Tuesday, December 14, 2010

PART ONE:...................................................WHY PRESIDENT ZUMA DESPITE HIGH-COURT JUDGE B.R. SOUTHWOOD’S ORDER TO THE CONTRARY, WOULD NOT ALLOW SISULU TO CONTINUE ALONG HER STRUCTURALLY-BIASED AND SEX-CORRUPTED MILITARY-COURT PROCESSES AGAINST AN ANTI-SEX-CORRUPTION WHISTLEBLOWER PHIRI

"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





PART 1A (OF TWO):
HOW THE HIGH-COURT BATTLES WERE FOUGHT BY PHIRI AGAINST SISULU PRIOR TO THE PRO-SISULU ETHNIC-BRITISH WINDFALL FROM JUDGE
B.R. SOUTHWOOD, GAUTENG NORTH HIGH COURT


                                             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 KAREN BOSHOFF LIEUTENANT COLONEL 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 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 PROVINCE OR RELATED WITH HIM.


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 TO PRO-SISULU’S JUDGE-SOUTHWOOD-JUDGEMENT


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 set in Sisulu’s military courts so far have been lily-white ethnic Europeans, all three or more prosecutors in the case have 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 COME OUT IN THEIR GREAT NUMBERS AND THEIR TRUE COLOURS TO DEFEND THEIR BLACK EASTERN-CAPE STOOGES 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, that 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!


----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

FOUNDING AFFIDAVIT & 23-MARCH-2004 RESULTANT  7-DAY HIGH COURT ORDER
HIGH COURT ORDER
On 23 March 2004
Before His Lordship Justice Claassen
                                           CASE NR, 7697/2004
In the matter between,-
PHIRI Goodman Manyanya                                                                         APPLICANT
Versus
THE MINISTER OF DEFENCE +5                                                                   1ST  RESPONDENT

DRAFT ORDER
After hearing counsel and after having read through the papers, THIS COURT ORDERS AS FOLLOWS, Order made in terms of prayers 2, 3, 4 and 6 of the notice of motion.
In other words, 


Prayer 2,  That the hearing in the Military Judge’s Court, Reference No 98007693PE and trial against Lieutenant Colonel Goodman Manyanya PHIRI be stayed pending the orders prayed for under prayers 3 and 4;


Prayer 3,  An order declaring that Goodman Manyanya PHIRI: Lieutenant Colonel is entitled to have access to documents and/or information held by the [Minister of Defence and Veterans’ Affairs Lindiwe Nonceba Sisulu, contextually], alternatively, Fifth Respondent in Goodman Manyanya PHIRI: Lieutenant Colonel’s exercising or protecting his right in a trial pending in the military court;


Prayer 4,  That the [Minister of Defence and Veterans’ Affairs Lindiwe Nonceba Sisulu, contextually] alternatively, Fifth Respondent be ordered and directed to furnish applicant with the following documents namely,

a.            South African Army Inspector General’s Report involving Goodman Manyanya PHIRI and others at the South African Army College, February to March 2001;

b.            The Commander's Investigation report as ordered by acting Commandant of the South African Army College Colonel Eddie Drost, to look into [alleged] complaints against Lieutenant Colonel PHIRI [or any other person for that matter], March 2001;

c.             The British Military Advisory and Training Team Intervention Report (intervention at the South African Army College- January/February 2001 by the British Military Advisor of Technical Training to  SA National Defence Force or JUNIOR COMMAND AND STAFF DUTIES ASSESSMENT BOARD MEETING HELD AT 3 PM ON 30 JANUARY 2001 IN THE BASTION BUILDING OF, THE SOUTH AFRICAN ARMY COLLEGE)
Within 7 days of the date of the Court order.


