How Robert Mugabe Should Be Remembered.

I was born at the height of the liberation struggle. I guess that qualifies me as a war-veteran! Three years later, the white Rhodesians gave in to what they called terrorists and a new Zimbabwe was born. In came the angel Gabriel and called upon all to turn guns, bombs and machetes into plough-shares. The tea-pot shaped country was transformed into a bread basket and all willingly went to school with shining morning faces. Three decades later, the Gabriel in Robert has turned into the real MUGABE.
Depending on which hill one stands, Robert Mugabe has been associated with the following terms:Anarchy,Patriotic,Hurricane,Revolutionary,Dictator or Democrat (the list is exhaustive).What echoes through these words is the blatant fact that Robert Mugabe did abandon his policy of reconciliation and has since replaced it with his policy of retaliation. The recent purge of his acolytes (Mujuru et al ) points out to his cold and calculating tenacity to hold on to power despite economic problems spiralling out of his control. Like a runaway train, Mugabe has ignored all the signs. Yet strangely, the passengers, especially in the economy class (Bombera) grit their teeth with animal joy as they cling to the metal rails of their worn out seats. They shout on top of their voices for the train to accelerate. They ululate at his strange determination to continue to drive the train to the cliff. This is a monumental blunder of judgement from both the passengers and the driver.
Strange!
Why should our people, forever thin, lanky and ungainly, sing praise songs as leaders eat away their only hope of survival? Should we then concur with Ken Mufuka who once wrote that something is very wrong with us as a people? How can one explain Mugabe’s stewardship over Zimbabwe for three decades….or God forbid till 2020! It cannot be in the name of Vision 2020. Anywhere else in the civilised world, Mugabe’s reign would not have seen the light of another day. Put differently, there must be something wrong with our literacy rate. At over 90%, the best in Africa, I fail to understand why we fail to read the ballot paper and place an X on the correct column. We cannot either blame the Nikuv pen for fading our votes in Mugabe’s favour. So how has the nonagenarian managed to single-handedly dominate so effectively despite Zimbabwe’s steep decline over the years? The answer lies in one word:
Fear!
Our dear President and his government, which now includes the learned Dr.Grace Mugabe, has invested in the army ,police and well drilled youth militias. The citizenry live in fear! Fear of the known….unofira mahara. Loosely translated, it means you die in vain! Iam also aware that in writing this piece, I risk to be blacklisted or to be ground into pulp. Indeed ordinary Zimbabweans, from poor rural teachers to voiceless and powerless women and children, have been pounced upon, in the dead of the night, by state sponsored thugs dressed in police and army uniforms. The police have become a law unto themselves. They are beyond reproach. There is also incontrovertible evidence pointing to the crushing of dissent by the Zanu PF government within its own ranks. The police and the army have been used to silence people to the grave, if a finger is raised against the incumbent president. There must be an unwritten rule in Zanu PF ….that the President is always right. Any dissent from within the party is met with purging. Joyce Mujuru et al have recently joined an impressive list of people like Edgar Tekere, Eddison Zvobgo, Simba Makoni and the gullible Jabulani Sibanda, who were viewed as rebels within the party. This entails that Robert Mugabe is always right! Period. Any sign of dissent, will result in your political death.
Certainly the President has proved to be an old hand at the game of political one-upmanship.His knee-jerk policies, premised on political expediency, have left our country as good as war torn Iraq. Wasted and Failed. A few have benefited out of the land reform programme, aptly dubbed the Land Grab Programme. The truth is it has not benefited the mass of agricultural workers and farmers, but instead the Zanu PF cadres and loyalists. The poor people, who had parcels of land cut out to them, have been solely given the land in return for votes. It’s a political gimmick. They sit on unsecured pieces of land with no farm implements to till the land. All they cling to is false hope that the land will be registered in their names and only Zanu PF knows how and when. Like animals in Animal Farm, they are constantly reminded that if Mr Jones comes back, they will lose everything.
Oh, what a talented arch-manipulator!
Please Mr.President; stop insulting the people’s intelligence!

