: Then there's an alternative. In that during September 1998 that you unlawfully and intentionally 35 or negligently behaved in an unseemly manner in that you submitted a false senior certificate to with Standard 10 to Mrs de Bruin when you applied for tertiary studies at the military academy. What do you plead to that?
41. ACCUSED ROWENA MOETI: Guilty.
HENDRIK JOHANNES LÜÜS, SENIOR MILITARY JUDGE: Obviously the alternative won't stand if the main charge stands so, that the state will need to produce a preliminary investigation before the court is able to decide. Do you understand that?
HENDRIK JOHANNES LÜÜS, SENIOR MILITARY JUDGE: Obviously the alternative won't stand if the main charge stands so, that the state will need to produce a preliminary investigation before the court is able to decide. Do you understand that?
42. ACCUSED ROWENA MOETI: Yes, Sir.
HENDRIK JOHANNES LÜÜS, SENIOR MILITARY JUDGE: Thank you.
DEFENCE-COUNSEL-LIEUTENANT COLONEL ROSSOUW: Judge, we have also for the benefit of the court has in fact then prepared a plea explanation so that the court can see on which part of the charge, because in the back there are actually three ones and or, and or, that we are pleading guilty to. If I may proceed maybe the honourable court would understand what I'm saying.
HENDRIK JOHANNES LÜÜS, SENIOR MILITARY JUDGE: Thank you.
43. HENDRIK JOHANNES LÜÜS, SENIOR MILITARY JUDGE: At this point in time not, Counsel. Obviously I don't have the preliminary in front of me but you, if I understand you, you want to place 20 certain things on record as well.
DEFENCE-COUNSEL-LIEUTENANT COLONEL ROSSOUW: That is correct, Judge.
HENDRIK JOHANNES LÜÜS, SENIOR MILITARY JUDGE: Formal admissions.
DEFENCE-COUNSEL-LIEUTENANT-COLONEL-ROSSOUW: Formal admission, that is correct, Judge.
HENDRIK JOHANNES LÜÜS, SENIOR MILITARY JUDGE: Okay, just a second please. Let me just get to that part. Plea of guilty is recorded on the charge and the alternative. Do you accept it Mr Prosecutor?
PROSECUTOR UNIDENTIFIED: I accept it, Judge.
HENDRIK JOHANNES LÜÜS, SENIOR MILITARY JUDGE: I have to warn you that a plea of guilty will constitute the unambiguous admission of all the 30 elements of the charge. Do you understand that Captain?
ACCUSED ROWENA MOETI: Yes, I do.
HENDRIK JOHANNES LÜÜS, SENIOR MILITARY JUDGE: And that it also indicates to the court that you have the intention to acknowledge your guilt on that charge. Do you understand that?
ACCUSED ROWENA MOETI: I do understand that.
HENDRIK JOHANNES LÜÜS, SENIOR MILITARY JUDGE: lo 6 And that it is a concession in law that the court has jurisdiction and the charge has not become prescribed. Do you understand that?
ACCUSED ROWENA MOETI: Yes, I do, Sir.
HENDRIK JOHANNES LÜÜS, SENIOR MILITARY JUDGE: And still ought to be heard in a court of law.
ACCUSED ROWENA MOETI: Yes, Sir.
HENDRIK JOHANNES LÜÜS, SENIOR MILITARY JUDGE: Thank you. Prosecutor, are you going to lead any evidence relevant to the charge?
HENDRIK JOHANNES LÜÜS, SENIOR MILITARY JUDGE: Formal admissions.
HENDRIK JOHANNES LÜÜS, SENIOR MILITARY JUDGE: Okay, just a second please. Let me just get to that part. Plea of guilty is recorded on the charge and the alternative. Do you accept it Mr Prosecutor?
PROSECUTOR UNIDENTIFIED: I accept it, Judge.
HENDRIK JOHANNES LÜÜS, SENIOR MILITARY JUDGE: I have to warn you that a plea of guilty will constitute the unambiguous admission of all the 30 elements of the charge. Do you understand that Captain?
ACCUSED ROWENA MOETI: Yes, I do.
HENDRIK JOHANNES LÜÜS, SENIOR MILITARY JUDGE: And that it also indicates to the court that you have the intention to acknowledge your guilt on that charge. Do you understand that?
ACCUSED ROWENA MOETI: I do understand that.
HENDRIK JOHANNES LÜÜS, SENIOR MILITARY JUDGE: lo 6 And that it is a concession in law that the court has jurisdiction and the charge has not become prescribed. Do you understand that?
ACCUSED ROWENA MOETI: Yes, I do, Sir.
HENDRIK JOHANNES LÜÜS, SENIOR MILITARY JUDGE: And still ought to be heard in a court of law.
ACCUSED ROWENA MOETI: Yes, Sir.
HENDRIK JOHANNES LÜÜS, SENIOR MILITARY JUDGE: Thank you. Prosecutor, are you going to lead any evidence relevant to the charge?
44. PROSECUTOR UNIDENTIFIED: No, Judge.
45. HENDRIK JOHANNES LÜÜS, SENIOR MILITARY JUDGE: Before the court closes to read the preliminary investigation, the court is going to give the defence counsel, even if it is not the normal process, it is in the interest of the accused apparently and to the benefit of the accused, therefore the court is going to allow it. Are there certain aspects that you would like to bring under the court's attention? Please put it on record.
FORMAL ADMISSIONS:
46.
47. HENDRIK JOHANNES LÜÜS, SENIOR MILITARY JUDGE: Okay. Just help me, Counsel, after reading the preliminary investigation, and that was not sufficient then surely this would help to curtail further proceedings but what value does it add at this point in time? Because bear in mind that the court does not have the benefit of having read the Preliminary Investigation? as you and your colleague, the prosecutor have done. So, what value does these formal admissions add because it placed everything, if I understand it correctly, beyond dispute?
48. DEFENCE-COUNSEL-LIEUTENANT COLONEL ROSSOUW:: That is correct, Judge. If you look at the charge sheet itself, Judge, there are three things on the back that they actually tried to get fraud on. So, we are at this stage then admitting to the first one, which you see on the fourth sentence on the first charge it said and/or, so we are admitting at this stage then the first one, Judge. That will assist the court when reading through the preliminary investigation. As the court pleases.
49. HENDRIK JOHANNES LÜÜS, SENIOR MILITARY JUDGE: Thank you. Thank you for that, Counsel.
DEFENCE-COUNSEL-LIEUTENANT-COLONEL-ROSSOUW: ...(unclear)...
HENDRIK JOHANNES LÜÜS, SENIOR MILITARY JUDGE: The court will then ask that that be
HENDRIK JOHANNES LÜÜS, SENIOR MILITARY JUDGE: The court will then ask that that be
50. handed in as Annexure "D". And its case number 38/02/Court A, Thaba Tshwane. Court Orderly, just hand that- in and also the preliminary investigation. The court will adjourn to read the preliminary investigation.
51. PROSECUTOR UNIDENTIFIED: As it pleases the court.
52. DEFENCE-COUNSEL-LIEUTENANT COLONEL ROSSOUW:: As the court pleases, Judge.
53. (Court adjourns to read preliminary investigation)
((Court re-opens))
FINDING
54. HENDRIK JOHANNES LÜÜS, SENIOR MILITARY JUDGE: By the court, the court has carefully perused the preliminary investigation and as well as the formal admissions. On the preliminary investigation it is quite clear without even going to the formal admissions, it is quite clear that a proper case was made out and that the state has proved their case. The court is satisfied therefore that the offence regarding charge number one was committed.
DEFENCE-COUNSEL-LIEUTENANT COLONEL ROSSOUW:: As the court pleases, Judge.
PROSECUTOR UNIDENTIFIED: As the court pleases.
HENDRIK JOHANNES LÜÜS, SENIOR MILITARY JUDGE: The court makes the finding of guilty on charge number one and then by definition not guilty on the alternative. The record of service, please.
PROSECUTOR UNIDENTIFIED: May I proceed, Judge?
HENDRIK JOHANNES LÜÜS, SENIOR MILITARY JUDGE: Please do. (Prosecutor reads record of service)
HENDRIK JOHANNES LÜÜS, SENIOR MILITARY JUDGE: Thank you. Hand it in as Annexure "D". Just show it, Court Orderly, to the captain whether she agrees. Thank you. Just by the court I would like to indicate on the record that would be Annexure "E" not "D". Since the formal admission would be seen as "D". Captain, do you agree to the contents of this record?
ACCUSED ROWENA MOETI: Yes, Sir.
HENDRIK JOHANNES LÜÜS, SENIOR MILITARY JUDGE: Prosecutor and Defence, do you agree on the facts relevant to the determination of sentence?
DEFENCE-COUNSEL-LIEUTENANT COLONEL ROSSOUW:: None, Judge.
PROSECUTOR UNIDENTIFIED: None, Judge.
HENDRIK JOHANNES LÜÜS, SENIOR MILITARY JUDGE: The court does not foresee a specific order but obviously this case is serious, being fraud and 35 would like to be addressed on all relevant aspects. Defence or Prosecutor, do you lead any evidence regarding the prevalence of the offence?
PROSECUTOR UNIDENTIFIED: As the court pleases.
HENDRIK JOHANNES LÜÜS, SENIOR MILITARY JUDGE: The court makes the finding of guilty on charge number one and then by definition not guilty on the alternative. The record of service, please.
PROSECUTOR UNIDENTIFIED: May I proceed, Judge?
HENDRIK JOHANNES LÜÜS, SENIOR MILITARY JUDGE: Please do. (Prosecutor reads record of service)
HENDRIK JOHANNES LÜÜS, SENIOR MILITARY JUDGE: Thank you. Hand it in as Annexure "D". Just show it, Court Orderly, to the captain whether she agrees. Thank you. Just by the court I would like to indicate on the record that would be Annexure "E" not "D". Since the formal admission would be seen as "D". Captain, do you agree to the contents of this record?
ACCUSED ROWENA MOETI: Yes, Sir.
