FEATURES

Did Mpshe plagiarise a Hong Kong judge?

James Myburgh
14 April 2009

The curious similarities between the legal grounds for NPA decision on Zuma and an obscure 2002 ruling

On Monday last week Acting National Director of Public Prosecution Moketedi Mpshe announced his decision to drop charges against ANC president Jacob Zuma. In his statement setting out the grounds for his decision Mpshe cited various (mainly foreign) legal rulings. He then quoted extracts from damning recordings of various cellphone conversations between former Scorpions boss Leonard McCarthy and others in late 2007. These had been presented by Zuma's lawyers to the NPA in the course of their representations. On the face of it, these seem to suggest that McCarthy had been acting as a kind of Mbeki-ite mole within the prosecuting authority.

Having read these extracts Mpshe rather eloquently concluded: "It is against this broad principle of abuse of process that the conduct of Mr McCarthy must be seen and tested. The question for close consideration is encapsulated in expressions such as ‘so gravely wrong', ‘gross neglect of the elementary principles of fairness', ‘so unfair and wrong', ‘misusing or manipulating the process of the court.' If the conduct can be so categorized, it would be unconscionable for the trial to continue."

Quite predictably Mpshe's announcement was welcomed by the ANC and its alliance partners, and condemned by almost all opposition parties. Debate around the NPA's decision has focused mainly on the McCarthy recordings, their meaning and legality. Less attention has been paid to the legal basis underpinning Mpshe's decision to drop charges. A number of commentators have noted that the decision quotes - but effectively ignores - the recent Supreme Court of Appeal judgment which stated that the motive behind a prosecution is irrelevant.

There was always something odd about the section of Mpshe's statement which went under the heading ‘legal considerations.' It starts out adequately enough quoting the South African Constitution and then from the judgment in the case of the State versus Yengeni.

Things start going slightly awry when Mpshe quotes the following from the judgment of Smyth v Ushewekonze and Another 1998: "Section 18(2) embodies a constitutional value of supreme importance. It must be interpreted therefore in a broad and creative manner so as to include within its scope and ambit not only the impartiality of the decision making body but the absolute impartiality of the prosecutor himself whose function, as an officer of the court, forms an indispensable part of the judicial process."

This judgment was issued by Gubbay CJ in the Harare High Court. The section referred to is from the old Zimbabwean constitution, not the South African one. But given that Gubbay cites South African precedent - and this judgment is cited by judges in South Africa - this does not seem too problematic.

However, things become properly curious as Mpshe proceeds to cite a string of rulings by the courts of the British Commonwealth. First there Ormrod LJ's judgment in R v Derby Crown Court, ex Parte Brooks is cited, then Mason CJ in Jago v District Court of New South Wales, then Lord Lowry in Connelly v DPP 1964; then Lord Steyn in Regina v Latif , then Lord Clyde in R v Martin, and finally Lord Hope in R v Hui Chi-Ming.

There are a number of questions that one could ask about this. Are, for instance, these rulings really relevant to Mpshe's decision to drop charges? This is not just because South Africa has its own common law and constitution, but because these judgments all discuss the considerations that the courts should weigh up when asked to stay proceedings. One would not know this from Mpshe's decision as most references to "the court" have been excised and replaced with phrases such as the "criminal justice process". However, the really interesting question is where this all comes from?

At this point it is useful to divert to a judgment handed down by Justice Conrad Seagroatt of the Hong Kong High Court on December 13 2002 (see here). One section is headed "The abuse of process - the perennial dilemma" and it - rather strikingly - cites all the British Commonwealth judgments that Mpshe's statement referred to. Even more strikingly the phrases quoted are almost all the same as well - give or take some self-serving summarising, truncation and rewriting by the NPA (see below).

