MERRY QUIZ SMARM, JUDGE!

Darker-skinned Phiri with a colleague. Phiri still protesting his innocence.

judge neil Tuchten, the one with his full bench of all-fellow-ethnic-European judges of South Africa, closed his eyes to the signed agreement between Phiri lawyers and Zuma’s (The State Attorney) and a signature that, that, in the event the Inspector General’s Report ordered and printed (6 February-6 March 2001) and sought by Phiri in order to defend Phiri's self “has gone too missing for Phiri to get it” in order to thereby defend Phiri's self from the  9 March 2001 10-or-so Zuma disciplinary charges aimed at covering up Nelson Mandela's fornicating-for-promotion-cousin-Zini-Bobelo, THEN (THE SIGNATURE OF STATE ATTORNEY GOES) "Lieutenant General Gilbert Lebeko  Ramano, the one supposed to have ordered the Investigations and production of the since-“Missing” Report, SHOULD WRITE AN AFFIDAVIT TO THAT EFFECT AND HAND SUCH AN AFFIDAVIT TO PHIRI WHICH SHOULD SUFFICE FOR PHIRI TO DEFEND HIMSELD IN THE 2001 CHARGES!  European Judge Tuchten and his fellow Europeans of the Full Bench, against Phiri simply ordered in 2010, all despite two previous judgments by ethnic Africans Judges Claasen  and Sithole (A/J) to Phiri’s favour).  Tuchten and fellow European teamof judges simply ordered that Phiri “must continue to be unfairly prosecuted by Zuma’s Nguni, particularly, Mandelasque Xhosa tribalists” just because, during the fracas of 2001, racially-emotional Judge Neil Tuchten’s fellow white (Johannes Hannes Beyers Kleynhans) was supposed to have been insulted by “Bantu Phiri and blacks should in Mandela's South Africa be taught to respect whites even where whites are either wrong or deserve no respect”.  As to why Tuchten's Full Bench (three judges) were ordered to be all-white (and non-Afrikaaner African) in a demographically majority native-African nation, Jacob Zuma who is abusing his power in South Africa to support tirbalism against  Phiri, MUST ANSWER ME BEFORE I DIE.

"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

THE KANGAROO COURT RE-OPENABLE BY VIRTUE OF MISGUIDED HIGH-COURT JUDGE NEIL TUCHTEN ’S ORDER 10 NOVEMBER 2010 ORDER WITH THE HELP OF LINDIWE SISULU WHO COWARDLY DENIED PHIRI HIS RIGHTFUL ACCESS TO STATE FUNDS FOR PAYING HIS FINANCIALLY-STARVED LAWYERS IN THE UNEVEN HIGH-COURT BATTLE WITH HER

PART 2-C

The last post dealt with Accused Goodman Manyanya Phiri’s heartfelt pleas that Judge Hendrik Luus should leave and just march out for another judge all because of bias.  Even though this was one of at least two applications made to this court, the current post deals with the judge’s response to that particular “marching-orders” plea, a plea that any unbiased judge would have understood and not sought far-fetched rules to therewith tenaciously cling onto trying and finding guilty Black Officer Phiri who dares challenge the extended family of white Britain’s stooge for nieu-colonialism over Africa.

Fortunately, Judge Luus, was an understanding Judge

Or was he?

Please read on and have a merry Charismas in the process

1)       HENDRIK JOHANNES LÜÜS, SENIOR MILITARY JUDGE:           Thank you.          The court will give a body break at this point in time. All persons back in court.  It's nearly lunchtime in any event.               Do you wish to take lunch, Counsel [Simelane]?

BHEKUMNDENI Q. PENUEL SIMELANE, SENIOR MILITARY DEFENCE COUNSEL:             Yes, please.

 HENDRIK JOHANNES LÜÜS, SENIOR MILITARY JUDGE:           Okay.    All parties be back at 13:15 please. Will that suffice?

BHEKUMNDENI Q. PENUEL SIMELANE, SENIOR MILITARY DEFENCE COUNSEL:             Yes, Judge, it will—suffice,....

 HENDRIK JOHANNES LÜÜS, SENIOR MILITARY JUDGE:           Colonel [Phiri], just stand  there, please.  ...Be back at 13:15... We're just going to hear arguments from the prosecution's side and then the court will adjourn to give a finding in this matter.            You understand?

ACCUSED GOODMAN MANYANYA PHIRI:     Yes, Judge.

HENDRIK JOHANNES LÜÜS, SENIOR MILITARY JUDGE:            Thank you. Please be back.

(Court adjourns)

2)      ((Court re-opens))

3)      HENDRIK JOHANNES LÜÜS, SENIOR MILITARY JUDGE:            The court is in sitting again. We had a lunchtime adjournment. At this point in time, as the state ... is the state ready for its submission to the court?

 PROSECUTION COUNSEL Ms KAREN BOSHOFF: 

HENDRIK JOHANNES LÜÜS, SENIOR MILITARY JUDGE: 

PROSECUTION COUNSEL Ms KAREN BOSHOFF:          That's correct, Judge. Thank you. Please proceed. Thank you, Judge.