HENDRIK JOHANNES LÜÜS, SENIOR MILITARY JUDGE: Prosecutor and Defence, do you agree on the facts relevant to the determination of sentence?
PROSECUTOR UNIDENTIFIED: None, Judge.
HENDRIK JOHANNES LÜÜS, SENIOR MILITARY JUDGE: The court does not foresee a specific order but obviously this case is serious, being fraud and 35 would like to be addressed on all relevant aspects. Defence or Prosecutor, do you lead any evidence regarding the prevalence of the offence?
55. PROSECUTOR UNIDENTIFIED: None, Judge.
HENDRIK JOHANNES LÜÜS, SENIOR MILITARY JUDGE: Defence, do you call any witness in mitigation, starting with your own client?
HENDRIK JOHANNES LÜÜS, SENIOR MILITARY JUDGE: Defence, do you call any witness in mitigation, starting with your own client?
56. DEFENCE-COUNSEL-LIEUTENANT-COLONEL-ROSSOUW: Judge, I'm not going to call the accused to come and testify under oath. We have made arrangements that Admiral Smart would come aid be witness in mitigation at 10:30 but then we request, because there is certain documentation that we by mere consent like to hand in. And we think that if we do that before the admiral comes and testifies then the court would be in a better picture. As the court pleases.
57. HENDRIK JOHANNES LÜÜS, SENIOR MILITARY JUDGE: Lets make it Annexure "F" then and if Fl, F2, and F3 whatever it might be and just read it into the record so that we know what you are talking about, please. And then I understand this was in agreement with you...
58. PROSECUTOR UNIDENTIFIED: It is in agreement with the prosecution_
HENDRIK JOHANNES LÜÜS, SENIOR MILITARY JUDGE: Both to the handing in and the contents thereof.
PROSECUTOR UNIDENTIFIED: The contents thereof. As the court pleases, Judge.
HENDRIK JOHANNES LÜÜS, SENIOR MILITARY JUDGE: Thank you. Please proceed.
DEFENCE-COUNSEL-LIEUTENANT COLONEL ROSSOUW:: As the court pleases, Judge. We hand the document in that the honourable court then can follow as we then read it into the record of proceedings. It makes it easier for the honourable court.
HENDRIK JOHANNES LÜÜS, SENIOR MILITARY JUDGE: Both to the handing in and the contents thereof.
PROSECUTOR UNIDENTIFIED: The contents thereof. As the court pleases, Judge.
HENDRIK JOHANNES LÜÜS, SENIOR MILITARY JUDGE: Thank you. Please proceed.
59. HENDRIK JOHANNES LÜÜS, SENIOR MILITARY JUDGE: Please do.
DEFENCE-COUNSEL-LIEUTENANT-COLONEL-ROSSOUW: As the court pleases, Judge. On page 30 number Fl we will see that it is a short curriculum vitae that has been compiled by the accused herself. Setting out her date of birth, that she was born on '19 June 1967 and her place of birth was in Zambia, Lusaka. And putting out her names, ID number, nationality and then also that she's got 35 a military drivers licence. Her education and on the first page, I think it has been important, that she went to the Kahinka High School, that is in Zimbabwe, from 1989 to 1992 where she obtained a level 0. Now level 0 is in accordance with Standard nine...
60. HENDRIK JOHANNES LÜÜS, SENIOR MILITARY JUDGE: Sorry, for interruption by the court. It might be preferable, Captain, please be seated. It seems as if it's going to be a lengthy process. Please proceed.
61. DEFENCE-COUNSEL-LIEUTENANT COLONEL ROSSOUW:: As the court pleases, Judge. And then in Damelin, Pretoria, from January 1996 see then that the Hotel Operations and Management Diploma, incomplete due to a lack of funds, Sir. Then at Rustenburg Technical College that she went to January to December 1995 when she obtained her N4 to an N6. Secretarial course that she completed and then in 1998 within the SANDF she did then a formative course at the SAMHS Academy 1999, driving and maintenance course at SADEC, that's ...(unclear)... by Defence and Intelligence College. Then in 2000 A-level intelligence course at Montana Military Base. In 2000-also, intelligence course at Montana Military Base and the protocol and ethics course of 2000. and 2001, presented by the Department of Foreign Affairs over a period of a week each.
62. HENDRIK JOHANNES LÜÜS, SENIOR MILITARY JUDGE: Okay, by the court, just backtrack to the high school. 0-level what is that?
DEFENCE-COUNSEL-LIEUTENANT-COLONEL-ROSSOUW: 0-level is equal to Standard nine in South Africa.
HENDRIK JOHANNES LÜÜS, SENIOR MILITARY JUDGE: Thank you.
HENDRIK JOHANNES LÜÜS, SENIOR MILITARY JUDGE: Thank you.
63. DEFENCE-COUNSEL-LIEUTENANT COLONEL ROSSOUW:: As the court pleases, Judge. To look then at page number F2, you see that her employment that she was at Joyce Hair and Beauty Salons from November 1994 to December 1995. She was a sales manager, sales promotion of the three hair and beauty- salons. Managed to raise funds profit margins 60% in a period of six months by improving on the customer relationship and subscription. And she worked at Edgars in Rustenburg. She was then a sales clerk there. She was at Radio Mafisa in Rustenburg and she also then worked at a news editor and presenter. In the South African National Defence Force at the Health Services SAMHS. She was there working from October 1997 until January 1999 as Lieutenant. In the personnel office in the Integration Section and putting out the responsibilities for the processing and integrating of personnel on computer in SAMHS. Pro-article assistance in the processing of integrating personnel in Wallmannstal for further integration to the various different services. Then from FEBRUARY 1999 to January 2000 she was at the SANDF by Defence and Intelligence, a lieutenant, she was a staff officer, SO3 in the Protocol Section Director by Defence Foreign Relations. She was a co-ordinator of the representatives at official NVA functions for the Chief of the SANDF. Drafting of correspondence of the Chief of the SANDF for his counterparts with regard to defence, days, and etcetera. The co-ordinator of integration, ceremonials then for the FMA's. Maintenance and updating of CVs of senior defence departments, Armscor and Denel personnel for distributing to MA's and the FMA's. The maintenance and updating of the FMA's, guide monthly, coordination of official calls with the foreign relations, office of the SA Army, the SA Air Force, The Navy, SAMHS, Denel and Armscor for co-ordinating of meetings with senior foreign visitors and or FMA's. Nodal point for the communication between foreign military attaché's and the members of the Department of Defence, with specific regards to the plenary defence staff counsel members. Liaison with foreign affairs with regard to the administration of the FMA'-s, the co-ordination of for the DOD personnel or the protocol and the etiquette courses presented by the Department of 35 Foreign Affairs to all government departments. Co-ordinating of functions. Public and social events for the DOD. Then in April 2000 to November 2002 she was then at the National. Defence, the Defence Intelligence acting as a SO1 in the visit of protocol sections with the Defence Intelligence, by coordinating of functions, public and social events for the defence and intelligence members and FMA's. Protocol duties included of the consular. The correspondence of the Chief of defence force for his counterparts with regard to congratulations.
64. The co-ordination of official visits abroad by communications with the FMA and the RSA and our defence advisors or high commissioners abroad, in respect of the following arrangements, letters of invitation, air tickets, accommodations, special daily allowances, gift allowances packages, conference and office calls on. counterparts. Any other relevant protocol and etiquette issues, the same service mentioned above are delivered for defence intelligence. Personnel- taking official-vi-sits, abroad. The co-ordination of the visits to the RSA by the counterparts of the Chief Defence and Intelligence into the following arrangement for the visiting delegations. Letters of invitation, ...(unclear)... of delegations at the airport. VIP protection, accommodation, conferences and office calls on counterparts, gift certifications and packaging, liaison activities, any other relevant protocol and etiquette issues, the same service mentioned above for the defence intelligence personnel.
HENDRIK JOHANNES LÜÜS, SENIOR MILITARY JUDGE: Okay. By the court, if we have to read through all these pages, it will just take unnecessary time to put it on tape recorder, we can read, it's by agreement and you have the opportunity, Mr Prosecutor, to peruse this. Say if there is any objection the court would have taken it from a different viewpoint. At this point in time it is unnecessary to read everything into record. Just get to the essence of each and every document that you hand in. The first one was the Curriculum Vitae with the references, the second one was the Officer-Commanding's order sheet and she was congratulated for good work. Then there was a memorandum...
DEFENCE-COUNSEL-LIEUTENANT-COLONEL-ROSSOUW: From Defence Intelligence, Sir.
HENDRIK JOHANNES LÜÜS, SENIOR MILITARY JUDGE: Indicating also her character and that was also relevant to the next document from Brigadier General Rautman. Then thy, fax of appreciation and the next
HENDRIK JOHANNES LÜÜS, SENIOR MILITARY JUDGE: Okay. By the court, if we have to read through all these pages, it will just take unnecessary time to put it on tape recorder, we can read, it's by agreement and you have the opportunity, Mr Prosecutor, to peruse this. Say if there is any objection the court would have taken it from a different viewpoint. At this point in time it is unnecessary to read everything into record. Just get to the essence of each and every document that you hand in. The first one was the Curriculum Vitae with the references, the second one was the Officer-Commanding's order sheet and she was congratulated for good work. Then there was a memorandum...
HENDRIK JOHANNES LÜÜS, SENIOR MILITARY JUDGE: Indicating also her character and that was also relevant to the next document from Brigadier General Rautman. Then thy, fax of appreciation and the next
65. one as well, the course report that she did. Is this driving and maintenance course then?
DEFENCE-COUNSEL-LIEUTENANT COLONEL ROSSOUW:: Sir.
66. HENDRIK JOHANNES LÜÜS, SENIOR MILITARY JUDGE:
DEFENCE-COUNSEL-LIEUTENANT COLONEL ROSSOUW: The defence intelligence orientation,
67. Okay. And then... Introduction into warfare model is the next one that she did. Where she received a percentage of 74 that was above class average.
HENDRIK JOHANNES LÜÜS, SENIOR MILITARY JUDGE: What is this course called? This is now F10?