*Shepherd Mutsvara @blakaworld1

South African Law is White and Male.

I write this piece on Reconciliation Day. I don’t intend to open up healed wounds, nor incite racial tensions. The truth, just like a mosquito-bite, irritates our ego. It is the truth that irritates me. Iam a black and peaceful law graduate who has a white problem with the South African Legal system.

It is white and male!

Anyone black, female or in-between has to sweat to get to the lower rungs of the legal ladder. Equality is imaginary. It is utopia.

The future is pitch-black!

The paucity of black attorneys in the upper ranks of the country’s elite commercial law firms is disturbing. This is a discouraging sight to a black law graduate still learning the trade’s tricks. Entrance into the profession, after attaining the LLB degree, is hindered by a lot of hurdles which disadvantage the black students. This is not a racial slur, nor do I advocate an entitlement attitude premised on transformation or black empowerment.

No!!!!!

To begin with, it is quite difficult for a black student to get articles as opposed to a white student. A white friend of mine told me that he got his Candidate Attorney vacancy whilst he was still at university. He never applied, nor was he interviewed. He just got connected. EASY! It has become fashionable these days that a Candidate Attorney should have “own car” and must be “bilingual”. The “own car” requirement mostly favours the white law graduate. It is a fact that most if not all whites own the factors of production in South Africa and their kith and kin are favourably stationed when it comes to such assets as cars. This positions them well and they won’t even mind the R3000 mock salary given to articled clerks. Bilingual refer to the ability to read, speak, listen and write in Afrikaans……a dying language yet the core requirement for a “fit and proper” attorney.

Some Law firms have created a tradition to employ only white law graduates. This has been creatively done so as to keep the “firm’s culture” and cut on integration costs. This smacks of institutional racism, an affront to the spirit and purport of the South African Constitution. Integration costs are associated with diminished morale of white workers who resent the presence of black attorneys whom whites see as undeserving. In an effort of creating a façade of “togetherness” law firms have gone for a colourful collage of pictures were blacks and whites smile to the click of the camera. Yet when they return to their workstations the reality sinks in….whites will never accept them as equal colleagues and partners.

Equality is imaginary. It is utopia!

One experienced white jurist supports this notion. He blames the lack of black law graduates in pristine white law firms on an exhaustive list which includes….black shortcomings, including intellectual inferiority and deficits of human capital, interest, loyalty, and perseverance. I have a problem with a blanket statement on “black shortcomings”. Does this include honesty? Or is aligned to competence? There is an unwritten law in the corridors of established law firms that blacks require more training than their white counterparts. I firmly believe that this perception has its wings in negative mind-set of blacks being thick skinned. Is it not true ladies and gentlemen, that if all resources are channelled towards proper training of ALL, great strides will be made to reduce this gap? The answer has to be affirmative.

The South African legal system is an establishment built on white privilege and institutional racism. No doubt the apartheid legacy cemented this perception that blacks can never be on the same par with their white counterparts. But things change and should change! More can be done by those who benefited out of apartheid. These institutions have the financial muscle to train the novice and instil into them practical knowledge required to survive in this industry. Yes the economic climate might be harsh, and I understand some firms are struggling to settle overheard costs, but efforts to integrate all into the profession should not be aligned to racial colours and gender.

The Constitution enjoins us to heal the divisions of the past and establish a society based on democratic values, social justice and fundamental human rights. This progressive Constitution read together with the recently promulgated Legal Practice Act, has an institutional and statutory framework to address this racial divide .The Act create the Legal Council which is tasked with finding solutions to the availability of quality legal training and education, quality workplace learnership opportunities, provision of pro bono services as well as the community based paralegal services. This might be slow during its teething days, but the long term result should work towards in harmonising racial and gender imbalances in the legal profession.