REPLY BY PROSECUTION 

4)      PROSECUTION COUNSEL Ms KAREN BOSHOFF:          Judge, after a lengthy argument by the defence whereby I believe the other factors on objections were, in a way, also addressed, which we are not supposed to address at this stage, the prosecution would just have to set certain facts, and also have to place on record regarding these aspects, which I will address...[accordingly]...defence argued in choosing to regarding its or would. argue through by The Accused, there was no direct argument regarding in terms of Rule 35, Rule 36, it's only assumptions made, or the prosecution's perception of the facts and matters that were addressed by The Accused, which he based his objections on namely, Rule 35(b) that the judge might have, or during the trial gains such knowledge concerning the facts of the case to be heard by the court that his or her decision is likely to be prejudiced thereby.   Furthermore the perception  by the prosecution that the objection was also based on — (unclear)  any accused or during a trial develops towards an accused such animosity as is likely to be prejudice to his or her decision. It was rightly inferred by the court that in the SARVU case attested objectively, and objectively in the sense of the reasonable informed person to make a decision, a reasonable apprehension on if the judge would be impartial or not. In this regard, Judge, it is the respectful submission from the prosecution, to boil down to the core matter in front of the court, without getting   bogged down into the collateral issues regarding documents  as this is the argument or objection proffered by the  defence, to be added as a third objection in this matter in  front of the court, the prosecution is of the submission  that the perception by The Accused was based on a one-day  appearance for a postponement.  There was no basis laid down that the court, or the judge had any personal interest in the facts or that the judge might have knowledge regarding the case that is supposed to be in front of the court, or the facts...pertaining to the charge in front  of the court. The judge himself also required from the defence what are exactly the charges, confirming the fact that the court is not even au fait with what the charges are in front of the court today of Colonel Phiri, having, in this instance, no knowledge or personal knowledge regarding  the facts or the charges in front of the curt. Furthermore, the bias by The Accused  could not be explained or objectively looked at, based on  facts or situations, which would bear down or boil down to  bias by, or any-animosity by the judge in- this regard.   It was once again, by mere perception of, as described by The Accused by a blushing or a flushing of redness, which is a subjective perception of what is the situation on the 24th, and there's no factual basis for what reasons there  are objections against the judge regarding knowledge and  personal knowledge or bias [with regard] to the charges that are laid against Colonel Phiri.  It is also the prosecution's ... although this will be dealt with later, but the documents were argued by the defence, and the prosecution would just like to clear this matter up to clear any misconceptions and misperceptions regarding the documents. In the first instance, at no stage was it in written or in oral communication confirmed that the prosecution is ad idem that the documents are relevant to the case, and this was also confirmed, never in writing that the prosecution was ad idem  that the documents are relevant, therefore the prosecution would just like to clear up this situation that the prosecution is not ad idem that these documents are relevant in the matter before of the court.       But the prosecution  would now not like to enter into that argument at this stage, regarding documents, as that is a separate objection that was entertained by the defence. I would therefore just like to clear up this situation regarding the document situation. Judge, it not then respectful submission that objectively judging the arguments that were put down by the defence, regarding bias and/or then knowledge regarding the facts, that the court has to decide on, and the facts and the charges against The Accused is a reason for recusal for the judge, the prosecution is of the  submission that there is no basis laid for this and in judging, and as rightly confirmed by the judge in terms of the SARVU case.  That is then the submission from the prosecution. As it pleases the court.

HENDRIK JOHANNES LÜÜS, SENIOR MILITARY JUDGE:  Thank you, -Madam Prosecutor.         Are there  any points, any legal points that you still have to raise, Counsel?

  

REPLY BY THE DEFENCE

5)      BHEKUMNDENI Q. PENUEL SIMELANE, SENIOR MILITARY DEFENCE COUNSEL:             Yes, Judge.         It is just a matter of arguing backwards and forwards because my learned friend informed me that she had tried to get those records and she did not succeed. Hence, her subsequent letter to us by her senior, Colonel Botha, to say we must do that kind of ... of using the Information Act, that would not have been the case, if those documents were not necessary. 

HENDRIK JOHANNES LÜÜS, SENIOR MILITARY JUDGE:            No, I'm asking legal points, not factual points.

BHEKUMNDENI Q. PENUEL SIMELANE, SENIOR MILITARY DEFENCE COUNSEL:             Yes, I'm just replying to what she ...

HENDRIK JOHANNES LÜÜS, SENIOR MILITARY JUDGE:            Legal points, you have a right to reply on legal points.     I don't have to teach you court procedure. [Always the white man must teach the black man things under Thabo Mbeki’s regime, he who falsely mimicked Pixley Seme with his infamous speech “I am an African”, President Jacob Zuma will have to be very careful that Lindiwe Sisulu does not in the Department of Defence and Veterans Affairs re-introduce those race supremacy practices in favour of half of her paternal ancestry: the British, all in order to save the cousin of a family friend or two: Mandela and Matanzima]

6)      BHEKUMNDENI Q. PENUEL SIMELANE, SENIOR MILITARY DEFENCE COUNSEL:             And also the ... and also arising from the questions from the court in reply to my learned  friend's submission on concrete matters, that the concrete  and objective matters upon which the application for  recusal is made it has adequately been made by myself and by The Accused ...

HENDRIK JOHANNES LÜÜS, SENIOR MILITARY JUDGE:            Sir, you're arguing on factual matters. You understand that on reply that you're only allowed to argue on legal matters? Do you understand that, or don't you know that?

BHEKUMNDENI Q. PENUEL SIMELANE, SENIOR MILITARY DEFENCE COUNSEL:             I know that, Judge.

HENDRIK JOHANNES LÜÜS, SENIOR MILITARY JUDGE:            Why do you do things differently?

7)      BHEKUMNDENI Q. PENUEL SIMELANE, SENIOR MILITARY DEFENCE COUNSEL:             No,         I'm not  doing     it differently,  otherwise I will ...

HENDRIK JOHANNES LÜÜS, SENIOR MILITARY JUDGE:            Legal arguments pertaining to case law and/or interpretation of statute, so surely you should reply to me on that; not on factual aspects.

BHEKUMNDENI Q. PENUEL SIMELANE, SENIOR MILITARY DEFENCE COUNSEL:             No, I'm replying on her argument.