DEFENCE-COUNSEL-LIEUTENANT COLONEL ROSSOUW: F10, Sir. According to network basic one, I haven't marked mine that is the introduction to the warfare module.
HENDRIK JOHANNES LÜÜS, SENIOR MILITARY JUDGE: It is only a module. It is not...
DEFENCE-COUNSEL-LIEUTENANT-COLONEL-ROSSOUW: The AB as we know it. No, Sir. And ...(unclear)... she completed.
HENDRIK JOHANNES LÜÜS, SENIOR MILITARY JUDGE: Or the junior staff course.
DEFENCE-COUNSEL-LIEUTENANT COLONEL ROSSOUW: That correct, she hasn't done that. It is only a module that she has completed.
HENDRIK JOHANNES LÜÜS, SENIOR MILITARY JUDGE: Okay, next one.
DEFENCE-COUNSEL-LIEUTENANT COLONEL ROSSOUW: The next one is a B-level intelligence module that she has completed.
HENDRIK JOHANNES LÜÜS, SENIOR MILITARY JUDGE: Yes?
DEFENCE-COUNSEL-LIEUTENANT COLONEL ROSSOUW: The next one is a B-level course, counter intelligent module that she has completed.
HENDRIK JOHANNES LÜÜS, SENIOR MILITARY JUDGE: Okay. The court is satisfied, thank you, and please continue with your argument.
HENDRIK JOHANNES LÜÜS, SENIOR MILITARY JUDGE: What is this course called? This is now F10?
HENDRIK JOHANNES LÜÜS, SENIOR MILITARY JUDGE: It is only a module. It is not...
HENDRIK JOHANNES LÜÜS, SENIOR MILITARY JUDGE: Or the junior staff course.
HENDRIK JOHANNES LÜÜS, SENIOR MILITARY JUDGE: Okay, next one.
HENDRIK JOHANNES LÜÜS, SENIOR MILITARY JUDGE: Yes?
HENDRIK JOHANNES LÜÜS, SENIOR MILITARY JUDGE: Okay. The court is satisfied, thank you, and please continue with your argument.
68. DEFENCE-COUNSEL-LIEUTENANT COLONEL ROSSOUW: As the court pleases, Judge. And the documents and also the curriculum vitae of the accused indicates but work she has done and second how well she is then equipped for the work and the courses that she has completed then towards the SANDF. That is the basis that we would like to lay before the next witness, Admiral Smart, comes to testify. As the court pleases.
HENDRIK JOHANNES LÜÜS, SENIOR MILITARY JUDGE: Okay. It is clear that she is an asset to the defence force according to all the courses and the 10 letters of recommendation. That is your submission?DEFENCE-COUNSEL-LIEUTENANT-COLONEL-ROSSOUW: That is correct, Judge.
HENDRIK JOHANNES LÜÜS, SENIOR MILITARY JUDGE: Thank you. At this point in time, anything else from your side regarding the documentation, Mr Prosecutor?
PROSECUTOR UNIDENTIFIED: None, Judge.
HENDRIK JOHANNES LÜÜS, SENIOR MILITARY JUDGE: Then the court will stand down to enable you to get next witness.
DEFENCE-COUNSEL-LIEUTENANT COLONEL ROSSOUW:: As the court pleases, Judge.
HENDRIK JOHANNES LÜÜS, SENIOR MILITARY JUDGE: Okay. It is clear that she is an asset to the defence force according to all the courses and the 10 letters of recommendation. That is your submission?
HENDRIK JOHANNES LÜÜS, SENIOR MILITARY JUDGE: Thank you. At this point in time, anything else from your side regarding the documentation, Mr Prosecutor?
PROSECUTOR UNIDENTIFIED: None, Judge.
HENDRIK JOHANNES LÜÜS, SENIOR MILITARY JUDGE: Then the court will stand down to enable you to get next witness.
((Court closes))
((Court re-opens))
69. Defence, this is your witness, the
HENDRIK JOHANNES LÜÜS, SENIOR MILITARY JUDGE: Admiral, is that correct?
DEFENCE-COUNSEL-LIEUTENANT COLONEL ROSSOUW: That's correct, Judge.
HENDRIK JOHANNES LÜÜS, SENIOR MILITARY JUDGE: Thank you. Admiral, the proceedings are in English, is there any problem with proceeding in English?
REAR-ADMIRAL-CHARLES-HENRY-DUNSTAN-SMART: No problem, Judge.
HENDRIK JOHANNES LÜÜS, SENIOR MILITARY JUDGE: Thank you.
HENDRIK JOHANNES LÜÜS, SENIOR MILITARY JUDGE: Admiral, is that correct?
HENDRIK JOHANNES LÜÜS, SENIOR MILITARY JUDGE: Thank you. Admiral, the proceedings are in English, is there any problem with proceeding in English?
REAR-ADMIRAL-CHARLES-HENRY-DUNSTAN-SMART: No problem, Judge.
HENDRIK JOHANNES LÜÜS, SENIOR MILITARY JUDGE: Thank you.
CASE FOR THE DEFENCE WITNESS NUMBER 1 : 64074149PE : REAR ADMIRAL CHARLES HENRY DUNSTAN SMART (Hereinafter referred to as "SMART") GIVES EVIDENCE UNDER OATH
EXAMINATION IN CHIEF:
70. HENDRIK JOHANNES LÜÜS, SENIOR MILITARY JUDGE: Thank you, Sir. Please make yourself comfortable. Speak into the microphone at all stages. You may sit down, Sir thank you. Your witness.
REAR-ADMIRAL-CHARLES-HENRY-DUNSTAN-SMART: Judge, do you mind if I stand, it would be much easier?
HENDRIK JOHANNES LÜÜS, SENIOR MILITARY JUDGE: Sorry, it is your preference, thank you.
DEFENCE-COUNSEL-LIEUTENANT COLONEL ROSSOUW: Thank you, Judge. Admiral we really appreciate your time this morning to come and testify in court. Would you please state for the record your current post, Sir?
REAR-ADMIRAL-CHARLES-HENRY-DUNSTAN-SMART: I'm the Adjutant General South African National Defence Force.
DEFENCE-COUNSEL-LIEUTENANT COLONEL ROSSOUW:: Do you know the accused, Captain Moeti, before court today?
REAR-ADMIRAL-CHARLES-HENRY-DUNSTAN-SMART: Judge, I met Captain Moeti during the early part of 1999 for the first time.
DEFENCE-COUNSEL-LIEUTENANT-COLONEL-ROSSOUW: You requested the defence counsel today that you would like to come and give evidence under .oath- in mitigation. Please proceed.
REAR-ADMIRAL-CHARLES-HENRY-DUNSTAN-SMART: Judge, I from approximately June 1999 have met Captain Moeti regularly, mostly to do with matters of protocol or foreign visits. And when I heard of this case I thought it would be correct for me to give my impressions of the captain. I say this because in all the dealings that I had with her, she has struck me, as being intelligent, always properly turned out, well spoken, to my mind competent and hardworking. Especially during the latter portions of each year, the foreign visits also entail many functions, which means that functions, which I attended she was often also working at them. And always struck me as being most personable, and I think an asset to the defence force, Judge. The second reason, Judge, why I wanted to come and give my impressions to the court, is simply, shall we say a plea for clemency if I can put it that way, that I had sight of the charge sheet, so I'm aware of what happened. I am also aware that she must have been very young when that happened and that the problems arose some four years ago. So I would just like to tender the plea that the, if it is possible, to treat her leniently and also bear in mind that the court process has taken a long time, so this sword has been hanging over her head for a long time. That is all I wish to say, Judge.
REAR-ADMIRAL-CHARLES-HENRY-DUNSTAN-SMART: Judge, do you mind if I stand, it would be much easier?
HENDRIK JOHANNES LÜÜS, SENIOR MILITARY JUDGE: Sorry, it is your preference, thank you.
REAR-ADMIRAL-CHARLES-HENRY-DUNSTAN-SMART: I'm the Adjutant General South African National Defence Force.
REAR-ADMIRAL-CHARLES-HENRY-DUNSTAN-SMART: Judge, I met Captain Moeti during the early part of 1999 for the first time.
REAR-ADMIRAL-CHARLES-HENRY-DUNSTAN-SMART: Judge, I from approximately June 1999 have met Captain Moeti regularly, mostly to do with matters of protocol or foreign visits. And when I heard of this case I thought it would be correct for me to give my impressions of the captain. I say this because in all the dealings that I had with her, she has struck me, as being intelligent, always properly turned out, well spoken, to my mind competent and hardworking. Especially during the latter portions of each year, the foreign visits also entail many functions, which means that functions, which I attended she was often also working at them. And always struck me as being most personable, and I think an asset to the defence force, Judge. The second reason, Judge, why I wanted to come and give my impressions to the court, is simply, shall we say a plea for clemency if I can put it that way, that I had sight of the charge sheet, so I'm aware of what happened. I am also aware that she must have been very young when that happened and that the problems arose some four years ago. So I would just like to tender the plea that the, if it is possible, to treat her leniently and also bear in mind that the court process has taken a long time, so this sword has been hanging over her head for a long time. That is all I wish to say, Judge.
71. DEFENCE-COUNSEL-LIEUTENANT COLONEL ROSSOUW:: Okay. And the last question, Admiral, is there any relationship between you and the accused?
72. REAR-ADMIRAL-CHARLES-HENRY-DUNSTAN-SMART: None whatsoever. I only met her in work
73. context, but I have met her brother and I have met her mother, there is no relationship, I've only met them in work context.
74. 15 DEFENCE-COUNSEL-LIEUTENANT COLONEL ROSSOUW: No further questions, Judge.
75. HENDRIK JOHANNES LÜÜS, SENIOR MILITARY JUDGE: Thank you. Cross-examination?
76. CROSS-EXAMINATION:
77. PROSECUTOR UNIDENTIFIED: Thank you Judge. Morning-Admiral,...
78. REAR-ADMIRAL-CHARLES-HENRY-DUNSTAN-SMART: Morning.
79. PROSECUTOR UNIDENTIFIED: Admiral, the offence that was committed by the accused, namely that of common law fraud of a matric certificate, there is an element of dishonesty. How would you regard such dishonesty by an officer of the SANDF?