Certainly the numbers are not pleasing and do not add up.

A recent survey by the Ministry of Legal Affairs and Constitutional Affairs revealed shocking figures. Years after the demise of apartheid, of the 2384 advocates (as at April 2013) who fell under the umbrella of the general council of the bar, 1367 were white men,366 white women,295 African men,89 African women,47 coloured men,37 coloured women,114 Indian men and 69 Indian women. The picture is, of the 473 senior advocates or silks, 382 are white men, 29 black men, 20 white females, 4 black women, 9 coloured men, 1 coloured woman, 24 Indian men, and 4 Indian women.

Certainly these figures cannot be attributed to blacks own failings or choices. Professor Lisa Pruitt argues that despite a range of economic and political incentives to hire black attorneys, the lack of integration is also the result of discriminatory actions of white individuals and the institutions they run. They cannot just stand a black lawyer’s name on the letterhead of a pristine white law firm.

The truth hurts!

The 1994 elections ushered in “another country”, with a progressive and embracing Constitution, but certainly did not usher in “another legal profession”. The truth is ….the legal profession remains white and male.

Shepherd Mutsvara 
(LLB Unisa) (LL.M  UoL)

Oscar found guilty

                                               

  

                                 THE HIGH COURT OF SUPREME JUSTICE

 In the matter between:

THE STATE

And

OSCAR LEORNARD CARL PISTORIOUS

_____________________________________________________________________________

Coram:  Blaka J   @blakaword1,Kedha (Assessor) @keddah83 and Cute Lawyer (Assessor) @Eheka 

Date of hearing: As early as Valentine Day 2013

Date of delivery: Today

 Neutral citation: This judgment may be referred to as The State v Pistorius (1) [2014] HCSJ 977 (RSA).

_____________________________________________________________________________

JUDGMENT

_____________________________________________________________________________

THE COURT

1.     This black and peaceful court has had enough time to consider the verdict of what many have dubbed the Trial of the Century. For the first time in our history we have allowed the glare of the television light to intrude our ill-equipped court and to some extent has left our court interpreters stuttering for loss of words. This trial has been beamed to the world, and has been religiously followed on twitter @OscarTrial199 and many social network platforms. We are convinced as the Court that so much evidence has been presented in and outside the Court. We will not continue listening to the neither defence nor prosecution. They have certainly improved their CVs with intense presentation of their clients. In the main, many have been inspired to take on the law degree so as to pursue careers as lawyers. We hope the new LLB review will not disenfranchise mostly black kids from becoming lawyers. The profession at the moment is “white”. This verdict will put the nation to work again. Productivity has declined ever since the trial began and drivers have been issued with fines for “twitting and driving”. It’s time we cut the chase, and we will not encumber your eyes with legal jargon to understand this judgment.

2.     The accused in casu is a world icon. Many families have had their sons christened “Oscar” after the “blade-runner” had defied all odds. Oscar Leonard Carl Pistorius is a South African sprint runner born on November 22, 1986 .Although  both of Pistorius' legs were amputated below the knee when he was 11 months old, he competes in events for single below-knee amputees and for able-bodied athletes. After becoming a Paralympics champion, Pistorius attempted to enter able-bodied international competition. Pistorius eventually prevailed in this legal dispute. At the 2011 World Championships in Athletics, Pistorius became the first amputee to win an able-bodied world track medal. At the 2012 Summer Olympics, Pistorius became the first double leg amputee to participate in the Olympics when he entered the men's 400 metres and 4 × 400 metres relay races. At the 2012 Summer Paralympics, Pistorius won gold medals in the men's 400-metre race and in the 4 × 100 metres relay, setting world records in both events. He also took silver in the 200 metres race, having set a world record in the semi-final.