8)      HENDRIK JOHANNES LÜÜS, SENIOR MILITARY JUDGE:            No.         Only pertaining to legal arguments, are you allowed to reply.  That is the position in South  Africa. [Blogger: Maybe you should have added: “In mandelocratic, Thembu-and-British nieu-colonialist South Africa, Judge.”  YOU DEFINITELY WOULD HAVE MADE MORE SENSE WHEN YOU ALLOW A WHITE PROSECUTION TO MAKE STATEMENTS WILD AND UNRELATED TO ESTABLISHED FACTS AND THEN FORCE A BLACK DEFENCE WITHIN ONLY THE CHANNEL THAT WILL GIVE YOUR FELLOW WHITE THE UPPER HAND IN ARGUMENT ALL IN ORDER TO DEFEND A 2001-MANDELA/MATANZIMA-HOOKER-BOBELO-ZINI JUST LIKE MONTHS YOU’D COLLABORATED WITH YOUR BOSS, ETHNIC BRITISH TRIBALIST SMART TO SPRING OUT A FEMALE FRAUDSTER WHO HAD BEEN HOBNOBBING WITH THABO-MBEKI’S GENERALISSIMO AT THE MOST UNHOLY PLACES PER REPORTS TO THIS BLOGGER! AND LET ME TELL YOU, I’M A LAYMAN, BUT THOSE CHANNELLING TACTICS OF YOURS AT THE EXPENSE OF THE BLACK ACCUSED ARE NOT SUPPORTED BY LAWS OF THE SOUTH AFRICA I’VE COME TO KNOW SINCE 1994 BROUGHT ABOUT BY THE BLOOD OF ALL SOUTH AFRICANS AND NOT ONLY THE NIEU-COLONIALIST-BRITISH-DESIGNED AND ARTIFICIAL SWEAT ON ROBBEN ISLAND  OF ONLY ONE MAN NELSON MANDELA AND HIS EXTENDED FAMILY]

9)      BHEKUMNDENI Q. PENUEL SIMELANE, SENIOR MILITARY DEFENCE COUNSEL:.......Yes, [Prosecution Counsel] has been giving legal arguments and I'm replying to those legal arguments.

HENDRIK JOHANNES LÜÜS, SENIOR MILITARY JUDGE:            But you're addressing facts, you're not  addressing the law, stating that your colleague is  incorrect because the case law she quoted was incorrect, or because there is other case law on this and this point. That is her reply.

BHEKUMNDENI Q. PENUEL SIMELANE, SENIOR MILITARY DEFENCE COUNSEL:             She didn't quote any law.

HENDRIK JOHANNES LÜÜS, SENIOR MILITARY JUDGE:            She did quote the SARVU case, [Blogger’s Comment: In what sense in hell or heaven did Mandela-supposing White-She-Crook-Prosecutor-Who-Hid-To-This-Day-Complaints-by-Democratically-Minded-White-Students-About-Mandela-Matanzima-Cousin-Bobelo-Zini-Fornication-For-Promotion-Complaints-in-2001 quote, my dear, Lindiwe-Sisulu-Thabo-Mbeki-Kangaroo-Court-Judge?]so if  there's a different interpretation, for example, on the SARVU case that you do not uphold, then you have to say, "But, Honourable Judge, this colleague of mine quoted this and this but it's out of context because the SARVU case also referred to this and this, but in other cases this aspect  has been dealt with and so." That is legal reply, Sir.

BHEKUMNDENI Q. PENUEL SIMELANE, SENIOR MILITARY DEFENCE COUNSEL:             [That is what you are saying, Judge]

HENDRIK JOHANNES LÜÜS, SENIOR MILITARY JUDGE:            That's not what I'm saying. This is what case law states, not my interpretation, Sir. That's why  I'm asking, why do you address me on facts again?

BHEKUMNDENI Q. PENUEL SIMELANE, SENIOR MILITARY DEFENCE COUNSEL:             [Blogger’s Comment: Don’t argue with a fool, Simelane, particularly a fool who has allowed himself to be a judge in a kangaroo court instigated by South Africa’s mandelocracy: people might not notice the difference.  Other judges who read this man’s drivel on my blog will see just how heavily the dye has been loaded against Phiri, more so as the bedroom-made Brigadier General who claims to be a cousin of Nelson Mandela’s, has since last week got herself extra power with the other cousin, Lieutenant General Themba Templeton Matanzima appointed by President Jacob Zuma, despite all my reports to the President about the shenanigans of this particular gentleman, “the Acting Chief of the SANDF”]

10)   HENDRIK JOHANNES LÜÜS, SENIOR MILITARY JUDGE:            Is there anything else, Sir, on legal

arguments? I'm going to give you a final opportunity.

BHEKUMNDENI Q. PENUEL SIMELANE, SENIOR MILITARY DEFENCE COUNSEL:             (No reply).

HENDRIK JOHANNES LÜÜS, SENIOR MILITARY JUDGE:            Anything that you want to place on record  in terms of legal argument?

BHEKUMNDENI Q. PENUEL SIMELANE, SENIOR MILITARY DEFENCE COUNSEL:             Yes, I think I want to say-.

HENDRIK JOHANNES LÜÜS, SENIOR MILITARY JUDGE:            Please do.

BHEKUMNDENI Q. PENUEL SIMELANE, SENIOR MILITARY DEFENCE COUNSEL:             Yes.        Judge, the legal arguments putting, are legal arguments arising from - the SARVU case upon the objectivity I would submit the statements by my learned friend that we have not submitted objective grounds for recusal is incorrect.

HENDRIK JOHANNES LÜÜS, SENIOR MILITARY JUDGE:            Is there anything .else, Sir?