80. REAR-ADMIRAL-CHARLES-HENRY-DUNSTAN-SMART: Judge, it is unacceptable! But I am of the opinion for what it is worth, that some mistakes are final mistakes. I'm quite sure that sort of thing would not be repeated in this particular case if my assessment of Captain Moeti character is correct. I also think that when we are young, we often do things we would not do if we were four or five years older.
81. PROSECUTOR UNIDENTIFIED: Admiral, would you say that dishonesty can-be at any stage be tolerated by the SANDF?
REAR-ADMIRAL-CHARLES-HENRY-DUNSTAN-SMART: No, I think dishonesty is not acceptable. But I'm also aware of people who have been convicted of 35 more serious things who are still serving, Judge.
82. PROSECUTOR UNIDENTIFIED: With regards to an CMA judgement given in case number 3 of 1999, State v Lieutenant L H Gordon, was also convicted of common law fraud and was demoted to the lower rank of second lieutenant. The CMA remarked that dishonesty perpetrated by an officer, could not be tolerated by the defence force, would you like to comment to that, Sir?
83. REAR-ADMIRAL-CHARLES-HENRY-DUNSTAN-SMART: Judge, that is actually a very difficult question. But I would perhaps answer it this way, that yes, dishonesty must be dealt with. And I don't hear anymore than that being said in the judgement. But I would also point out that there are other judgements which I am personally aware of, which says that it would be incorrect to terminate a person's services or deal with it overly harshly, when the process of justice has taken four years.
PROSECUTOR UNIDENTIFIED: Admiral, how would you regard the future utilisation of an officer who was convicted of fraud and especially in this instance that of Captain-Moeti?
84. REAR-ADMIRAL-CHARLES-HENRY-DUNSTAN-SMART: Perhaps, I am leading with my chin, but I would be quite prepared to have Captain Moeti on my own staff. I think secondly that as I indicated before, I do believe in this case that it wouldn't be repeated. And as long as whomever the supervising officer may or may not be, is aware that this has happened in the past, then there should be no difficulty.
85. PROSECUTOR UNIDENTIFIED: Thank you, Judge, no further questions.
HENDRIK JOHANNES LÜÜS, SENIOR MILITARY JUDGE: Any re-examination?
86. RE-EXAMINATION:
DEFENCE-COUNSEL-LIEUTENANT-COLONEL-ROSSOUW: Maybe only one question, Judge. Admiral there have also then cases where officers were found guilty of fraud and they only received then some mere sentences. In fact I can refer you-maybe then to the following three cases if you can just ...(unclear)... in the case then to the honourable court and the honourable court would then be able to look at the cases at a later stage please.
87. HENDRIK JOHANNES LÜÜS, SENIOR MILITARY JUDGE: Defence Counsel, we just have a bit of a problem because you can quote it in your final submission. Obviously the admiral, with all due respect, even due to his position, would not be the expert witness in casual perusal of three cases. The court can make the deduction and you can give a final submission on that.
88. DEFENCE-COUNSEL-LIEUTENANT-COLONEL-ROSSOUW: No further questions, Judge. As the court pleases.
89. HENDRIK JOHANNES LÜÜS, SENIOR MILITARY JUDGE: Thank you.
REAR-ADMIRAL-CHARLES-HENRY-DUNSTAN-SMART: Thank you Judge, I think you have taken the words out of my mouth.
90. HENDRIK JOHANNES LÜÜS, SENIOR MILITARY JUDGE: Thank you, Sir, thank you for coming. You may be excused. Court Orderly, just assist please. Any further witnesses?.
91. DEFENCE-COUNSEL-LIEUTENANT COLONEL ROSSOUW: There are no further witnesses, Judge. We are closing our case.
92. (DEFENCE CLOSES ITS CASE)
93. HENDRIK JOHANNES LÜÜS, SENIOR MILITARY JUDGE: Are you ready. to address the court on sentence?
DEFENCE-COUNSEL-ROSSOUW: Yes, indeed, Judge.
HENDRIK JOHANNES LÜÜS, SENIOR MILITARY JUDGE: Please proceed.
DEFENCE'S ADDRESS IN MITIGATION OF SENTENCE
HENDRIK JOHANNES LÜÜS, SENIOR MILITARY JUDGE: Please proceed.
DEFENCE'S ADDRESS IN MITIGATION OF SENTENCE
94.
"Straf is weens die feit dat daar soveel aspekte is wat dit beinvloed en wat nie maklik definieerbaar is nie, sekerlike een van die moeilikste take wat 'n hof opgele kan word en wat 'n hof moet..................
95. ...............SANDF. She was appointed as an officer within the SANDF and the member previously belonged also belonged to Azanian People’s Liberation Army. No fraud was then committed within her appointment. If we look at the charge today, this was not dealing with her appointment as an officer, or when she entered into the SANDF.
96. HENDRIK JOHANNES LÜÜS, SENIOR MILITARY JUDGE: Just slow motion about that, Counsel. With other words you are telling me to be an officer in the South African National Defence Force, you do not need a 10 matric certificate?
97.
98. HENDRIK JOHANNES LÜÜS, SENIOR MILITARY JUDGE: Yes, now I understand that. That is ironic for .being so to speak caught out while you try to further and better your own career and your own knowledge enhancement and so on. What I'm trying to get at, however, was this not a prerequisite to be appointed an officer in the defence force, to have a matric certificate in any event?
Then if that is the case how does it influence her whole career regarding the fact that she is now an officer, she's been functioning in that role, this case is outstanding for four years already. What is the position de facto about the effect of on the administration?
99. (a) Did she need to be appointed an officer with a matric certificate? If -she doesn't have that how does it affect her appointment?
(b) How does it affect her pay because she was producing the work, there is no complaints about this work she has been producing, the work as a qualified officer and in different rank structures as well, with exceptional results, and did certain further courses and so on. So how does that basically influence your client's position?
(b) How does it affect her pay because she was producing the work, there is no complaints about this work she has been producing, the work as a qualified officer and in different rank structures as well, with exceptional results, and did certain further courses and so on. So how does that basically influence your client's position?
100. DEFENCE-COUNSEL-LIEUTENANT-COLONEL-ROSSOUW: Okay. What we are saying is when she applied for an officer within the SANDF, there was no criteria then that said that she had to had matric to be an officer. She was appointed without then divulging or having to prove in fact that she had matric. Due to the fact that she was a member of Azanian People’s Liberation Army, and there was some "toegewings" that they made with members that was outside the SANDF.
HENDRIK JOHANNES LÜÜS, SENIOR MILITARY JUDGE: Concessions.
DEFENCE-COUNSEL-LIEUTENANT-COLONEL-ROSSOUW: Concessions that were made to members that was not within the RSA but outside the RSA. That the members did not have the opportunity like the citizens of the RSA, to be in a position to get matric as they were roving all over Africa.
HENDRIK JOHANNES LÜÜS, SENIOR MILITARY JUDGE: Please continue.
HENDRIK JOHANNES LÜÜS, SENIOR MILITARY JUDGE: Concessions.
HENDRIK JOHANNES LÜÜS, SENIOR MILITARY JUDGE: Please continue.
101. DEFENCE-COUNSEL-LIEUTENANT-COLONEL-ROSSOUW: As the court pleases, Judge. Just then furthermore the SANDF suffered no financial losses. So there were no losses there were no bus tickets, pay or airplane tickets, the fraud was discovered before she then went in fact to the Academy. So the SANDF suffered no financial losses, Judge. It is only then as we pleaded to the prejudice, potential prejudice of the SANDF. That is also a very important factor, Judge. The offence was committed by the accused in September 1998. Today is already the 2 May. We are talking of three years and eight months later. There are no further offences against the accused. Also that we look at -the age. When she committed this she was merely 22 years of age, Judge. And Shakespeare has often said that young people make foolish mistakes and they have to be taught in the future not to make the same mistakes. They must get the opportunity then to work on. Circumstances surrounding the offence, Judge, I received then the following instructions with regard to the offence. The accused went to school in Zimbabwe. Her parents were part of the Azanian People’s Liberation Army members. In Zimbabwe she obtained then a form 4, which was I was informed that it was equal to our standard nine. During the application to study at the Academy, she was informed by Mrs de Bruin that she needs a matric certificate. She then went to Rustenburg, the formally Bophuthatswana, and made enquiries. She left a telephone number and was contacted and informed that she may collect the matric certificate. She requested that it be sent to her sister's P 0 Box address in Rustenburg. After receiving the certificate she handed it over to Mrs de Bruin. She never bribed or paid anyone for the document. She admitted that she is guilty, knowing that—she. did not pass matric in 1992 in the RSA. Personal factors of the accused. The evidence was given in mitigation by Admiral Smart and also documentation that was handed in with the consent of the prosecutor, Judge. We would not like to elaborate on that, but it then is showing to the honourable court that indeed she is a very hard worker, she is reliable and she is a very good officer within the SANDF. That there are certain recommendation certificates that she received from various units within the South African Defence Force. She's a first offender, Judge. She pleaded guilty now today, she even made formal admissions before the honourable court read then the procedure. In the case of State v Seegers, 1970, 506, the Appellate Division Appeal, Judge Rumpff said then the following: "That there need something extra of something more and to show the remorse of the accused". It is our submission that number one she then today in court made formal admissions thereby admitting and showing remorse for what she has done, Judge. The personal particulars...
102. HENDRIK JOHANNES LÜÜS, SENIOR MILITARY JUDGE: And she pleaded guilty.
DEFENCE-COUNSEL-LIEUTENANT-COLONEL-ROSSOUW: And she pleaded guilty, Judge. That's correct. And she is a first offender. Judge, if we look then at the personal particulars of the accused itself. She is single. She's got a nett salary of R4900,00 (four thousand nine hundred rand) that she is receiving a month.