Prayer 6,  Ordering that the [Minister of Defence and Veterans’ Affairs Lindiwe Nonceba Sisulu, contextually] pays the costs of this application.
It is further ordered that if the respondents wish to withhold any of the information or documentation sought, that such be specified to Goodman Manyanya PHIRI: Lieutenant Colonel and the respondent shall at the recommencement of the hearing prove special grounds why the material should not be furnished to Goodman Manyanya PHIRI: Lieutenant Colonel.
Registrar

Signed____________                  Stamped, Pretoria Transvaal Provincial Division
PETER MARRIOTT                                             Registrar of the Supreme Court of S.A.
Registrar



SECOND FOUNDING AFFIDAVIT TO THE HIGH-COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA FOR THE ACCESS TO ALLEGED ANTI-PHIRI REPORTS


Notice of Motion

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA
(TRANSVAAL PROVINCIAL DIVISION)
CASE NUMBER 7697/2004                               (Duly stamped 23-03-2004)
In the matter between,-
GOODMAN MANYANYA PHIRI                    Applicant
AND
THE MINISTER OF DEFENCE                          [Minister of Defence and      
                                                                             Veterans’ Affairs
                                                                             Lindiwe Nonceba Sisulu, contextually]
THE SECRETARY FOR DEFENCE                   Second Respondent
THE CHIEF SOUTH AFRICAN NATIONAL DEFENCE FORCE                                                                                Third Respondent
THE CHIEF OF THE SA ARMY                                                         Fourth Respondent
MAJOR H.S. PRETORIUS                                                                Fifth Respondent
COLONEL MICHAEL ALBERTUS VENTER                                                                  Sixth Respondent
NOTICE OF MOTION



KINDLY TAKE NOTICE that the abovementioned Applicant intends to bring an urgent application to the above Honourable Court on 23 March 2004 at 14,00 or soon thereafter as counsel may be heard for an order in the following terms,

1.    That the forms and service provided for in terms of the Rules of the above Honourable Court be dispensed with insofar as it may be necessary and the application be heard as one of urgency in terms of Uniform Rule 6 (12).


2.  That the hearing in the Military Judge’s Court, Reference No 98007693PE
Lieutenant Colonel Goodman Manyanya PHIRI be stayed pending the orders prayed for under prayer 3 and 4;


3.  An order declaring that Goodman Manyanya PHIRI: Lieutenant Colonel is entitled to have access to documents and/or information held by the [Minister of Defence and Veterans’ Affairs Lindiwe Nonceba Sisulu, contextually], alternatively, Fifth Respondent in Goodman Manyanya PHIRI: Lieutenant Colonel’s exercising or protecting his right in a trial pending in the military court;

4.  That the [Minister of Defence and Veterans’ Affairs Lindiwe Nonceba Sisulu, contextually] alternatively, Fifth Respondent be ordered and directed to furnish applicant with the following documents namely,

a.            South African Army Inspector General’s Report involving Goodman Manyanya PHIRI and others at the South African Army College, February to March 2001;

b.            The Commander's Investigation report as ordered by acting Commandant of the South African Army College Colonel Edward Frans Drost, to look into complaints against Lieutenant Colonel PHIRI, March 2001;

c.             The British Military Advisory and Training Team Intervention Report (intervention at the South African Army College- January/February 2001 by the British Military Advisory and Training Team to SA National Defence Force MEETING HELD AT 3 P.M. ON 30 JANUARY 2001 IN BASTION, THE SOUTH AFRICAN ARMY COLLEGE)

Within 7 days of the date of the Court order.

5.  Granting Goodman Manyanya PHIRI: Lieutenant Colonel such further or alternative relief as this court deems fit;
6.  Ordering that the [Minister of Defence and Veterans’ Affairs Lindiwe Nonceba Sisulu, contextually] pays the costs of this application.


TAKE NOTICE FURTHER that annexed affidavit of GOODMAN MANYANYA PHIRI and annexures referred to therein will be used in support of this application.
TAKE NOTICE FURTHER THAT Goodman Manyanya PHIRI: Lieutenant Colonel has appointed [Msiza, Kruger & Bembe Inc., 793 Merton Avenue, Eastwood, Arcadia, Pretoria; Telephone Number,       +2712 342 7282], cellphone number, +2782 7372 010, +2782 965 0716, Attention, Mr Joe Msiza as his attorneys, at which he will accept notice and service of all processes in these proceedings.