BHEKUMNDENI Q. PENUEL SIMELANE, SENIOR MILITARY DEFENCE COUNSEL:             Can I illustrate, therefore, the word  "incorrect", what it [contextually] means?

HENDRIK JOHANNES LÜÜS, SENIOR MILITARY JUDGE:            That would be factual, Sir, that's your interpretation against her interpretation and we had a chance and we heard your argument. Now it's only confined to legal arguments.

BHEKUMNDENI Q. PENUEL SIMELANE, SENIOR MILITARY DEFENCE COUNSEL:             I've got no submissions.

 HENDRIK JOHANNES LÜÜS, SENIOR MILITARY JUDGE: Thank you, Sir. The court will adjourn to properly address all the aspects in front of this court pertaining to the first application, and to have proper time to consult with both assessors to also discuss this to this and inform them [sic] about legal aspects pertaining [to] issue. The court will adjourn.

11)   (Court closes) to consider finding)

12)   ((Court re-opens))

13)   FINDING [and any reader who thinks that they understand what this judge is saying with regards to my request he quit my case, should contact me they do.  Personally I think he is talking about something else he probably ingested or inhaled for breakfast. And that is what Lindiwe Sisulu, denying Blogger his rightful share of funds to pay his lawyers of the high court as President Zuma was equally paid for as the state had similarly falsely charged him, would like to see the continuation of. But this is typical of kangaroo courts anywhere in the world, including South Africa where relatives of Nelson Mandela, in the military, in the economy, the judiciary, traditional leadership and you name it, ARE UNLAWFULLY SQUARING UP TO RULE SOUTH AFRICA FOR MANDELA EVEN WHEN HE WILL BE LYING IN HIS GRAVE, ALL WITH THE SUPPORT OF NIEU-COLONIALIST BRITAIN]

14)   HENDRIK JOHANNES LÜÜS, SENIOR MILITARY JUDGE:            The court has carefully listened to the application of Colonel Simelane on behalf of his client, and the court has listened carefully to the submissions made in this regard by both the defence and the prosecutor.  Now, due to the time of the day, the court will try and expedite this, and all the aspects the court has taken into consideration are [not going to be given], though this should not be seen as .....numerous clauses  with all the reasons, but in the interest of justice the  court will deal with certain aspects to give clarity to all parties at least today in court.

15)   First and foremost, without reply to all the allegations in Colonel Simelane's letter dated 20 August 2002,  and the non-reply should not be construed as  admission of the veracity thereof - there are aspects, which need to be clarified regarding this letter. It is normal court's policy that all participants in the judicial proceedings, including the judicial officers, counsel and so on refrain from any conduct including comments, which exhibit bias or prejudice in any regard and in this regard might border on contempt of court:. 'Any person believes he or she has been subjected to such conduct may take the matter on review, once the case is finalised; not as requested in this letter, referred to that the  administrative decision is made instead of a judicial one on review. Therefore, Colonel Simelane's remedy is the judicial one in law and not proposed [as?] an administrative, one.

16)   What the court's concern here is: Why is there an incorrect request?              If the request is incorrect being an  administrative request, for which they have no basis in law regarding the removal on an administrative level of the judge from a case, instead of taking the case to completion as the Constitutional Court and Appeal Court case law states [Blogger: In which particular section does it state such a monstrosity, “Judge”, so that we can take that section to the Constitutional Court so as to scrap it as it obviously will be in conflict with the letter and spirit of the constitution of Democratic South Africa?]and then take the matter on review, why does the  Colonel apply for an incorrect process? [But did Simelane or was it rather Phiri who applied for your ouster, “Judge”?] The defence counsel should only initiate concerns that are reasonably related to the matter at issue. The defence counsel shall not use concerns for the purpose of harassing, embarrassing or causing the South  African National Defence Force to incur unnecessary expenses as a means of delaying the timely, efficient and cost-effective resolution of the military trial, or to obtain some sort of an unfair advantage. The defence counsel shall avoid repetitive and argumentative questions  or enquiries, questions or enquiries that are solely for the purpose of harassment or questions, and which are known to the Questioner to be bad in law.