103. She is staying currently with her mother. She has the following expenses. She is paying the water and lights where she and her mother are staying. Then she also buys food for them for R1400,00 (one thousand four hundred rand). She is buying clothing. for R200000 (four hundred Rand) and travelling from and to work R200000 (six hundred rand) per month. And then also telephone account, Judge, leaving her a surplus of R170000 (one thousand Rand) per month, Judge. Judge, if we have now deal with certain case law that the honourable court has at his disposal. The first case that we would like to quote is number 28 of 1999. This was a lance corporal that was found guilty of fraud and it was for an examination when he used unauthorised documents. He was eventually demoted to a private and his sentence was changed on an appeal to a fine of R1000 (one thousand Rand), Judge. Also very important in that, in that case, they referred to other case of Lieutenant Colonel Magasela, that received a fine of R500, 00 (five hundred rand) for the same fraud for examinations and Colonel Moneta has received a fine of R800,00 (eight hundred rand) imposed on him, Judge. If we then look on cases where officers appeared then before a court of military appeals, the first one I want to refer the honourable court to is 35 of 2000. That was a Captain AM Kunau (sic). The accused was convicted on a charge of common-law fraud in that he made use of inimitable notes in the examination and the accused was sentenced to a fine of R1000,00 (one thousand Rand) plus imprisonment for a period of six months and cashiering, of which the imprisonment and cashiering were suspended in whole for a period of three years on condition that the accused does not commit the offence of fraud during the period of suspension.
104. Judge, the next case that I would like to refer the honourable court to is number 88 of 2000. That is a case of a Captain Matthew Africa. He was charged of contravention, two counts of section 14(b). One count of section 14 (a) and then also on one account of committing an attempted fraud. He pleaded guilty to all the main• charges-- and the accused was sentenced then to a fine of R1000,00 (one thousand rand), 12 months imprisonment and cashiering of which the imprisonment and the cashiering was suspended for a period of three years on condition that the accused doesn't contravene then fraud. What I'm saying is this one the accused also had no previous convictions, the same as the one today, charged with fraud, no previous convictions, Judge. And the last case that I would like to refer the honourable court to is a case of 91 of 2000. That is a Captain Henry Paul Heuer (sic), Judge, the accused was found guilty on committing four counts of common-law fraud in that he misrepresented to four persons that they would receive an increment in their salaries. Here the member received a fine of R6000,00 (six thousand Rand), one-year imprisonment and cashiering, both suspended in full for a period of three years on condition that the accused is not convicted of common law fraud or section 30(e), committing during the period of suspension, Judge. The one case that my learned colleague referred to is number 28 of 1999, is that correct, case number?
105. PROSECUTOR UNIDENTIFIED: 33 of 1999.
DEFENCE-COUNSEL-LIEUTENANT-COLONEL-ROSSOUW: 33. In that one the accused was also found guilty of committing fraud but it never states what kind of fraud was it, Judge. Whether there was any financial values added or implicated in the case. Look at the other ...(unclear)... by myself now, these ones referred then to cases where money was not involved, Judge. Taking into consideration all the mitigating factors, the seriousness of the crime and the interest of the community with a blend of mercy, Judge, our submission is that a fine coupled with a suspended sentence would be a suitable sentence. As the honourable court pleases.
106. HENDRIK JOHANNES LÜÜS, SENIOR MILITARY JUDGE: Thank you. Just before you ,sit down, Counsel, why coupled with a suspended sentence because this once-off situation, why is there any need to couple it with a suspended sentence?
107. DEFENCE-COUNSEL-LIEUTENANT-COLONEL-ROSSOUW: Judge, to that effect then we ask then for a fine alternatively we ask for a suspended sentence but we are of the opinion that a fine would be then a suitable sentence. As the court pleases.
108. HENDRIK JOHANNES LÜÜS, SENIOR MILITARY JUDGE: Thank you. Please proceed Mr Prosecutor.
109 PROSECUTOR'S ADDRESS ON SENTENCE
110. PROSECUTOR UNIDENTIFIED: Thank you Judge. Honourable Judge, as my learned colleague mentioned to the honourable court, that this is the most difficult stage of the entire proceedings where the difficult task has been entrusted upon the court to determine an appropriate sentence. Judge, the accused today, Captain Moeti, has been found guilty of committing common law fraud by submitting a false senior certificate to the Selection Board of the Military Academy. It is in fact so that the SANDF was not actually prejudiced by this behaviour of the accused but still maintain there was potential prejudice that could have been resolved and as well as actual prejudice that could have been resolved if the matter were to stay at the Military Academy. Judge, the prosecution would also like to point out the fact that indeed the case did draw on some couple of years and after which the accused herself gave her full co-operation during the preliminary investigation as well as during this court proceedings and pleaded guilty. Which is also an indication of the remorse of the accused.
111. On the aggravating side with regards to the accused, the accused is an officer of the SANDF. She was appointed by the president of the Republic of South Africa to be an officer to be a member of the officer corps and therefore it is expected from the accused to behave with absolute honesty and integrity in all aspects of her career. And I would like to ask the court to see that as an aggravating factor.
112. With regard to the community, the eyes of the military community, especially in this instance are resting upon this court today to see what sentence will this court impose upon an officer who made herself guilty of dishonesty, especially with regard to common law fraud and it would be my submission, Judge, that the sentence should serve as a deterrent factor, to deter others from dishonest behaviour and to hand in certificates, which they well know in truth and fact that they did not obtain and try -to benefit from those false submissions or false documents.
113. Honourable court, it would also be my submission that the accused is an officer, especially in the military community and that she should set an example to her subordinates and the juniors and especially the non-commissioned officers [corporal, sergeant, staff-sergeant, and sergeant-major] lower rank groups, are looking up to an officer [candidate officer, lieutenant, captain, major, lieutenant colonel, colonel, brigadier general, major general, lieutenant general and general]and expect an absolute behaviour of integrity and honesty.
114. With regards to the offence, Judge, it is known to the court that common law fraud is a criminal offence, it is a very serious offence although this offence was committed four years ago. We just can't reason it away, it still remains a very serious offence and it must be regarded in a very serious light. The witness in mitigation, Admiral [Charles Hudson Dunstan]Smart [and South-Africa’s highest ranked military-law officer],is also the Adjutant General of the SANDF, also said that dishonesty cannot be accepted or it is unacceptable by any person, especially by an officer in the SANDF. I would also like to refer the court to case number 3 of 1999. Where the CMA remarked that:
115. "Dishonesty perpetrated by an officer cannot be tolerated by any defence force".
116. HENDRIK JOHANNES LÜÜS, SENIOR MILITARY JUDGE: What happened in that case?
PROSECUTOR UNIDENTIFIED: Honourable Judge, as my learned colleague mentioned the accused or the applicant was convicted of a charge of common law fraud. And unfortunately I do not have the surrounding facts of the case itself. And I was only able to find this judgement on the fact that where the applicant made an appeal to the CMA. Honourable Judge, it is true that the other sentences that was given by the, or upheld by the CMA, are that of a fine when a member of the defence force was convicted of fraud, especially with regards to first offenders and it was also referred to case number 28 of 1999 and the case of Lieutenant Colonel Magasela and Colonel Moneti, where fines were imposed. Honourable Judge, with regards to case number 3 of 1999, where the sentence of the reduction to the rank of second lieutenant, where the accused, the lieutenant was upheld by the CMA, it also indicates that indeed the offence of common law fraud must be regarded as serious and that a sentence to the reduction of the lower rank, can be upheld or was upheld in those circumstances. Judge, taking into consideration all the relevant factors and mitigating factors, as well as aggravating factors, it will be my submission that a sentence with regards to the reduction to the lower rank of lieutenant in this instance would be a suitable sentence. And if the court is of the view that it will be a too harsh sentence, a maximum fine would be then the most appropriate sentence.
HENDRIK JOHANNES LÜÜS, SENIOR MILITARY JUDGE: What's the difference if you argue that what is the difference in pay between a lieutenant and a captain, Prosecutor?
PROSECUTOR UNIDENTIFIED: Honourable Judge, the exact figures are not with me at the moment but it is in the vicinity of plus minus R16 000,00 (sixteen thousand Rand) a year, the difference between a lieutenant's salary and that of a captain's salary.
PROSECUTOR UNIDENTIFIED: Honourable Judge, as my learned colleague mentioned the accused or the applicant was convicted of a charge of common law fraud. And unfortunately I do not have the surrounding facts of the case itself. And I was only able to find this judgement on the fact that where the applicant made an appeal to the CMA. Honourable Judge, it is true that the other sentences that was given by the, or upheld by the CMA, are that of a fine when a member of the defence force was convicted of fraud, especially with regards to first offenders and it was also referred to case number 28 of 1999 and the case of Lieutenant Colonel Magasela and Colonel Moneti, where fines were imposed. Honourable Judge, with regards to case number 3 of 1999, where the sentence of the reduction to the rank of second lieutenant, where the accused, the lieutenant was upheld by the CMA, it also indicates that indeed the offence of common law fraud must be regarded as serious and that a sentence to the reduction of the lower rank, can be upheld or was upheld in those circumstances. Judge, taking into consideration all the relevant factors and mitigating factors, as well as aggravating factors, it will be my submission that a sentence with regards to the reduction to the lower rank of lieutenant in this instance would be a suitable sentence. And if the court is of the view that it will be a too harsh sentence, a maximum fine would be then the most appropriate sentence.
HENDRIK JOHANNES LÜÜS, SENIOR MILITARY JUDGE: What's the difference if you argue that what is the difference in pay between a lieutenant and a captain, Prosecutor?
PROSECUTOR UNIDENTIFIED: Honourable Judge, the exact figures are not with me at the moment but it is in the vicinity of plus minus R16 000,00 (sixteen thousand Rand) a year, the difference between a lieutenant's salary and that of a captain's salary.
117. HENDRIK JOHANNES LÜÜS, SENIOR MILITARY JUDGE: R16 000,00 (sixteen thousand rand).
PROSECUTOR UNIDENTIFIED: R16 000,00 (sixteen thousand rand) Judge.