3.     Pistorius has been the subject of criticism because of claims that his artificial limbs give him an advantage over runners with natural ankles and feet. He runs with J-shaped carbon-fibre prosthetics called the "Flex-Foot Cheetah" developed by biomedical engineer Van Phillips and manufactured by Össur. However the blade-runner did fight this contention to the bitter end. His focus throughout this appeal, which is outside the scope of this judgment, has been to ensure that disabled athletes be given the chance to compete and compete fairly with able-bodied athletes.  

4.     The facts of the case are in no doubt. In the early morning of Thursday, 14 February 2013, Pistorius shot and killed South African model Reeva Steenkamp, his girlfriend of three months, at his home in Pretoria.Pistorius acknowledges that he shot Steenkamp to death and says that he mistook her for an intruder. In an effort to understand what the accused version is or was (for he kept changing the version), the Court for the first time will have a graphic presentation of what the accused  says took place on that fateful Valentine’s Day.

5.     Let me hasten to say, the experience was traumatic for the accused. Ever since then, he is given to crying when he is asked of how he killed the deceased. We have also noted in him a tendency to vomit when the picture of the deceased is shown to him. This Court will forever keep the green bucket, as a souvenir to other judges who should make sure that such props should be part of court –room drama. We have also sent the accused to undergo psychiatric evaluation to establish if he was criminally responsible for shooting Reeva Steenkamp.The Court is reliably informed that the environment at Weskoppies psychiatric hospital was not conducive for someone like Oscar Pistorious.This is because all the doctors, despite few disagreements, came to the conclusion that the accused was not mentally incapacitated when he shot his girlfriend to death. The report speaks loudly that the accused was and is capable of appreciating the wrongfulness of his act.

6.      The accused faces the following charges:

·        Premeditated murder, coupled with a gun charge wherein the State argues that the unlawful use and possession of that firearm contributed to his "intention to kill a human being”.

·        In the alternative, the accused faces a competent verdict in the form of culpable homicide.

·        A contravention of Section 90 of the Firearms Control Act no 60 of 2000 wherein

·        "The accused did unlawfully have in his possession of 38 x 38 rounds without being the holder of a.) A license in respect of a firearm capable of discharging that ammunition; b.) A permit to possess the ammunition; a dealer’s license, manufacturer’s license, gunsmith’s license, import, exports, or in transit permit or transports permit issued in terms of this Act."

The first of the additional charges against Oscar Pistorius came as a result of      an incident that occurred on 11 January 2013 when he reportedly accidentally fired a gun in a packed restaurant of more than 200 people, and near a table where children were dining. The second additional count against Oscar according involves an incident where he shot a gun out of the roof of a car when he was with his then girlfriend Samantha Taylor and his friend Darren Fresco on the night of 30 November 2012.

In reaching our verdict we have been guided by the legal convictions of the community (boni mores) and the open justice system. Justice should be seen to be done and must be carried out efficiently, fairly and without prejudice. While we understand the presumption of innocence principle (ei incumbit probation qui dicit, non qui negat), the accused gave a number of conflicting statements in his defence. What is glaringly obvious is his amazing ability to shift the blame on everyone around him, including his Counsel. Asked about the ammunition he used to shoot through the bathroom door and which killed Reeva, the accused said the ammunition belonged to his estranged father Henke.The father of the accused has not been seen at court since the trial started. With regards at shooting at the perceived intruder, Oscar maintains that he shot at the direction of the bathroom door, not with the intention of killing anyone….but involuntarily. Strange! And at one time we are told that a friend by the name Darren Fresco had to take blame in the Tasha’s restaurant so as to diffuse the hype around the paralympian.He still maintains the gun went off on its own. What a miracle!