Most strikingly of all are Justice Seagrott's concluding remarks. These seem to presage by some six-and-a-half years - almost to the word - the Mpshe comments quoted above. "It is against this evolved statement of broad principle" Seagrott wrote, "that the prosecution's failures and shortcomings with regard to disclosure must be seen and tested. Those for close consideration are best summed up by such expressions as ‘so gravely wrong', ‘gross neglect of the elementary principles of fairness', ‘so unfair and wrong', ‘misusing or manipulating the process of the court'. If those failures can properly be so categorized, are they such as to make it unconscionable that a re-trial should go forward?" (My emphasis)

It is rather remarkable how Mpshe's opinion of McCarthy so closely resembles that of Justice Seagrott's opinion of the prosecution in his case in Hong Kong. Their conclusions are rather similar as well. Just as Mpshe decided that "an intolerable abuse has occurred which compels a discontinuation of the prosecution", Seagrott ruled that "the failures constitute an intolerable abuse which compel intervention. Accordingly I order a permanent stay on these proceedings."

Incidentally, the Seagrott ruling was overturned on appeal. In its judgment the Court of Final Appeal noted, that the court must take account  "of the public expectation that persons charged with serious criminal offences will be brought to trial unless there is some powerful reason for not doing so."

Below is a table setting out paragraphs of the Mpshe statement against relevant sections of the Seagrott judgment.

Statement by the NDPP, Moketedi Mpshe, on the matter S v Zuma and others, Pretoria, April 6 2009

Judgment by Conrad Seagroatt in criminal case of HKSAR and Lee Ming Tee, Hong Kong High Court, December 13 2002

 

 

There are generally two categories of abuse of process:

a) a manipulation or misuse of the criminal justice process so as to deprive the accused of a protection provided by law or to take an unfair advantage over the accused;

b) where, on a balance of probability the accused has been, or will be prejudiced in the preparation or conduct of his defence or trial by either a delay or haste on the part of the prosecution which is unjustifiable. (R v Derby Crown Court, ex Parte Brooks [1985] 80 Cr. App. R 164, per Ormrod LJ)

The Divisional Court in R v. Derby Crown Court ex parte Brooks 1985. 80 Cr. App. R. 164 (Ormrod LJ) went on to define the categories of abuse of process as either

"(a) the prosecution have manipulated or misused the process of the court so as to deprive the defendant of a protection provided by the law or to take unfair advantage of a technicality, or

(b) on the balance of probability the defendant has been, or will be, prejudiced in the preparation or conduct of his defence by delay on the part of the prosecution which is injustifiable.

 

 

The issue can be formulated as follows:

The question is whether a legal or judicial process which is aimed at dispensing justice with impartiality and fairness to both parties and to the community which it serves should permit its processes to be abused and employed in a manner which gives rise to unfairness and/or injustice. (See Jago v District Court of New South Wales, [1989] 168 CLR 23 at 30, per Mason CJ)

In Jago v. District Court of New South Wales (1989) 168 CLR 23 (at page 30) Mason CJ formulated the issue as follows:

"The question is ... whether the court whose function is to dispense justice with impartiality and fairness to both parties and to the community which it serves, should permit its processes to be employed in a manner which gives rise to unfairness."

 

 

Prosecutors have an inescapable duty to secure fair and just treatment of those who come or are brought before them.

This was a hark-back to Lord Devlin's speech in Connelly's case (at page 1354): "Are the courts to rely on the Executive (in the form of the Crown as prosecutor) to protect their process from abuse? Have they not themselves an inescapable duty to secure fair treatment for those who come or are brought before them?

 

 

Abuse of process may occur on its own, either because:

a) it will not be possible to give the accused a fair trial, or

b) it will offend one's sense of justice, integrity and propriety to continue with the trial of the accused in the particular case. Discontinuation is not a disciplinary process undertaken in order to express one's disapproval of abuse of process; it is an expression of one's sense of justice and propriety.(See Conelly v DPP 1964 AC 1254)

 

Lord Lowry followed the same line of approach:

"Whether the proposed trial will be an unfair trial is not the only test of abuse of process.