KINDLY TAKE NOTICE that if you intend opposing this application you are required,

a.            to notify Goodman Manyanya PHIRI: Lieutenant Colonel’s attorneys in writing or by telephone on Tuesday, 23 March 2004 (by not later than 11,00 am) and

b.            to deliver your Answering Affidavit, if any, by not later than 13,00.
SIGNED AT PRETORIA THIS 23RD  DAY OF MARCH 2004

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA
(TRANSVAAL PROVINCIAL DIVISION)
CASE NUMBER 7697/2004                                                           
In the matter between,-
GOODMAN MANYANYA PHIRI                                  Applicant
AND      
THE MINISTER OF DEFENCE      [Minister of Defence and Veterans’Affairs
Lindiwe Nonceba Sisulu, contextually]
THE SECRETARY FOR DEFENCE    [Mrs Mpumi Mpofu, contextually]
THE CHIEF SANDF                                                  3rd Respondent                                                                                                                         
THE CHIEF OF THE SA ARMY                               4TH  Respondent
MAJOR H.S. PRETORIUS                                     5TH  Respondent
COLONEL MICHAEL ALBERTUS VENTER       6TH  Respondent



FOUNDING AFFIDAVIT

I, the undersigned, GOODMAN MANYANYA PHIRI, do hereby declare under oath as follows, I am an adult Lieutenant Colonel in the South African National Defence Force with my address of employment situated at Army Headquarters, Pretoria.

am the applicant in this matter and the facts contained herein are, unless contrary indications expressly appear, within my personal knowledge and are to the best of my knowledge and belief both true and correct.
The [Minister of Defence and Veterans’ Affairs Lindiwe Nonceba Sisulu, contextually] is the respondent cited herein in her official capacity as assigned powers and functions in terms of the Constitution Act, c/o The State Attorney, 4th Floor, Fedsure Forum, Cnr Van der Walt and Pretorius Streets, Pretoria, Gauteng, South Africa


The Second Respondent is The Secretary for Defence [contextually Mrs Mpumi Mpofu], cited herein in her official capacity as Departmental Advisor on Defence policy to the [Minister of Defence and Veterans’ Affairs Lindiwe Nonceba Sisulu, contextually], with her address c/o The State Attorney, 4th Floor, Fedsure Forum, Cnr Van der Walt and Pretorius Streets, Pretoria, Gauteng.


The Third Respondent is the Chief of the SOUTH AFRICAN NATIONAL DEFENCE FORCE cited herein in his official capacity, as such with his address c/o The State Attorney, 4th Floor, Fedsure Forum, Cnr Van der Walt and Pretorius Streets, Pretoria, Gauteng.

The Fourth Respondent is the Chief of the South African Army, cited in his official capacity as the Chief of the Service, c/o The State Attorney, 4th Floor, Fedsure Forum, Cnr Van der Walt and Pretorius Streets, Pretoria, Gauteng.

The Fifth Respondent is H.S. Pretorius, a Major in the SOUTH AFRICAN NATIONAL DEFENCE FORCE, cited herein as a competent official or Information Officer of the Department of Defence who received Goodman Manyanya PHIRI: Lieutenant Colonel’s request for Access to Information, Erasmuskloof, Pretoria, Gauteng.
The Sixth Respondent is Colonel Michael Albertus Venter, a Judge of the Military Court with his address at  South African National Defence Force, 2nd Floor, Armscor Building, Erasmuskloof, Pretoria, Gauteng, South Africa


THE PURPOSE OF THIS APPLICATION

The purpose of this application is to obtain an order declaring that Goodman Manyanya PHIRI: Lieutenant Colonel is entitled to have access to the reports wherein his name is mentioned to enable him to conduct his defence and further to obtain an order directing the First and Fifth Respondent to supply copies of the documents or reports to Goodman Manyanya PHIRI: Lieutenant Colonel, for the purposes of Goodman Manyanya PHIRI: Lieutenant Colonel’s conducting his case at the military judge’s court.  I also seek an order suspending the proceedings at the military judge’s court, pending that I be supplied with the documents or reports.

I am bringing this application on an urgent basis as I am suffering and will continue to suffer irreparable harm, as set out more fully hereunder, if the trial at the military court is allowed to proceed without me being furnished with the documents I require.


BACKGROUND TO THE APPLICATION

I was integrated into the SOUTH AFRICAN NATIONAL DEFENCE FORCE in 1998.  I have always been a disciplined member of the SOUTH AFRICAN NATIONAL DEFENCE FORCE and have only acted to protect my rights as enshrined in the Constitution of the country, the Republic of South Africa.  I have always respected those of a senior rank than myself in all my dealings with them at the defence force.