In reaching our decision we have analysed the following crucial points to the case.

a. The killing. The most important facts of the case are not in doubt: Oscar Pistorius, the double-amputee Olympian ,shot through a bathroom door at his home in Pretoria and killed his girlfriend, 29-year-old model and law school graduate Reeva Steenkamp.The question for determination is: Was it cold-blooded murder,  or did Pistorius think he was shooting at an intruder? This court will not accept the fictitious version that the gun went off involuntarily!

b. The lead detective charged with seven attempted murders. Detective Hilton Botha admitted to shoddy police work in the bail application. It was revealed that Botha is facing seven attempted murder charges stemming from a 2011 incident in which he and two other officers shot at a minivan. Reports say the men were chasing down a murder suspect. The charges had been dropped but were reinstated 10 days before Steen Kamp’s death. These events, nor Botha’s jacket will not blind this court in reaching a verdict. It remains a fact that Oscar shot and killed Reeva.No amount of evidence tampering will distort the image of a dying Reeva in Oscar arms! The court assessors,@keddah83 and @CuteLawyer are all in agreement that Botha's past is "completely unrelated" to the trial. So is the South African common man in the street!

c. Police blunders. This trial has exposed the South African Police Service. They are a lot of blunders that calls for an overhaul in which the police handles the crime scene and exhibits. With the exception of one Captain Mangena who gave ballistics evidence for the State, it is is indeed glaringly true that the police messed up in their investigation of the Oscar murder case. It certainly gave Counsel Barry Roux a lot of mileage and his popularity soared as he heavily relied on the loopholes. Botha initially said the two witnesses who heard screaming from Pistorius' house on the night of the killing were 600 meters away. He later changed the distance to 300 meters. Other admissions: Investigators missed a spent bullet in the toilet and didn't take pictures of a box of bullets but snapped photos of Pistorius' medals. What a farce!

d. Was he wearing his prosthetic legs? Pistorius says he walked to the bathroom on his stumps, and then shot through the door. After that the accused says he “rushed back into the bedroom, screamed for help, and put on” his prosthetic legs. However a police forensic analyst, Police Colonel Johannes Vermeulen emphatically told the court that Oscar was “on his stumps” when he tried to smash down his locked toilet door with a cricket bat to reach his dying girlfriend. This contradicts the accused bail application version. Colonel Johannes Vermeulen said the angle of the bullet holes suggest Pistorius was standing tall on his prosthetics. The police theory gives credence to a charge of premeditation. If Pistorius had time to put on his prosthetics, then he wasn't getting out of bed quickly to pursue an intruder.

e. The empty bladder debate. An autopsy revealed Steenkamp's bladder was empty when she was killed. Since it would be highly unlikely for a person's bladder to be fully empty at 3 a.m., the defence says this shows Steenkamp was using the bathroom before the killing. The theory floated: She locked herself inside after hearing Pistorius yelling at an intruder. As an afterthought one of my assessors @keddah83 asked me a question which was never answered in this trial…..did they have sex? Only God knows!

f. Bloody cricket bat. "Was Steenkamp's skull crushed with bloodied cricket bat 'found' at Pistorius's house?"  The amount of blood on the cricket bat is so unsettling. One would quickly think that the accused used the bat. But there is ample evidence to the contrary. What remains a mystery is whether the witnesses heard the gunshot sounds or cricket bat sounds. All the same we hold the view that the “blood curdling screams”, heard by the neighbours must also have been heard by Oscar Pistorious.

g. Drugs? Botha said police found two boxes of testosterone, syringes and needles in a bedroom cabinet. Later, a police spokesman admitted the contents of the box were unknown. Testosterone is a banned substance by the IOC. The defence says the boxes contained an herbal remedy commonly used for sexual enhancement purposes. Two questions come to mind? Was Oscar using drugs during his competitions? And that lingering question…..did they have sex on the fateful night? The autopsy is silent in that regard.

h.)Did Oscar snap? Evidence was led of a rocky relationship between Oscar and Reeva.The whatssapp messages read in court do show a jealous Oscar, who always wanted attention in this relationship. He never gave Reeva time to express the wild spirit in her. She felt inhibited, stifled and muffled in the short love affair. She could not express herself! This relationship was always about Oscar, Oscar, Oscar, Oscar!  Now there is a possibility that the two had an argument, probably after Reeva had received a message from a former boyfriend. She insisted of leaving and threatening to end the affair. Oscar could not take it.Reeva ran to the bathroom to seek refuge! She screamed for help, and Oscar aimed at the door….shot four times at the door instantly killing the petrified Reeva.After a lucidum intervallum, Oscar came to his senses and realised the import of his actions.