" ... I consider that a court has a discretion to stay any criminal proceedings on the ground that to try those proceedings will amount to an abuse of its own process either

(1) because it will be impossible (usually by reason of delay) to give the accused a fair trial or

(2) because it offends the court's sense of justice and propriety to be asked to try the accused in the circumstances of a particular case. I agree that prima facie it is the duty of a court to try a person who is charged before it with an offence which the court has power to try and therefore that the jurisdiction to stay must be exercised carefully and sparingly and only for very compelling reasons. The discretion to stay is not a disciplinary jurisdiction and, ought not to be exercised in order to express the courts disapproval of official conduct."

 

 

The framework within which abuse of process has to be considered was set out in R v Latif 1996 1 WLR 104. There will always be a tension between two extreme positions in that, if a trial is discontinued, the public perception would be that the criminal justice system condones improper conduct and malpractice by law enforcement agencies - and if a trial is discontinued the criminal justice system will incur the reproach that it is failing to protect the public from serious crime.

The House of Lords in R v. Latif 1996 1 WLR 104 sets out the legal framework in which the issue of abuse of process had to be considered. There was a weakness of the extreme positions in which, if the court always refused to stay such proceedings, the public perception would be that a "court condones criminal conduct and malpractice by law enforcement agencies" - and if it always stayed such proceedings it would "incur the reproach that it is failing to protect the public from serious crime".

 

 

An assessment of abuse of process involves a balancing exercise. In Latif it was clear that a fair trial was possible. The overriding question, however, was whether the trial ought to be discontinued "on broader considerations of the integrity of the criminal justice system".

According to Lord Steyn, criminal proceedings may be discontinued not only where there will be no fair trial but also where it would be contrary to the public interest in the integrity of the criminal justice system that a trial should take place. An infinite variety of cases could arise. General guidance as to how the discretion to discontinue should be exercised in particular circumstances will not be useful. But it is possible to balance the public interest in ensuring that those charged with serious crime should be tried against a compelling public interest which expresses a distaste and outrage for abuse of process by law enforcers who are expected to behave with absolute integrity, impartiality, fairness and justice. Such an approach conveys the view that a fair and just criminal system should not accept the attitude that the end justifies the means.

The court's discretion involves a balancing exercise. In Latif it was plain that a fair trial was possible. The question was whether the trial ought to have been stayed "on broader considerations of the integrity of the criminal justice system."

Lord Steyn, relying upon the speeches in R v. Horseferry Road Magistrates Court said:

"[They] conclusively establish that proceedings may be stayed in the exercise of the judge's discretion not only where a fair trial is impossible but also where it would be contrary to the public interest in the integrity of the criminal justice system that a trial should take place. An infinite variety of cases could arise. General guidance as to how the discretion should be exercised in particular circumstances will not be useful. But it is possible to say that in a case such as the present the judge must weigh in the balance the public interest in ensuring that those that are charged with grave crimes should be tried, and the competing public interest in not conveying the impression that the court will accept the approach that the end justifies the means."

 

 

The approach in Latif has been followed consistently. Thus:

"No single formulation will readily cover all cases, but there must be something so gravely wrong as to make it unconscionable that a trial should go forward..." (R v Martin, [1998] 1 All ER 193, at 216, per Lord Clyde).

"Something so unfair and wrong that the court should not allow a prosecutor to proceed with what is in all respects a regular proceeding." (R v Hui-Chi-Ming [1992] 1 AC 34, at 57B, per Lord Hope)

"An abuse may occur through the actings of the prosecution, as by misusing or manipulating the process of the court. But it may also occur independently of any acts or omissions of the prosecution in the conduct of the trial itself". (Martin (supra), at 215, per Lord Clyde)

141. The House of Lords maintained their approach in their decision in R v. Martin 1998 1 All ER 193 ... The decision is important for the consistency of approach and range of terminology adopted to describe the abuse which would justify a stay of proceedings:

"No single formulation will readily cover all cases, but these must be something so gravely wrong as to make it unconscionable that a trial should go forward, such as some fundamental disregard for basic human right or some gross neglect of the elementary principles of fairness" (Lord Clyde at page 216 d.)