I was arraigned to appear in the military court on 09 March 2001.  The reasons for such arraignment were given to me in the form of eleven charges which were preferred against me.  Without going into too much detail to the relevance and/or factual background pertaining to the charges preferred against me, I wish to bring to the attention of the above Honourable Court, as briefly as I can, what the implication are on me if such charges are proved against me.

I was arraigned in terms of the Military Discipline Code read with the Defence Act No. 44 of 1957 as amended (as well as the Military Discipline Supplementary Measures Act) to appear in a Military Court to face disciplinary and/or criminal charges which were preferred against me by the State.

All in all these charges were 11, being 6 charges as well as the alternative charges.  The charges I am facing in the military court range from, inter alia Using Threatening, Insubordinate or Insulting Language; Conduct Prejudicial to Military Discipline; Riotous or Unseemly Behaviour, to the Common-law Crimen Injuria.  Should I be convicted of any of these offences, an obligatory prison term sentence will be imposed on me for a period not exceeding six months.  In addition to the above, on conviction, I will also lose my employment as this position is quite evident from the provisions in the Defence Act, and the Military Supplementary Measures Act.  In confirmation of the aforementioned, I attach hereto copies of the charge sheet marked Annexure   “GMP1” and the above Honourable Court is respectfully referred thereto.

The charges preferred against me were pursuant to some investigations during the course of which certain statements were obtained from witnesses.  These witnesses make reference to the documents or reports compiled when I was at the Army College.  I have not had sight of the reports and as such I am prejudiced as I am unable to conduct any effective cross-examination of the witnesses who already have testified against me.
During my early appearances at the military court, on or about 13 November 2001, I immediately requested that I be afforded an opportunity to exercise my right of access the reports.  I sent a letter dated 13 November 2001 to the Fourth Respondent.  In my letter, I established my right to be furnished with the documents and also explained the importance of being furnished with documents to enable me to prepare my defence for the criminal trial.  In corroboration hereof, I annex hereto a letter dated 13 November 2001 together with annexures to the letter, marked Annexure   “GMP2”.

On or about 29 November 2001 I received a letter from the Senior Prosecution Counsel, Lieutenant Colonel Francina Johanna Botha, responding to my letter of 13 November 2001.  I was advised that the documentation is not directly obtainable from the prosecution counsel.  A copy of the letter is attached hereto and marked Annexure   “GMP3”.  I wish to digress and bring to the attention of the above Honourable Court that I, on  25 September 2001, also sent a letter to the custodian, the Fourth Respondent, requesting an appointment with him in connection with my case at the military court.  I sought an appointment with the Fourth Respondent to receive his advice and also to register my grievance.  It is permissible and procedural in terms of the Military Code to approach the Fourth Respondent with a grievance (subject to having informed my supervisor).  A copy of a letter I forwarded to the Fourth Respondent is attached hereto and marked Annexure   “GMP4”.


In early 2002

I brought an application at the military court that the prosecution is ordered to furnish me with the documentation.  This application came before Military Judge Hendrik Johannes Lüüs.  The Honourable Judge said he does not have the power to order the documents to be furnished to me.  He, however, advised that I should follow the procedure as provided for in the Promotion of Access to Information Act, No. 2 of 2000.  On advice of the Military Judge Lüüs, I instructed my Senior Defence Counsel, Colonel Bheki Qedusizi Penuell Simelane to duly assist me in obtaining the documents or information in the manner provided for in The Promotion of Access to Information Act, which documents I seriously require for the exercise or protection of my rights in the criminal trial.


My Senior Defence Counsel made an application on my behalf on 28 February 2002, in a prescribed form in terms of the Act.  In corroboration hereof, I attach hereto Form A, being my application in terms of  Section 18 (1) of The Promotion of Access to Information Act, 2000, marked Annexure   “GMP5”.


In May 2002 I received a letter from Major H.S. Pretorius, the information officer, advising me that the documents will not be furnished to me as such records are requested for the purpose of civil proceedings.  Quite obviously, Major H.S. Pretorius’ reply was premised on an incorrect assumption; I did not require the records for the purpose of civil proceedings.  In confirmation of the aforementioned, I attach hereto the letter dated 09 May 2002, marked Annexure   “GMP6”.