17)   This same principle applies to applications made and, one would presume that the defence counsel should ensure that the allegations as  contained in his letter should not be an evasive or artificial manner designed to ensure, or attempt to avoid a trial, or to merely delay a trial. [Blogger’s Comment: Of course I am avoiding a trial based wholly on and within all the tenets of South Africa’s Protected Disclosures Act, wouldn’t you have done the same, “Judge”, if you were falsely charged just because you dared to say cousins of Nelson Mandela and Themba Templeton Matanzima cannot in a national democracy that is no Thembu kingdom, live above the law?]however, the court, in this regard can refer to the extended reply by Judge Hussein in case 108/2000  on similar applications where the accumulation was stated in that case, the history of the 'whole matter indicated that the applicant was deliberately obstructive                and attempted at every turn to frustrate the proper hearing of the application. [Blogger’s Comment: Check your so-called Hussein Case again... I’ve never before heard a court case named after the presiding judge rather than the accused and the state or other co-litigant  though... but the accused, you are most likely to find, my dear Lindiwe-Sisulu-Kangaroo-Court “Judge”, was not, like Phiri, a subject of prosecution over protected disclosures... and so, your citing of law, you who pretends to teaching Advocate Bheki Simelane, is not relevant, Sir] Referring to Colonel Simelane's client at  that stage, but referring at numerous stages where there was an application for Brigadier General Larney's recusal or application regarding the record, an application for the chairman, Judge Hussein to be recused, very similar to what is transpiring in front of this court. And one might be stepping into the situation that that type of application is the predominant way of what Colonel Simelane is doing in this case in front of this court. [Blogger’s Comment:  has to be predominant because Simelane is the refuge for intelligent black officers like Lieutenant Colonel Goodman Manyanya Phiri or Major General Molefe Kenneth Mokoena, to name but a few, who are innocent but left and right targeted by agents of nieu-colonialist Britain so that South Africa should forever and without any challenge whatsoever remain a perpetual vassal state for Britain, that very national slavery that President Robert Mugabe to the north of our borders is being unfairly punished and vilified for refusing]I think one has to draw a distinction. One should differentiate those facts from the case in court today. Even if the judge was of the opinion that there might have been a deliberate obstruction in that case, I can honestly find no reasons, after carefully listening to Colonel Simelane and asking him numerous questions in this regard, because the instruction of that court was case 108/2000 was that this is the unnecessary delay and enormous ways of cost, this kind of conduct must be frowned upon and discouraged. Obviously it states that, "if similar facts come before another court these facts have to be carefully weighed whether it's also not deliberate." The court has asked numerous questions to  Colonel Simelane. I'm of the opinion that there is an honest impression, both in himself and his client on material aspects, and I'll deal with that. Whether it's reasonable, according to the case law, it's a different subject matter, but I cannot see any reason that this was not an honest application in this court. And the unfortunate situation is due to the facts of this case, and we haven't dealt with the documentation, it might be relevant to postpone this matter once again, after getting confirmation, after going through the process of applying for certain information regarding the Information Act, which if I understand [properly], refer [for] the Colonel once again to the state prosecutor, that will entail that we  will hear this application and that we will have to, in all probability, once again give a postponement.

18)   If that is the case, once again, due to Colonel Simelane programme, which he initiated at the initiation stage stated he's busy on a course, will in all probability be a month or two down the line, in the future. But I don't want to pre-empt what the court's-proceedings are going to be, but if that is the case, then in any event it makes this whole application for this judge today in this court a very expensive process.

19)   Because if we have to postpone this case two months down, in the future, to get proper documentation then this court will not be able to sit as a court in any event, because as is well-known in the military community, in all probability end of November [2002] at the latest December [2002], I'm going out of the [South African National Defence Force]: And I would not be inclined to take a part-heard matter, so where this is still pre-pleading stage, once a plea has commenced I will be forced to come back as a part-heard  matter in this case, and so in all probability, if this case is postponed for two months, it would not be feasible to put this case in front of me, in any event. This             court        therefore            has         to            deal objectively with the application today about recusal of  this judge on the facts in front of this court as it stands today, not what s projected into the future. The objective criterion was there [be] reasonable grounds for the judge to refuse, or to recuse himself, taking the allegations into consideration?

20)   Now, starting with the defence case, it is clear that I would have needed and required a basis why the defence elected to call the witness, or his client as a witness, first and foremost without having a proper basis in law. [Blogger’s Comment: It is indeed in law, “Judge” to ask a biased court president to show a clean pair of heels if it be deemed there is an embodiment of bias. As to why Simelane allowed me to stand as a witness, of course Goodman Manyanya Phiri the Accused said so...remember that dictum of law... THE CLIENT INSTRUCTS COUNSEL, AND NOT THE OTHER WAY ROUND?!] That, nonetheless put a further predicament there,  because the court has a duty to objectively enquire into the reasonableness which is the objective criterion, and the court could not do that to a great extent because it pertains to client privileged information between client and attorney. ............... Nonetheless      there     was        apparently          a redress of wrongs, which the court did not get hold of or [did not come] under the attention of the court, and there was the letter under the hand of Colonel Simelane dated 20 August [2002], which I have dealt with in a certain fashion; or to a certain degree.

21)   The fact of the matter is it might be that  there is an honest impression in Colonel Simelane that there might be bias, or as referred to in the letter that there might be knowledge about the case. However, the criterion ..is not what is honestly. believed but what is objectively reflected to make that conclusion, that there  is bias and the fact of the matter that there is knowledge about the state's case. In this regard Colonel Phiri came forward and said, "Well, due to the one line, the tone of the voice, content of the line and the fact that the court was  flushed and blushing, that made it reasonable for him to jump to that conclusion that there was bias and there was knowledge about the state's case."- Now that is a very far-fetched explanation! But then his counsel, Colonel Simelane even went further and said there was blood from  the face of the judge, -which is similar to a Stephen King horror movie it seems, but that's beside the point, the fact of the matter is we're still looking at objective criterions, not what is honestly believed. Now, if I have to look at case law, the proper approach to an application for judicial recusal was considered in two recent judgements of the Constitutional Court, starting with the President of the Republic of South Africa and Others v South African Rugby Football Union and Others 1999(4) SALR 147 (cc) , the. SARVU case, referred to now on as the SARVU case  and the South African Commercial Catering and Allied Union Workers and Others v Irvin  and Johnson Company [sic], Chief Division Fish Processing .2.0.0,3 .S.ALR 705 also Constitutional Court case, the SACC,4TVU case . [sic]It was also considered in S v Roberts 1997 (2) SALR 243 (SCA) , and in the unreported decision of S v Sager , S v N Smit delivered on   12 March 2001 [under] the Case Number 185/1999, in the Appeal Court.

22)   In the SARVU case it was decided, in paragraph 30, that: "An application for the recusal of the judicial officer raised a constitutional matter within the meaning of Section 167 of the Constitution [and] since the Constitutional court is the highest court in constitutional matters, its approach  in this regard is decisive."