7. Having considered all these factors we came to the conclusion that on the the first charge of premeditated murder, the accused is GUILTY. The accused must have known that Reeeva Steenkamp was behind that bathroom door. In fact as Advocate Nel indicated, Reeva was talking to Oscar whilst locked in the toilet. And in return Oscar was shouting to Reeva to get out before he released the trigger. Even before Oscar went to the bathroom as he claimed, he should have alerted Reeva to the presence of a possible intruder by waking her up or at least locating her position. In any case, any lovebirds on a valentine day would cling together if such event happens. Where was the Valentine spirit in this house……I keep asking did they have sex? I doubt!

8.  When Oscar shouted for Reeva to call the police before he started firing, there was no way she would have kept quiet. She could have responded to him and alert him that he was in the bathroom. The female assessor in this coram asked: Why did she lock herself in the bathroom taking a routine pee in the middle of the night in an en suite bathroom leading to a bedroom she shares with somebody she so dearly loved? …..I keep asking the question…did they have sex?

9. On the gun charge, where the accused discharged a firearm in a crowded restaurant, this black and peaceful Court finds the accused GUILTY. He is a danger to the society and should learn that as a role model he has to lead an exemplary life. If in this country, we allow everyone to carry his gun to social outings we are creating anarchy in the State. This is unacceptable, considering we also take our children to such outings. What is disturbing for this court is that the accused could not take responsibility for his actions.Infact he lays the blame on Fresco so that his image is protected. This court will not accept such attitude. With regards to the last charge where the accused discharged a firearm through the sunroof of his vehicle, the State failed to prove beyond any reasonable doubt that Oscar was responsible for the act. So that charge will not stick.

10. The following order is thus given

·        30 years, imprisonment with hard labour for the murder charge.

·        5 years imprisonment for the gun charge in contravention of section 90 of the Firearms Control Act 60 of 2000.

·        No parole and suspended sentence

FOR THE COURT

Blaka J @blakaworld1      *Mutsvara Shepherd*

Parole in South Africa-what went wrong?

The Shabir Shaik return from the grave was quite a stir. It did not only give Mapisa-Ngakula haunting sleepless nights, but also led to the mutilation of the primary piece of legislation governing parole in the Republic. In earnest, all expected the convicted fraudster to "...die a consolatory and dignified death...". Nine years on, albeit a decade, Jacob Zuma's former financial adviser, released on terminal illness grounds, is healthy and enjoys a game of golf.

Parole deals with persons who, having gone through the three stages of criminal justice system, viz, the investigative stage, trial stage and the post-trial stage are released before the end of the actual imprisonment. It also refers to the process of the prisoner's supervised re-integration into the community whilst the prisoner serves the remainder of his sentence. Thus during this provisional release the parolee must obey the law, refrain from drug and alcohol use, avoid contact with the parolee's victim, must not obtain employment and should maintain required contacts with the parole officer. A prisoner can be released on medical grounds, humanitarian grounds and on a credit system earned by the prisoner during his incarceration.

In South Africa, it is the medical parole that is has put the system into disrepute. It also begs the question: does a prisoner acquires an enforceable right to be released on parole?