I was not satisfied with the reasons furnished to me for the refusal (by the “information officer”) of my request to access the reports.  I require the records in issue for the purpose of criminal proceedings and not for civil proceedings as stated in paragraph 2 of   Annexure   “GMP6”.  Accordingly, I proceeded to launch an internal appeal against the decision in terms of Section 75 of Act 2 of 2000.  In confirmation of the above, I attach hereto Form C, being my notice of internal appeal which is marked Annexure   “GMP7”, to which I respectfully refer the above Honourable Court.


On 11 July 2002 I received a letter from Major H.S. Pretorius in which I was advised that I am not entitled to access the documents that I requested in terms of The Promotion of Access to Information Act, but should avail myself of the remedies provided for in the Rules of Procedure applicable in Military Courts made in terms of Section 44(4) of the Military Discipline Supplementary Measures Act, Act No. 16 of 1999.


The Section I have been referred to relates to the powers of the Minister of Defence in amending the prescribed rules applicable in the Military Court as well as in amending the regulations to the Defence Act of 1957.  If there is any relief provided for that I can pursue in the said section it will, rather, be a far-fetched and inappropriate procedure under the circumstance.  A copy of the letter dated 11 July 2002, written by Major H.S. Pretorius, is attached hereto and marked Annexure   “GMP8”.


When the matter resumed at the Military Court in early 2003, the presiding officer, Judge Lüüs was advised of the outcome of my application to access the information or documents I require in order for the trial to proceed.  Judge Lüüs reiterated that he cannot make an order compelling the State to avail the documents to me.  He did not have the requisite authority to do that.  In his endeavour to ensure that justice is meted out to me, he appealed to the prosecution authority that I be furnished with the documents.

I was astounded by the Judge’s reluctance to make an order that I be furnished with the documents.  I interposed to mention that I have a right to be furnished with the said documents in terms of the Constitution Act and none of the Respondents contends my right to be furnished with documents for purposes of conducting a proper defence.  In fact, a letter was forwarded to me dated 05 March 2002 by Major H.S. Pretorius wherein I was advised that the Department of Defence (DOD) Information Centre was busy inspecting and scrutinising the relevant records before releasing the documents to me.  I was also advised that the access fee will be calculated and I will be informed of same.  In this regard I submit that a legitimate expectation was created that I will be furnished with the documents to which I, in any event, am entitled.  In corroboration of the foregoing, I attach hereto a letter dated 05 March 2002 signed by Major Pretorius, marked Annexure “GMP9”.


The only reason I could think of (relating to Judge Lüüs’ reluctance to order the State to furnish me with these documents) is the institutional pressure accompanied by the discomfort on him at the prospect of having to order his senior, the Chief of the South African Army, to supply the documents to me.  In view of this indecisiveness, the judge made an appeal to the prosecutor that I be furnished with the documents.  The Judge’s request was received by the prosecutor without demur.  The hearing was adjourned on the assumption that I would be furnished with the copies of the reports.


On resumption of the hearing, a new judge was now presiding on the matter, namely Judge Piet Retief Venter (a retired colonel).  My Senior Defence Counsel once against raised the question of the documents I have to receive from the State. The judge’s reply to this issue was simply that “he does not know anything about the documents and he was starting the case de novo”.  From the judge’s indication and attitude, I gained the impression that he came to the hearing with a single mission,  to proceed with the hearing irrespective of whether I have been furnished with the documents or not.  He was intent on ignoring fair procedure; and his agenda was clearly outside proper administration of justice.  I found myself unfavourably disposed towards him as he showed bias in his handling of the issue relating to the documents.  Accordingly, I applied for his recusal and my application was refused.
Judge Piet Retief Venter (retd.),  nevertheless…

                … postponed the matter to a later date.  After this postponement various other postponements occurred until 27 January 2004.  When I appeared on 27 January 2004, a new Judge was appointed, namely Judge Aletta Marie Kolbe (Colonel).


I, through my Senior Defence Counsel, informed Judge Kolbe that we still await receipt of the documents from the prosecution.  The Honourable Judge was further advised that the previous presiding officer, Judge Lüüs had long requested the prosecution to furnish us with the documents and until that date, we had not been furnished with the relevant documents.


The prosecution (through Captain Tanya Van Schalkwyk) contended that she does not have the authority to request the documents from her seniors and could not assist the defence in this regard.  She suggested that I should write a letter to one Brigadier General Slabbert, a head of the prosecution authority, in which letter I should request the documents.