23)   It stated in paragraph 48 of that judgement: "The question is whether a reasonable objective and informed person would, on the correct facts, (reasonable once again), determine that the judge has, or will not bring an impartial mind to bear on the adjudication of the case. That is a mind open to persuasion by the evidence and the submission of counsel. The reasonableness of mind must be assessed in the light of the oath of office taken by the judge to administer justice without fear or favour [Blogger’s comment: Who would say you were not favouring your supervisor Smart when at his behest you made a fraudster to essentially go scot-free after being found guilty by your own court?] and the ability to carry out that oath by reason of their training and experience. It must be assumed that they can disabuse their minds of any irrelevant personable beliefs of ... (unclear)  positions. They must take into account the fact that they have a duty to sit in any case in which they are not obliged to recuse themselves.  At the same time it must never be forgotten that the impartial judge is a fundamental prerequisite for a fair trial and the judicial officer ..... .       .should not hesitate to recuse himself, or herself if there are reasonable grounds.[Kangaroo Court Judge in the Lindiwe Sisulu’s Department, the entirety of you judges please, hands off Phiri because Sisulu, by denying the basic right of fair representation to Phiri with remunerated counsel, has proved beyond doubt that she is biased for Mandela/Matanzima cousin, 2001-Hooker-For-Promotion-Brigadier-General-Winnie-Ntombizodwa-Bobelo-Zini.  And besides, Phiri is enjoying, as Sisulu so well knows and pretends otherwise, protected disclosure according to South African Law... the case should, without any legal ceremony, just be removed from the roll with the contempt , if anything, it deserves!] Now, this reasonable ground went even further to have certain tests in both cases, and I can deal with the tests which were elaborated on. The first test is whether the reasonable objective and informed person would, on the correct facts, reasonably apprehend that the judge would not be impartial. Coming to this dealing with this, what is termed, for lack of other words, by the defence as an order that was made, as in his letter, this order, after numerous postponements, which were put on record by the prosecutor, was embodied in the one sentence,

a)      "When the matter comes up on 10  September 2002 this court will proceed with your  trial, with or without your defence counsel."

24)   And that apparently brought out such an amount of shock that there was jumped to a conclusion that the judge is biased, number 1. And (2) has knowledge about the state's case. Now, that jumping to logical conclusion still needs to be adequately explained to me because the court cannot accept the versions, which were subjectively put into this court. Objectively there is no reasonable ground for that. However, as stated, the second test is an objective one.

a)      The requirement is described in SARVU and SACCAWU cases, one of double reasonableness. [Blogger’s comment: Check the following statement.. suddenly, Phiri is no more reasonable meaning he’s zany; yet, despite his “insanity” Phiri’s still griss for the Lindiwe-Sisulu mill for charging and ejecting from the SANDF for challenging one too many above-the-law Mandela-relative-Zini!] Not only must the person apprehending the bias be a reasonable person in the person of the applicant for recusal, but the ..applicant  must  also be reasonable.  Moreover, apprehension that the judge  [or] assessor  ‘[is] biased’ is not enough.

b)      What is required is the apprehension .. on  reasonable grounds...that the judge  [or] assessor will not be impartial." There's a difference in meaning in that. [Blogger’s comment: Whatever you mean in that, Lindiwe-Sisulu-Kangaroo-Court-Judge]

c)       Thirdly, There is a built-in presumption that presiding judges are bound by a solemn oath of office to administer justice without fear or favour. They will be impartial in adjudicating disputes. As a consequence, the applicant for recusal bears the onus to rebut the weighty presumption of judicial impartiality. As was pointed out by Cameron, acting judge in the SACCAWU case, paragraph 15:

i)        "The purpose of formulating the test, one of double reasonableness, is to emphasize the weight of the burden resting on the applicant for recusal."

d)      Fourthly:              "What is required of a judge  [or] assessor is the               judicial impartiality and not complete neutrality.

i)        It's acceptable that judges or assessors are human and that they bring their life experiences to the bench.

ii)       They are not expected to divorce themselves from these experiences and become judicial stereotypes. What judge  [or] assessors are required to be is impartial and that  is to approach [the matter] with an open mind to persuasion...

(End of tape 3)

(Transcription commences on tape 4)

(Nothing on tape 4)

(Transcription commences on tape 5).

25)   ... by the evidence and the submissions of counsel. There was no allegation to this court that the court had any knowledge more than the DD1 and the charge sheet, and in any event, the court did not even have the charge sheet. There was no factual proof. There was numerous case law about delays and the previous   postponement date.       The court referred to S v Molenick 1997(12) BCLR 1779, an Orange Free State decision, Section 342(a) of the Criminal Procedure Act, Act 51/1977 and the criterions therein. The fact that that Section was introduced as a result of the recommendation of the South African Law Commission project 73 dated August 1995 and dealt with in S 1, Verawas, Svcle... [sic](unclear) ... C 1995(2) SALR 125, Constitutional Court and in other cases like R v Zackie 1945 AD as the reference, and R v Zhono 1957(4) SALR can be dealt on.

