– Was this case base on proper legal advice or a hunch – ?
Is it not fair to ask was the Youth League not ill-advised in legal embrace?
Sitting and listening one after the other appeals rejected accompanied by words such as “naïve”, “absurd”, “a misreading of ANC constitution” the question in my mind who is no jurist but saw through the weakness of the defence’s case from the start.
I am not sure how legal advisors Advocates Dali Mpofu and Clifford Motsepe could have led such a clearly emotionally charged, less thought through, empty of anchor themes defence.
To cite one example, the utter misunderstanding of what it means to be a structure of an organisation such as the ANC and what such means in constitutional context as autonomous.
The NDCA had to remind the appellants and their defence that if a conflict ever may arise between an interpretation of Mother Body constitution and Structures constitution, that the ANC constitution holds as predominant. I would have thought that Mpofu who is also a member of the ANC, would have known that.
The issue of recusal and mitigation, which I used as a cornerstone of my contention: Why NDCA will uphold the NDC findings (published on January 25, 2012), naturally I smiled in seeing that a non-jurist could be this correct in analysing the case’s outcome. On the recusal, could the legal advice not gave foreseen that what they were asking for was an annihilation of the freedom of expression of ANC members, a principle that the 100 year old organization has always upheld.
Mitigation is not premised on the case but premised on sentence, suggesting the case was made and stands and is acknowledged by the respondents and defendants hence the defendants as or pray for opportunity to mitigate against such sentence exacted. Today we still hear the likes of Professor Shadrack Ghutto, Messrs. Aubrey Matsiqi and Ebrahim Fakier argue the case’s merits when such is history as confirmed by the NDCA and equally implicitly accepted by the appellants, for which they plead in appeal that they were not offered sufficient opportunity to mitigate against sentence and not the case.
The critical question for me is what informed the defence counsel to have “prepared” a case less on reason but informed by sentiment? It appears the legal counsel build a case on the abstract concept of political motif. Anyone who knows anything would argue the NDCA will never entertain such for such cannot be proven.
Should Malema not ask his legal fees back, for prudent legal advice was scarce in the case of the defence.
I think the Appellants have been grossly ill-advised and must be out of pocket on top of that for the case brought to the NDC and subsequently the NDCA was a weak in legal prudence one, perhaps it was a charade of personality and stardom.
Is it therefore not funny that the very visible Dali Mpofu when he halfway through received the NDCA ruling began to make his way to Mom Winnie to seek motherly love and care, the same who do not even know they were coming to see her.
Perhaps as Mpofu was driving his sports green metallic soft-top version Jaguar XJ towards Soweto, he must have felt more a looser than Malema and company for he as a visible jurist should have known better. My advice to Malema and Company ask for your money back because the legal advice proffered was in sixes and sevens and short sighted.
Cases are won and loss in preparation is what the late Justice Fikile Bam told me many times, I guess Bra Fiks you were right again, for the defence in the NDCA hearing like in the NDC hearing was ill prepared, and sought to build a case on a wing and a prayer less in prudence of law.
Then again what do I know !
Clyde N. S. Ramalaine –
Author of soon to be published “Tradewinds are Blowing” Contemporary Political Musings and Discourse in Post Apartheid context