It is quite evident that everybody seems to acknowledge and accept that I need the documents for the proper conduct of my defence, but clearly, nobody seems to accept the responsibility to ensure that I am provided with these documents.
May I further mention to the above Honourable Court that Judge Kolbe recused herself from presiding in this matter, having cited personal reasons for her recusal.

A letter was indeed written by my Senior Defence Counsel and addressed to Brigadier General Slabbert on 17 February 2004, a copy whereof is annexed hereto as Annexure   “GMP10”.  The above Honourable Court will note that this annexure refers to appendix 1 to 6 which are nothing but letters I have referred to elsewhere in this affidavit.

A reply from Brigadier General Slabbert is that the documents I require have already been furnished to me.  This response is obviously not true and I rejected it.  I insisted that I do not have the documents and still await receipt thereof.


In the meantime,
                …the matter was adjourned to 24 February 2004 - 26 February 2004.  When I appeared at Court, another presiding officer was appointed.  I appeared before Judge Michael Albertus Venter (a Colonel from the Free State Province not to be confused with the retired Colonel Piet Retief Venter mentioned earlier.)  At the commencement of the proceedings the issue of documents was again brought up for the attention of the Honourable Senior Military Judge.  Rejected out of hand was my insistence to receive the documents.  The judge blamed me for having delayed the trial with my application for these documents and as such he “was not going to entertain the issue of documents”.  He mentioned that in the interest of justice he wanted to carry on with the trial.  I requested a postponement to enable me an opportunity to approach the High Court for an order directing the head of prosecutions to furnish me with the documents.


Judge Michael Albertus Venter refused a postponement and ordered me to go to the stand instead and that I plead.  I tendered a plea of not guilty to all the eleven charges preferred against me.

Prosecution Council called the first two witnesses.  The testimony of these witnesses relates to matters and issues appearing in the reports to which I have been denied access.  These are the witnesses who also made statements contained in the [Army Inspector General Enock Muiseng Mashoala] investigation preliminary to the act of charging me in 2001.  In this Preliminary Investigation (PI), there is a repeated reference to the reports which I have not been furnished copies of.

I instructed my Senior Defence Counsel to reserve my right to cross-examine the two witnesses who were called to testify and Judge Michael Albertus Venter was advised that I will be approaching the   High Court in the intermittent period for an order as per The Notice of Motion.

Prosecution Council called the only two witnesses who were available on that day and thereafter the matter was postponed to 23 March 2004 at 18:00.

URGENCY

For the abovementioned reasons, it is obvious that my right to information to defend myself is being seriously compromised to an extent that the proceedings themselves have now become irregular.
I further stand to suffer irreparable damage as I will be unable to question or cross-examine the witnesses who testified about the content of the reports.

I have pursued all other possible remedies to access the reports, but all my endeavours have been suppressed by the Respondents.  Despite the fact that all the presiding officers are of the view that I am entitled to have access to the reports, none of these presiding officers has the audacity to order the State to furnish me with these particulars, being the reports to enable me to prepare my defence to the charges.

It is explicitly clear from the above that I have exhausted all the remedies provided for in The Promotion of Access to Information Act, of 2000, having launched an application, same being unsuccessful, having launched the appeal.  My appeal was refused as per Annexure   “GMP11”.

Having established the right which I wish to protect with the use of the documents, I have clearly exhausted all the available remedies.  I submit that I have no other option but to approach the above Honourable Court.
It is therefore respectfully submitted that I stand to suffer irreparable harm if the trial is allowed to proceed without me having had time to prepare adequately.  Accordingly, I submit that there are sufficient grounds for the Honourable Court to condone the non-compliance with the rules in respect of Notice and Service, and respectfully request the Honourable Court to condone the non-compliance as requested in the Notice of Motion.


RELIEF REQUESTED

In the circumstance, the Honourable Court is requested to deal with the matter on the basis of urgency and grant the relief requested in the Notice of Motion.
Thus signed and sworn to at Pretoria, on this 23rd day of March 2004 by the deponent, who has declared that he knows and understands the contents of this affidavit, that it is the truth and that he finds it binding on his conscience

Before Commissioner of Oaths, Carlos Manuel Rodrigues Sanches, Hack Stupel & Ross Commissioner of Oaths, Practising Attorney, +2712215232 Standard Bank Chambers, Church Square, Pretoria




















No comments:

Followers