26)   The court does not feel that it's necessary at this point in time to elaborate further on that. The fact of the matter is we're sitting with one sentence. This one sentence was misconstrued and even on the defence submission made in a defence mind an order by court instead of a warning. Now, if a warning by court is made an order of court in the defence's mind the question still begs to understand why did the defence not come back on 10 September  [2002] and state to this court, "An order was made to proceed today. We cannot do so, we would like to revisit this order and apply for a variation once again to postpone" because any order can be varied, number 1, given new facts besides that the court did not make it an order but a warning. If it has to be an order then everything the court says, has to be an order. This cannot be. A postponement on a Section 29 is a pure  matter of postponement, for example, if a preliminary  investigation is ordered in the sense-that Colonel Simelane  understands it, then it has to be done irrelevant whether  that person can do it, or not. Normally, a preliminary investigation for example is part of the postponement and if there are reasons why that preliminary investigation is  not completed on the return date then the court will listen  to those reasons, even if the court had ordered a  postponement date and that the preliminary investigation should be done. So, one might be confused by what is an order and whether an order is not variable, the court sees it that the warning was given. Coming back to case 108/2000, it was interesting to state that a similar type of warning was given to the client of Colonel Simelane stating: "She was even warned that she will be asked to continue the matter in the absence of her counsel." For what it's worth, addressing a letter, even for the information of the Minister, addressing a letter, which is blatantly incorrect in law asking for an administrative recusal, which is not possible where there's case law stating exactly what the position is, and the court has extensively dealt with this, there is a reason for concern. Further, that the perception that was created in his client's mind might have been honest and might have been material, but it was not based on reasonable grounds [blogger’s comment: As if Goodman Manyanya Phiri was not there in court when you blurted you bias now excised from this transcript by Lindiwe Sisulu! As if I waited to be “influenced” by my defence Counsel!  What an insult to my intelligence and your own intelligence even as you are a mere Lindiwe-Sisulu-kangaroo-Court Judge aimed at propping Nelson Mandela up even posthumously through his relatives who are rising both ignobly and unlawfully with the support of kangaroo-court-judges like you, Mr!].

27)   The fact that aspects were added, like  [the blushing]  of the judge's cheeks and so on, [that’s]  interesting except that I was not, unfortunately, able to see myself, and I have to reconstruct now, which is a totally inadequate position to be in, the middle of winter, the heaters going on. There might have been different reasons for feeling perky that day.

28)   The fact of the matter is it is clear that this sentence alone is not any objective basis for a finding of bias Number 1 on the judge's side and/or alternatively even the more science fiction finding of having privy to the prosecution's case.

29)    This is the unanimous decision by the court and the two assessors and to quote case 108/2000, we accordingly refuse the application for the recusal of the judge. May we deal with the .next .application?

30)   BHEKUMNDENI Q. PENUEL SIMELANE, SENIOR MILITARY DEFENCE COUNSEL:             As the court pleases.

PROSECUTION COUNSEL Ms KAREN BOSHOFF:          If it pleases the court

In a future post, let us see how our judge reacts to applicants for the accused to cleanse and sanitize a judiciary that a general or two had smuggled in for the purpose of supporting the guilty-finding against the accused Phiri

                                             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....[(to the reader of this post, Blogger's elucidation on the Mashoala character, please check the yellow highlight to be found here)]....

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 biased 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 Mandela 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!

1)       (THE TRIAL IS A PLOY FOR VICTIMIZATION AFTER PHIRI BLEW THE WHISTLE ON MATANZIMA/MANDELA-COUSIN-BOBELO-ZINI’S SEX FOR PROMOTION BACK IN 2001 WHICH SISULU’S DEPARTMENT OF DEFENCE AND VETERANS AFFAIRS FEARS WILL OPEN A CAN OF WORMS ON OTHER FEMALES LIKE DIRECTOR OF SANDF JUDGES ETHNIC AFRICAN MRS ANNEMARIE MYBURGH WHO REPORTEDLY GOT HER PROMOTION THROUGH EMOTIONAL INVOLVEMENT WITH HER SUPERVISOR ETHNIC-BRITISH OFFICER DUNSTAN SMART)

2)       Nature of the transcripts

3)       These transcripts are only a reflection of those portions that Ms Karen Boshoff, the prosecutor with an axe to grind against Phiri turned review officer, made accessible to me.  The records definitely do not include areas where the various senior military judges made controversial, unseemly and prejudicial statements against Phiri.

4)       PROSECUTION COUNSEL Ms KAREN BOSHOFF:       As the court pleases, Judge, the DD1 was written out 9 March 2001 where the member was formally charged, Section 29 Appearance on the Directing Staff l 9 March 2001 where a recording officer was appointed. Preliminary investigation was finalised 16 March 2001, then the first postponement was on 28 June 2001, postponed to 18 September 20 2001. The third Section 29 the matter was postponed again on 18 September 2001 to 26 November 2001. The fourth Section 29 was 26 November until where the matter was once again postponed to 8 January 2001 (2002?), and from that period of second 29 Appearance 28 June 2001 the matter was postponed on request from the defence counsel. From 8 January 2002 the matter was postponed to 26 February 2002, then on 26 February 2002, once again the matter was postponed to 24 April 2002.  The seventh Section 29 Appearance appeared on 26 April_ 2002. where the-matter was postponed to 24 June 2002. The last postponement was on 24 June 2002 till date 10 September 2002 for final remand and for proceeding on the matter. All these postponements were due to the defence counsel's request for postponement and the state, through all these postponements, was ready to proceed. HENDRIK JOHANNES LÜÜS, SENIOR MILITARY JUDGE:       Thank you, Madam

5)       Secondly, the veracity or precision of case law quoted here cannot be relied upon for several reasons chief of which is the fact that what you read is the result of scanned material and too many characters of print will as a rule fall through the cracks of the scanner.  The same reasoning goes for corrected spelling the luxury of which I will leave for others to consummate (the “others” including those of my most enterprising of readership who, I gather, can with ease correct spelling for their own brain as they go along!

6)       Lastly, I have further simplified the reading (or “complicated” it) by identifying the personal names of the lawyers in the military court.  It is important in a country still besieged with tribalism (the highest form of racism) in its military for the reader to know who the individuals are who, hiding behind the cloak of military-law officers, but still perpetuate racism or tribalism in a (people-driven) democracy of South Africa.