PROSECUTOR UNIDENTIFIED: R16 000,00 (sixteen thousand rand) Judge.
118. HENDRIK JOHANNES LÜÜS, SENIOR MILITARY JUDGE: Multiplied by three, so you get the three years cycle to get back on the rank of captain. So it is a sentence in effect of about R50 000,00 (fifty thousand 25 rand). Is that what you are telling the court.
PROSECUTOR UNIDENTIFIED: That is correct, Judge.
PROSECUTOR UNIDENTIFIED: That is correct, Judge.
119. HENDRIK JOHANNES LÜÜS, SENIOR MILITARY JUDGE: Other factors, taking into consideration as well as the contribution by the government to the pension and aspects that makes it far larger amount than the R50 000,00 (fifty thousand rand). Is that true?
PROSECUTOR UNIDENTIFIED: That is correct, Judge. As I've said it would be my submission that, -if it is in the court's view too harsh, the sentence, especially regarding the mitigating evidence and as well as the courts view that the accused is an asset to the defence force, that a maximum fine would be the more appropriate sentence. As the court pleases, Judge.
HENDRIK JOHANNES LÜÜS, SENIOR MILITARY JUDGE: Thank you. Any reply?
DEFENCE-COUNSEL-LIEUTENANT-COLONEL-ROSSOUW: There are no legal points that are raised, Judge.
HENDRIK JOHANNES LÜÜS, SENIOR MILITARY JUDGE: Thank you. The court will adjourn.
PROSECUTOR UNIDENTIFIED: That is correct, Judge. As I've said it would be my submission that, -if it is in the court's view too harsh, the sentence, especially regarding the mitigating evidence and as well as the courts view that the accused is an asset to the defence force, that a maximum fine would be the more appropriate sentence. As the court pleases, Judge.
HENDRIK JOHANNES LÜÜS, SENIOR MILITARY JUDGE: Thank you. Any reply?
HENDRIK JOHANNES LÜÜS, SENIOR MILITARY JUDGE: Thank you. The court will adjourn.
120. ((Court closes) to consider sentence)
((Court re-opens))
121. SENTENCE
122. HENDRIK JOHANNES LÜÜS, SENIOR MILITARY JUDGE: Captain, the court has a concern and that is as far as the courts knowledge is concerned, that a matric certificate is needed to be an officer. So the court do not want to condone a situation that you continue being an officer while there is no matric certificate. However, that criteria might be applicable not to the new incumbents in the South African National Defence Force and the court does not have the necessary knowledge about what, the requirements is or are, .in certain given instances.
123. The court is of the opinion that this is not a matter the court has to deal with today, and that this concern should be lodged and forwarded to your OC to deal with it accordingly.
124. Regarding the case today, there is obviously remorse on your side. It is very clear that you pleaded guilty. It's clear that you added formal admissions, in the courts opinion with all due respect, the formal admissions did not add value but the mere inclination to come clean is reflected in that. And the court is also of the opinion, the court deals daily with persons with long extended records, in a very short duration of time, and that your court record, or that your record of certain amount of years, does in any event, not reflect your previous years of being a member of Azanian People’s Liberation Army.
125. This only indicates, if I understand it correct, the total military service from joining the South African National Defence Force. However, bearing in mind that you are a very young person relatively speaking, it stands to reason that you would not have a protracted record at Azanian People’s Liberation Army itself before joining the South African National Defence Force. So it is an affiliation that most likely took place but the court have no record of that and the court cannot speculate. It is on record and was not disputed, Annexures Fl right up to F15 shows an exceptionally good quality person. Not only to the South African National Defence Force, to any organisation and as such people tend to make mistakes. Errors of judgement. And that an error of judgement in all probability took place in this case, in this scenario, where ironically you wanted to further your career, and in that process you were caught out. You wanted to further your academic career, so to speak. So that is where the ironic bit comes in. In essence the court understands what the prosecutor's concern is and with reference to case number 3 of 1999, which do not have all the relevant factors that the court can consider to benchmark it with this case, because case number 3 of 1999 is very short. It is a couple of paragraphs and there is no extensive background information given. So the court have to carefully weigh what the factors in this case are, against the factors in that case and the court is not in a position to do so at this point of time.
126. However, it is generally accepted that an officer should not be dishonest. And it comes more and more to light that there are a lot of officers that cheat with examinations. The element of dishonesty there was reflected in the cases as referred by the counsel, 28 of 1999, 35 of 2000, 88 of 2000 and 91 of 2000, but this is different from those cases. This pertains to the foundation of whether you are allowing the defence force which the court cannot give any ruling on today and or whether you can be allowed to perceive of this course which was the matter before this court. The court is of the opinion that taking all the relevant case law into consideration, taking the type of crime into consideration, taking the fact that this was a once-off situation, that in four years time you had not done anything wrong, that you have shown exceptional ability to work hard and get recommendations from all parties concerned and that on face value with these documentation, listed as Fl to F15, that you are an asset to the South African National Defence Force. And this is the opinion of the court that there is no value there, whether it was a once-off incident to impose a suspended sentence, that will not serve the purpose. It would be also unnecessarily harsh to take away your rank to a lower rank, because the effect of that will be that it will be a severe punishment and be detrimental to your career. Taking into consideration exactly what the circumstances was, it was an attempt to better yourself. It was not as examination fraud carefully planned to misrepresent qualities in that sense and abilities, but this was the other side of the spectrum to misrepresent abilities to further yourself, so there is a fine dividing line between the two, but it is still in essence dishonesty. And dishonesty cannot be condoned by the court. However, the court has to understand that everybody is human and that one mistake, taking the surrounding circumstances and the nature of the mistake into consideration, should not be a total stop to a person's career, especially seen against the fact that you have shown remorse and that you have redeemed yourself by working in an exceptional fashion relating to all these documentation shown to the court. Then also, somebody with the stature of [Rear Admiral Charles Hudson Dunstan, our most senior chief in SANDF legal corps], came forward to identify with your circumstances. The court cannot ignore that that is the reflection of people at the highest level of your capabilities and that the court should give you a final chance and see this as an isolated incident that happened a couple of years ago. The court do not condone fraud, the court do not wish that this court case be an example for other cases because each and every individual case is different. And this should not be seen as a light sentence, but the court is of the opinion that an appropriate sentence taking everything into consideration, mitigating, aggravating circumstances, nature of the crime, maximum penalties, possible case law, everything into consideration, including your own specific facts, THAT THE APPROPRIATE SENTENCE WOULD BE A FINE AND THAT WOULD BE A FINE OF R2000,00 (TWO THOUSAND RAND).
127. PROSECUTOR UNIDENTIFIED: As the court pleases.
128. DEFENCE-COUNSEL-LIEUTENANT-COLONEL-ROSSOUW: As the court pleases.
HENDRIK JOHANNES LÜÜS, SENIOR MILITARY JUDGE: Obviously this is also to be deducted from your salary and in terms of section 130 Military Disciplinary Code-MDC the accused is placed under deduction of pay in the amount of R2000,00 (two thousand rand), being the amount of the fine. If you are not happy with the court's finding and/or sentence in this case, you have 14 days to proceed to Army Law Enforcement Satellite Office Thaba Tshwane Review Counsel and you have six months to go before the Court of Military Appeals. Do you understand that?
HENDRIK JOHANNES LÜÜS, SENIOR MILITARY JUDGE: Obviously this is also to be deducted from your salary and in terms of section 130 Military Disciplinary Code-MDC the accused is placed under deduction of pay in the amount of R2000,00 (two thousand rand), being the amount of the fine. If you are not happy with the court's finding and/or sentence in this case, you have 14 days to proceed to Army Law Enforcement Satellite Office Thaba Tshwane Review Counsel and you have six months to go before the Court of Military Appeals. Do you understand that?
129. ACCUSED ROWENA MOETI: Yes, Sir.
30 HENDRIK JOHANNES LÜÜS, SENIOR MILITARY JUDGE: You may go.
30 HENDRIK JOHANNES LÜÜS, SENIOR MILITARY JUDGE: You may go.
130. PROSECUTOR UNIDENTIFIED: As the court pleases.
DEFENCE-COUNSEL-LIEUTENANT-COLONEL-ROSSOUW: As the court pleases.