Before 1 March 2012 the early release of inmates on medical grounds was regulated by section 79 of the Correctional Services Act 111 of 1998.The erstwhile law only permitted the release of inmates who were in the “final phase of a terminal illness.” Inmates, suffering from life-threatening illnesses, but who were not bedridden or noticeably terminally ill, were considered ineligible for early release on medical grounds. The resultant inroads to inmates’ dignity attracted heavy criticism from our courts which heavily relied on the residuum principle laid down as early as 1912 by the learned Innes J, in Whittaker and Morant v Roos and Bateman. In casu, the dictum was “…inmates were entitled to all the personal dignity not temporarily taken away by law, or necessarily inconsistent with the circumstances in which they had been placed”. This is a salutary reminder that in truth the prisoner retains all his personal rights save those abridged or proscribed by law. In legal circles, the joke is: it is inhumane to detain an inmate until such a time as he no longer physically capable of committing further crimes!

The old medical parole system requirement of the “final phase of a terminal illness” posed a lot of challenges to the Parole Board. Medical doctors were reluctant to recommend inmates for release on medical grounds as it is “difficult to certify” that an inmate is in the final phase of a terminal illness. Seriously ill and/or severely incapacitated inmates were detained in correctional centres despite the fact that the Department of Correctional Services did not have the financial and human resources to provide them with proper care. It was not until the release of Shabir Shaik, former financial adviser to President Zuma, on medical grounds after serving less than three years of his 15 year sentence. This triggered public debate on medical parole and in way has given impetus to Clive-Derby Lewis to exercise his inviolable common-law right.

On 1 March 2012 a new section 79 of the Correctional Services Act came into operation. The old section 79 Correctional Services Act had been amended by section 14 of the Correctional Matters Amendment Act 5 of 2011.The new section provides for a prisoner, his relatives or officials to apply for medical parole based on the list of incapacitating disease and not just terminal illness. The list is exhaustive and among others includes the following: Stage IV AIDS, severe cerebral malaria, methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus and MDR/ XDR tuberculosis. Non-infectious conditions include malignant cancer with inoperable metastases and both radiotherapy and chemotherapy failure.

 The Act also provides that any offender with a condition that constitutes a terminal disease or an offender who is rendered physically incapacitated as a result of injury, disease or illness “so as to severely limit daily activity or inmate self-care”, should qualify for medical parole. Finally, Regulation 29A(7) provides that if the Medical Parole Advisory Board’s recommendation is positive, the National Commissioner, Correctional Supervision and Parole Board or the Minister, must consider whether the inmate indeed poses a low risk of reoffending and whether appropriate arrangements for his supervision, care and treatment had been made.

So how did the loopholes exist in the parole system?

 Recently the Democratic Alliance (DA) has blamed “well connected” convicts and politicians for the lacuna in the medical parole system. It is alleged that, the new Minister of Police,Nkosinathi Nhleko played a major role in the parole of Shaik.Minister Nhleko,as regional Commissioner of Correctional Service in the KwaZulu Natal, advocated the parole of Schabir Shaik on dubious grounds of medical parole. This curse of well-connected convicts who commit crimes on behalf of powerful politicians has resulted in an unfair parole system. If you are poor and a political nonentity you are sure to “die a consolatory and dignified death” whilst in prison. Minister Nhleko is seen as an obedient servant of the President, and has accordingly been rewarded for all his efforts in favour of the President. Also despite the fact that, Schabir Shaik had been discharged by the head of cardiology at Inkosi Albert Luthuli Hospital in Durban having been considered to be well, he remained in the ward until his parole! How amazing!

To avert such a situation, the new law on medical parole provides for a Medical Parole Advisory Board. This Board comprises of ten medical doctors whose primary role is to provide an “independent medical report to National Commissioner of Correctional Services, the Correctional Supervision and Parole Board or the Minister of Correctional Services, as the case may be.” It is thus hoped that all cases concerning medical parole will be fairly assessed without giving weight to the characters involved.

Two names then spring to mind…. Clive Derby-Lewis and who knows….Oscar Pistorius.

Time will tell.

Mutsvara Shepherd
LLB (Unisa) LLM (University of London)

 mutsvaras@gmail.com