7)       Senior Military Judges: There has been talk of a Senior Military Judge Sisulu or some similar Thembu surname in the military.  His impact in transforming the SANDF, it would seem, has gone unseen.  This is to say nothing about transforming the very military judicial system which is practically lily-white when it comes to judges and prosecutors in an army where mostly blacks are charged quite disproportionately from their demographic signature, for allegedly committing crimes against a disproportionately overrepresented senior whites and Thembus in the Mandela-Mbeki SANDF.  Worst, it would seem that the sex-for-promotion corruption is rife even in the very military judicial system. The serious question is whether the female supervisor of senior military judges in the SANDF, one Brigadier General Annemarie Myburgh and an apparently married woman, for that matter, had not got his promotion through emotional involvement with at least kisses in the headquarters of the SANDF with military legal supremo, Rear Admiral Charles Dunstan Henry Smart.  While Smart is the man who has gone on record as having gone to his own court to coerce a judge to allow a rumoured girlfriend of General Sphiwe Nyanda walk scot-free after a conviction that was bound to have her dismissed from the SANDF (fraud), his kissy-kissy woman friend Myburgh has always made it a point to appear in court whenever the Phiri sitting takes place and she has been known to be coaching her judges in situ, particular Judge Michael Albertus Venter who, as you will see in the transcripts, is the one who tried to force a trial against Phiri whereas Phiri had not received even one document required by law as a prerequisite for defence.  Myburgh is of course concerned for a sure conviction against Phiri, I believe, because should Phiri be found not guilty, the government will naturally have to pursue the sex-for-promotion Mandela-cousin Brigadier General Bobelo-Zini enjoyed and probable similar promotion trajectory for Myburgh.  What chances is there that Phiri will receive a fair trial without one single non-Thembu and non-white judge who will also have courage enough to stand against another Myburgh breathing down his/her neck?

ZERO!!!

8)       Prosecution Counsel Prosecution counsels have followed a similarly racially-biased pattern in my experience, lily white prosecuting a virtual all-black accused of challenging the authority of some white or Thembu-related general or Colonel.  My experience with this particular type of lawyers is they are tricksters out go get you without one ounce of ethics in terms of required procedures.  Prosecutor Boshoff in these pages has been placed on record as having by around 9 March 2001 received a copy of the Mashoala report (or portions thereof) I am looking for through the High Court, but she never to this day handed it to me to this day.

9)       Senior Military Defence Counsel

10)     Insofar as the players are in these transcripts, the Accused naturally is Goodman Manyanya Phiri; his Defence counsel has always been Bheki Simelane, a 65-year-old Veteran of South Africa’s anti-liberation struggle behind his belt also with extensive law practice in Durban where he nearly lost his life in the hands of the apartheid security forces for his never-say-die spirit of defending freedom fighters who were arrested.  In exile, Simelane also practised as an advocate in the Robert Mugabe government.  On his return to South Africa during repatriation, he joined the SANDF as one of the most senior and longest-serving former guerrillas; and in that regard, definitely more senior than Sphiwe Nyanda who under the Mandela government, was perhaps controversially appointed Chief SANDF whereas a more senior man was available.

11)     My reading is that Nyanda was preferred over Simelane mainly because Mandela wanted to cut himself as this saint who did not harbour any of the anti-Zulu tribalism of exile by appointing a Zulu as head of the military.  But when you discover that Simelane is also a Zulu, then you realize that perhaps the overriding reason for Mandela was to try and placate the Zulu- and Swazi-speaking families who, alongside Seme, the Royal Dlamini (through writer’s maternal great-aunt Swazi Queen Mother Labotsibeni) and later Masina and the mostly-forgotten-and-maligned Hadebe family whose head reportedly opened the first exile office of the ANC in exile only to be maligned by subsequent Thembu tribalists in exile for his troubles.  Now Sphiwe Nyanda is a member of the Lesley Masina extended family. As to whether he is related to good governance is a question that speaks for itself what with ethnic-British-spawned white racism is still rife in the SANDF that he until around two years ago he had been running for something like a whole decade.  It is also under Nyanda’s watch that Mandela and subsequently Mbeki used the SANDF as a spoil or a milking cow for the  Mandela extended-family members and fellow-tribespeople to be in the most senior SANDF positions with the likes of the Matanzimas and now the Bobelo-Zini central to this State-versus-Phiri case.  It is furthermore under Nyanda’s watch that the usage became rife of sex with the highly-placed of the SANDF where Mandela relatives/tribespeople and their ethnic British fellow-senior commanders dominate, as a deciding tool for promotion of women officers to more senior positions in the military as is the case with Bobelo-Zini. As an eye-opener, Sphiwe Nyanda is also one of the cabinet ministers fired by Jacob Zuma recently for lack of performance!

12)     [Court sitting 26 April 2001]

13)     this sitting is a mere time estimation based on the evidence to follow hereunder.  The review section of Sisulu Military Records claims they do not have records of what took place in the matter of State Versus Phiri prior to that. Definitely, Ms Karen Boshoff, Prosecutor-turned-reviews officer, handed no transcript earlier than what lies hereunder.  Raising questions on any successful and fair review of the case supposing Phiri is found guilty by Sisulu’s kangaroo court at her military, the absence of huge chunks of recorded matter (I call it a sabotage by Sisulu’s criminals in uniform playing lawyers), the dearth and actually disappearance of court records and recordings (confirmed even by Military Judge Michael Albertus Venter   the court sitting of 13:40 on 25 February 2004.) raises the moot question as to whether injustice in the case of Phiri has already been ingrained by Sisulu in order to teach a lesson to any South African who dares challenge criminals elements of the two big families (Sisulu and Mandela) that nieu-colonialist Britain is using to perpetrate the untold mineral, cultural and other forms of exploitation against this African country.