(End of tape 1)
(END OF COURT PROCEEDINGS)
(End of tape 1)
(END OF COURT PROCEEDINGS)
131. CERTIFICATE
132. I, RIA BUYS, hereby certify that the record of proceedings of a COURT OF THE DEPARTMENTAL JUDGE of CAPTAIN NUTENG ROWENA REBECCA MOETI : HELD ON 2 MAY 2002, was transcribed by myself and/or an employee(s) of WM Transcriptions & Interpreting CC and that the edited version thereof is a true, complete and accurate version of the proceedings, to the extent that the mechanical recording was audible. (For WM Transcriptions) 28 May 2002
WM TRANSCRIPTIONS & INTERPRETING
P 0 Box 11591, CENTURION, 0046 / 176 Sonja Street, Doringkloof, CENTURION
Tel: +2712667-3104, Fax: +2712667-6233 / email: wmtrans@3gi.co.za
Members: W Malan, 1-1.1M Buys, P Chauke, JO Rameetse
WM TRANSCRIPTIONS & INTERPRETING
P 0 Box 11591, CENTURION, 0046 / 176 Sonja Street, Doringkloof, CENTURION
Tel: +2712667-3104, Fax: +2712667-6233 / email: wmtrans@3gi.co.za
Members: W Malan, 1-1.1M Buys, P Chauke, JO Rameetse
133. NOW TO THE DEPOSITION OF MR BHEKI QEDUSIZI PENUEL SIMELANE, A DEFENCE FORCE WHISTLE BLOWER OF SO MUCH NOTE AND RELIABILITY THE OFFICE OF HIS EXCELLENCY MBEKI IMPERILLED THEMSELVES IN IGNORING HIM, WHICH, BY THE WAY, CONTRIBUTED IN CREATED THE GROUNDSWELL OPPOSITION IN POLOKWANE TO HAVE THABO MBEKI RE-ELECTED ANC PRESIDENT
134. .....It is also clear from the above comparison that Colonel Kolbe was by far a better Candidate in terms of experience, efficiency and military qualifications. As from 1 January 1996 she was involved as SENIOR STAFF OFFICER Reviews In the administration of justice in the then Directorate of Administration of Justice (DAJ) with its director being Admiral Smart in issue. Even when earlier detached to the Army HQ from 92- 95 she was involved in administration of justice as SO1 Reviews . Colonel Kolbe therefore had the necessary experience in the administration of justice or military justice in terms of Section 13 (1) of the Military Discipline Supplementary Measures Act, Act No. 16 of 1999. If gender representativity as a consideration in appointing one of the directors as stated in paragraph 4 of the letter of 16th July 1999 by Major-General J.C. van der Poel on behalf of CHIEF OF THE SOUTH AFRICAN NATIONAL DEFENCE FORCE to the Minister of Defence as per CHDS "HH" of Vol 2 hard facts as demonstrated above indicate that Colonel Kolbe would have been the most suitable candidate. It is therefore strange that Admiral Smart suggested to the Staffing Board that Colonel Kolbe not be considered as a result alleged exposure. This was clearly a lie. Further Colonel Kolbe was more senior having joined the SANDF in 1983 whereas Colonel Annemarie Myburgh (Mrs) joined in 1985. Their CVs Show that they became substantive Colonels on 1 January 1998. In terms of Regulation 11 of Chapter 111 of the Regulations aforementioned governing seniority the matter should have been referred to the Minister of Defence to determine who was the most senior of the two (2). The Staffing board could not have resolved the issue to be able to make an appropriate, recommendation. There is therefore no objective authority in the light of the aforegoing or the following statement by Admiral Smart to the Staffing Board as per the Minutes quoted in paragraph 26.18 of his Answering Affidavit:
135. "The applications of The chairperson suggested that Colonel Kolbe not be considered for a Director's post at this stage because of the member’s exposure." (Emphasis supplied).
136. Nowhere in Section 13(1) of the Military Discipline Supplementary measures Act, Act No. 16 of 1999 is it stated eo nomine that "sexual prowess" is an essential requirement for any of the directors' posts or directors' posts as considered by the said Staffing Board. Nowhere in the Minutes of the Staffing Board is it reflected that the Chairman informed the members of the Staffing Board of this apparent "new" essential requirement.
137. At page 73 of his Answering Affidavit Admiral Smart states the following:
138. "26.14.2 Director Departmental judges; Colonel (now Brigadier General) Annemarie Myburgh. (She was already staffed as a Senior Staff Officer Trial Counsel and was the most suitable candidate for the post) (My emphasis).
139. Reference may also be had to Vol 5 for the evidence under oath of the then Colonel Annemarie Myburgh (Mrs) before the Board of Inquiry. The page number at the top is not very clear. But it is Boe 16/4/98 and Tape 16. The testimony inter alia goes like this including the swearing in:
140. "Secretary: Colonel just for purposes of record, your force number please?
Myburgh : 78703949PE
Secretary: : Your full names and your surname?
Myburgh : Anne-Marie Myburgh
Secretary: : Colonel do you have any objection in against taking the prescribed oath?
Myburgh : No
Secretary: : Do you consider the prescribed oath to be binding on your conscience?
Myburgh : Yes
Secretary: Then swear that you will speak the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, by raising your right hand and saying "So help me God"
Myburgh : "So help me God"
Secretary : Thank you Colonel
President : Colonel Myburgh could you explain to the Board in what capacity you served at Army Headquarters during 1997?
Myburgh : 78703949PE
Secretary: : Your full names and your surname?
Myburgh : Anne-Marie Myburgh
Secretary: : Colonel do you have any objection in against taking the prescribed oath?
Myburgh : No
Secretary: : Do you consider the prescribed oath to be binding on your conscience?
Myburgh : Yes
Secretary: Then swear that you will speak the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, by raising your right hand and saying "So help me God"
Myburgh : "So help me God"
Secretary : Thank you Colonel
President : Colonel Myburgh could you explain to the Board in what capacity you served at Army Headquarters during 1997?
141. Myburgh : Okay, 1997, during 1997 I was SO1 Law Training of Directorate legal Services stationed at Voortrekkerhoogte City Hall where our lectures and offices were. Presenting military law courses for line officers as well as military law officers. I have been in that position since 1990 involved with the military law training.
142. President : Thank you. Do you still have to do with military law training in your present capacity?
Myburgh I am SENIOR STAFF OFFICER Law Training at this stage.
President : At Defence Headquarters?
Myburgh : Yes."
Myburgh I am SENIOR STAFF OFFICER Law Training at this stage.
President : At Defence Headquarters?
Myburgh : Yes."
143. On 15 May 1998 then Colonel Annemarie Myburgh (Mrs) appeared before Lieutenant Colonel W. J. Verster, Secretary to the Board of Inquiry and signed a transcript of her evidence before the Board to confirm that as a witness she was satisfied with its contents to be her whole testimony and did not want to make any further amendments or alterations. The above extract from her testimony is from such certified transcript.
144. It is abundantly clear from the above quoted extract that the then Colonel Annemarie Myburgh (Mrs) was neither staffed nor did she occupy a position as Senior Staff Officer Trial Counsel as averred by Admiral Smart under oath in the said paragraph 26.14.2 of his Answering Affidavit. This is obviously a criminal offence and the matter will need to be referred to the National Director of Public Prosecutions.
145. Further the then Colonel Annemarie Myburgh addressed a letter as SENIOR STAFF OFFICER Law Training to the Chief of the Army on 17 March 1999 applying for the directors' posts and annexed thereto was 'copy of my Curriculum Vitae" inter alia known as a CV. Appearing on the said CV under item 10 is the following:
146. "PRESENT APPOINTMENT : SENIOR STAFF OFFICER
147. LAW TRAINING, SANDF WEE 2001 January 1998"
148. The aforementioned letter dated 17 March 1999 is in Volume 2, Annexure CHDS "AA".
149. It is clear from the aforegoing that Admiral Smart as Chairman of the Staffing Board embellished the CV of one of the candidates to the detriment and prejudice of other
150. candidates. I am one such candidate who suffered irreparable harm as a result of the said embellishment. In so doing Admiral Smart did not uphold a high standard of professional ethics and good human-resource management and career development practices in contravention of Section 195 of the Final Constitution especially Section 195(1)(a) and (h). Since the Final Constitution is the supreme law of the country such conduct by Admiral Smart as Chairperson of the Staffing Board nullifies the decisions and recommendations of the said Staffing Board. Further such reprehensible and corrupt conduct is a criminal offence of perjury and a contravention of inter alia the Corruption Act, Act No. 94 of 1992.
151. 148. AD PARA 26.22.1
Admiral Smart should have recused himself suo motu. The other members of the Board may obviously have not known of the problems I had with Admiral Smart some of which are mentioned in conclusion in above paragraph 147 hereof. Nobody else knew of the grounds of objection I had with him but himself. If it was open to me to lodge an objection had I been notified of the sitting of the Staffing Board I would have certainly had objected. Further the Staffing board in issue was not representative as to race. Hence nobody else was concerned about the exclusion of my application as an African Person.
Admiral Smart should have recused himself suo motu. The other members of the Board may obviously have not known of the problems I had with Admiral Smart some of which are mentioned in conclusion in above paragraph 147 hereof. Nobody else knew of the grounds of objection I had with him but himself. If it was open to me to lodge an objection had I been notified of the sitting of the Staffing Board I would have certainly had objected. Further the Staffing board in issue was not representative as to race. Hence nobody else was concerned about the exclusion of my application as an African Person.
152. 149. AD PARA 26 22 2
I deny that I knew that Admiral Smart would chair the Staffing Board. The candidates who may have known are those he would have discussed with them prior to the sitting of the Staffing Board to discuss their preferences of the posts he was about to dish out. Ali the other candidates were White persons. I was the only Black person. For this reason and as an incorrigible practicing racist bigot there was nothing in his view he could discuss with me relating to the Staffing Board.
I deny that I knew that Admiral Smart would chair the Staffing Board. The candidates who may have known are those he would have discussed with them prior to the sitting of the Staffing Board to discuss their preferences of the posts he was about to dish out. Ali the other candidates were White persons. I was the only Black person. For this reason and as an incorrigible practicing racist bigot there was nothing in his view he could discuss with me relating to the Staffing Board.
153. 150. AD PARA 26.23
154. 2. Manual of Military Law, Parts I and I!
3. Manual of Air Force Law, Vols I and II
4. Manual of Military Law, Part III (The Law of War on Land).
3. Manual of Air Force Law, Vols I and II
4. Manual of Military Law, Part III (The Law of War on Land).
155. Had the said SANDF Accreditation Appeal Board been convened in terms of my appeal I would have received the necessary accreditation and therefore the exemption from the SANDF Military Course in issue. I the premises I deny that I had not yet completed the Military Law Course as alleged.
143.
AD PARA 26.19
This is admitted.
144.
AD PARA 26.20
143.
AD PARA 26.19
This is admitted.
144.
AD PARA 26.20
156. While I am as I was then a substantive Colonel and of the substantive Colonels referred to herein I was the most senior amongst them all in terms of precedence and seniority as defined in Regulation 2 and Regulation 11 respectively of the aforementioned CHAPTER III of the Regulations entitled "RANKS, PRECEDENCE, APPOINTMENTS, PROMOTIONS, TERMINATION OF SERVICE AND RESERVE LIABILITIES" when the date of appointment or attestation is concerned. Regarding the attestation or appointment dates please refer to paragraph 139 hereof.
157. It is denied in law that I was supernumerary as this was in contravention of Section 236(1) of the Interim Constitution as amended by item 5, ANNEXURE D of the Final Constitution. For the same reasons based on the Constitution it is denied that Brigadier General Coetzee and Brigadier General Kinghorn were my seniors.
145.
AD PARA 26.21.1
This is admitted.
AD PARA 26.21.2 This is admitted. AD PARA 26.21.3
It is denied that Colonel Anne-Marie Myburgh had not less than 5 years' appropriate experience as a practicing advocate or attorney of the High Court of South Africa or not less than 5 years' experience in the administration of criminal justice or military justice. In fact she had no iota of such experience as her career since appointment in the SANDF on 1 December 1985 shows that:
145.
AD PARA 26.21.1
This is admitted.
AD PARA 26.21.2 This is admitted. AD PARA 26.21.3
It is denied that Colonel Anne-Marie Myburgh had not less than 5 years' appropriate experience as a practicing advocate or attorney of the High Court of South Africa or not less than 5 years' experience in the administration of criminal justice or military justice. In fact she had no iota of such experience as her career since appointment in the SANDF on 1 December 1985 shows that:
158. i. S03 MIL LAW — QMG HQ — DEC 85 — March 90
ii. C INSTR MIL LAW — PS SCHOOL — JUN 90 —JAN 93
iii SO1 LAW TRG, DLS (ARMY) —JAN 94 TO DEC 98
iv. SSO LAW TRAINING, PERS DIV (AG) — JAN 98 — DATE
ii. C INSTR MIL LAW — PS SCHOOL — JUN 90 —JAN 93
iii SO1 LAW TRG, DLS (ARMY) —JAN 94 TO DEC 98
iv. SSO LAW TRAINING, PERS DIV (AG) — JAN 98 — DATE
159. (Vide Item 16B of her CV as per CHDS "AA" of Vol.2)
160. In view of the aforegoing it is therefore a lie that she was already staffed as a Senior Staff Officer Trial Counsel and was the most suitable candidate as alleged in paragraph 26.14.2 of the Answering Affidavit of Admiral Smart. Further her appointment was a contravention of the relevant statutes especially, Section 13(1) of the Military Discipline Supplementary Measures Act, Act No. 16 of 1999 and is null and void ab initio and must also be set aside. The taxpayer is again being plainly defrauded in the circumstances.
161. On the day of the appointment of Admiral Smart as Adjutant-General or Chief Military Legal Services was to be announced at Chief Military Legal Services Conference Room, this was around April 1999 at about 12.00 noon I was in my office as usual doing my official work. Since my debacle with the former Adjutant-General, General P.J. de Klerk during November 1997 he had reason to order me to move away from the office I was occupying when he caused the show which eventually became a subject of his requested Board of Inquiry. I was moved to an adjacent office facing the passage. When sitting in my office I could see people going about in the passage if the door was kept open. On the day of the said announcement and being oblivious of the "latest" the then Col Anne-Marie Myburgh stopped in front of the door to my office facing me and shaking her figure in a braggadocio and while standing there said to me "Have you heard the latest?" I wondered what I had done to deserve all this. She continued "Admiral Smart has been appointed Adjutant-General". Come quickly to the conference room for the announcement." I just looked at her. She could apparently see that I was not amused and she decided to go away. For that braggadocio I decided to stay put in my office.
162. Why do I tell this story. Simple. There could never be a good reason why Admiral Smart could not certify the then Col Anne-Marie Myburgh "as a fit and proper person of sound character who meets the requirements prescribed in the Military Discipline Supplementary Measures Act 1999" (Military Disciplinary Supplementary Measures Act-MDSMA) regardless. They are too close. It is general knowledge at Chief Military Legal Services that she is the power behind the throne.
163. I kindly refer to confidential reports in paragraph 24.1 of the Answering Affidavit and in particular paragraph 3 and 5 of the letter dated 8 January 1998 addressed to me by Admiral Smart, CHDS "R4" of Vol 1 which reads thus:
164. "3. As I personally am not particularly comfortable with "oral examinations"— at least not without some "dry runs" — and because I did not hear you say that you considered yourself to be ready or comfortable to do so, I asked you if I could assist later in the day by doing "a practice run" with you. You accepted. Later — for approximately an hour from 071140B Jan 98 — you, Lieutenant Colonel (miss) Kolbe and I did just that.
165. 4. After the end of the practice session,
166. 5 If my deduction as to the nature of your intimation to Mr de Klerk is correct, i am obliged to say that your decision coincides with my personal evaluation of the situation: you need to be much better prepared there for than you are at the moment. To be candid, it would have been difficult to have placed a 10% satisfaction rate on this practice run." (My emphasis).
167. When I agreed to the said "practice session" I did not know that Admiral Smart would bring along a third party. He never sought my permission. But when I saw that it was Miss Kolbe she was bringing in I simply understood that I was going for a real "dry run" as they were then an item. I could see they were up to enjoying themselves with their teasing questions and attempting to demonstrate how stupid they thought I was in Military Law. With all these military conventions and the man being my immediate commander I could not just withdraw from the "mess" since I had agreed to the "exercise". Admiral Smart as I could see, was then philandering with Col. Aletta Marie Kolbe until the arrival of then Col Anne-Marie Myburgh at the Adjutant-General's Office early in 1998 when Admiral Smart apparently poured cold water on his affair with Kolbe. While they were an item they appeared infatuated and besotted with each other. They say love is blind. On at least two (2) occasions as I was coming out of my office I would see the two (2) kissing each other in the passage. Not wanting to disturb them I would draw back into my office until the coast would have cleared as it were. Also with Col. Anne-Marie Myburgh the story went round at Chief Military Legal Services during 2000 that her husband had secured a lucrative job in the UK and would soon be leaving with her family. It was not be according to this story. Admiral Smart was sad to be holding on to another man's wife. One White lady was heard complaining to say: "but can't Admiral Smart let go of General Myburgh". The plans of the family were apparently scuppered and the trip overseas was aborted allegedly because of the Honourable Admiral Smart. To date on the sad White ladies version Admiral Smart does not appear to have let go of the then Colonel, now Brigadier-General Myburgh. In Zulu they say: "Asiwumbi singawulali." The word making rounds here in the AG's Office is that Admiral Smart uses members of the staff to his convenience and when he is done with you, you are history. Just like a used condom. To me, when I hear that I would say to myself, yes I know that one of them is Col. Kolbe. Notwithstanding that she tried to use Admiral Smart as a reference when applying for directors' posts it was not to be. She lost out. Ousted by the said new arrival in 1998. See in this regard item 26, of the CV of Col. A Kolbe as per CHDS "AA" in Vol 1 which reads:
168. "26. Reference: R ADM (JG) C.H.D. SMART ACTING CHIEF LEGAL SERVICES, DHQ (TEL 3555362)Given the fact that I had filed a redress of wrongs as aforementioned with CHIEF OF THE SOUTH AFRICAN NATIONAL DEFENCE FORCE against Admiral Smart and that he had been involved in attempts to get me administratively discharged from the SANDF I agree with his conclusions herein that "It would have been factually and conceptually impossible for me to have done so in respect of the first applicant." (Emphasis supplied). It is worth the while in my respectful submission to look at the comparison of the following members' careers in the SANDF:
169. SOURCE: VOL 2. CHDS "AA"
170. ,1,05
171. Item Colonel Annemarie Myburgh Col. A.M Kolbe
1. dob. 31 December 1960 d.o.b. 8 March 1958
2. Matric = Not declared, if any Matric = 1975
3. Attestation/Appointment date = 1 December 1985 Attestation/Appointment date = 18 April 1983
1. dob. 31 December 1960 d.o.b. 8 March 1958
2. Matric = Not declared, if any Matric = 1975
3. Attestation/Appointment date = 1 December 1985 Attestation/Appointment date = 18 April 1983
172. 4. Ranks
173. i. Lieutenant 01 December 1985
ii. Captain 01 Jan 1989
iii. Major 01 Jan 1992
iv. Lieutenant 01 Jan 1995 –Colonel
v. Colonel 01 Jan 1998
ii. Captain 01 Jan 1989
iii. Major 01 Jan 1992
iv. Lieutenant 01 Jan 1995 –Colonel
v. Colonel 01 Jan 1998
174. Ranks
175. i. Lieutenant 18 April 1983
ii. Captain 01 May 1986
iii. Major 01 May 1989
iv. Lieutenant- 01 May 1992 Colonel
v. Colonel 01 Jan 1998
ii. Captain 01 May 1986
iii. Major 01 May 1989
iv. Lieutenant- 01 May 1992 Colonel
v. Colonel 01 Jan 1998
176. 5.6.7. Functional Information has not been disclosed
COURSE QUALIFICATIONS IN THE SADF (Military Courses)
COURSE QUALIFICATIONS IN THE SADF (Military Courses)
177. i. Formative Course for Officers = 1987
ii. Military Law (Advanced) = 1985
iii. Personnel Officers Part 1 = 1988
iv. All Arms Battle Handling = 1992 (The member has to date not yet entered for the Junior Command Staff Courses and completed it)
ii. Military Law (Advanced) = 1985
iii. Personnel Officers Part 1 = 1988
iv. All Arms Battle Handling = 1992 (The member has to date not yet entered for the Junior Command Staff Courses and completed it)
a. Decorations and medals Not declared, if any
b. Functional Senior Military Law Officer= 1 June 1989
Ii Chief Military Law Officer = 1 July 1996
Ii Chief Military Law Officer = 1 July 1996
c. COURSE QUALIFICATIONS IN THE SADF (Military Courses)
i. Officers Orientation = July - Sept 1983
ii. Advanced Military Law Course = 1983
iii. Officers Part 1 (PF, SAMHS)
iv. " Battle Handling" = 1985
v. Junior Command and Staff Course = 1991 – 1992
vi. Decorations and medals-I General Service
 |
| "Siziwe" a.k.a "Sighs", the self-professed Nelson Mandela Cousin who achieved generalcy and other ranking through adultery/prostitution with at least one Raymond Lentsoe in Year 2000. Goodman Manyanya Phiri, according to Mr Jacob Zuma, must for 11 years now therefore continue to suffer for blowing the whistle against this relative to a Mandela that Zuma calls "The Father of The Nation South Africa". Her official name is Winnie Ntombizodwa Zini-Bobelo |
No comments:
Post a Comment