Lord Clyde also adopted what Lord Hope had said in R v. Hui Chi-ming (1992) 1 AC 34 (at page 57B) on the subject of abuse of process:

... "Something so unfair and wrong that the court should not allow a prosecutor to proceed with what is in all respects a regular proceeding."

Lord Clyde added:

"An abuse may occur through the actings of the prosecution, as by misusing or manipulating the process of the court. But it may also occur independently of any acts or omissions of the prosecution in the conduct of the trial itself." (p. 215 j.)

 

 

SCA judgment on motive and transcripts quoted by Mpshe

 

 

It is against this broad principle of abuse of process that the conduct of Mr McCarthy must be seen and tested. The question for close consideration is encapsulated in expressions such as " so gravely wrong", "gross neglect of the elementary principles of fairness", "so unfair and wrong", "misusing or manipulating the process of the court." If the conduct can be so categorized, it would be unconscionable for the trial to continue.

It is against this evolved statement of broad principle that the prosecution's failures and shortcomings with regard to disclosure must be seen and tested. Those for close consideration are best summed up by such expressions as "so gravely wrong", "gross neglect of the elementary principles of fairness", "so unfair and wrong", "misusing or manipulating the process of the court". If those failures can properly be so categorized, are they such as to make it unconscionable that a re-trial should go forward?

 

 

Using one's sense of justice and propriety as a yardstick by which McCarthy's abuse of the process is measured, an intolerable abuse has occurred which compels a discontinuation of the prosecution.

I find, with respect, the words of Lord Lowry, singularly attractive and apposite as an expression of the guiding force: ‘the court's sense of justice and propriety'. These coupled with Lord Steyn's ‘integrity of the criminal justice system' help to set the yardstick or criterion by which the abuse complained of is to be measured. In my judgment this is one of those rare cases where the failures constitute an intolerable abuse which compel intervention. Accordingly I order a permanent stay on these proceedings.

Click here to sign up to receive our free daily headline email newsletter

Services

Subscribe to newsletters
News feeds


Share this article

Facebook Facebook Google Google Laaik.it Laaik.it
Yahoo! Yahoo! Digg Digg del.icio.us del.icio.us


 
 
It is against this evolved statement of broad principle that the prosecution's failures and shortcomings with regard to disclosure must be seen and tested. Those for close consideration are best summed up by such expressions as "so gravely wrong", "gross neglect of the elementary principles of fairness", "so unfair and wrong", "misusing or manipulating the process of the court". If those failures can properly be so categorized, are they such as to make it unconscionable that a re-trial should go forward?"
Seagrott J, December 2002
 

Comments

If you come across comments that are injurious, defamatory, profane, off-topic or inappropriate; contain personal attacks or racist, sexist, homophobic, or other slurs, please report them and they will be removed.
 
 responses to this article

Good work!
Wow that is good work! Pity we can not be sure that our judiciary will be able to be impartial from now on! JZ has already promised changes!

This article proves what type of ma Mpshe is! No wonder they wanted to get rid of Pikoli!

by Mliqi on April 14 2009, 02:44
Find this comment inappropriate? Report it

UNBELIEVEABLE, BELIEVE IT!
The king really does not have clothes. How do we stop this constant downgrading and backsliding into backwardness, a world of shameless selfdeceit and the systemic degrading of honesty and integrity. Our future is in danger... The real bad thing is, these . .more

by Leon on April 14 2009, 04:22
Find this comment inappropriate? Report it

YOU ARE DOOMED!!!
The above blurb shows to what length your filthy regime will go in order to paper up the TRUTH .

These immoral bucnh of political hoodlums will see to that south africa goes down the slippery slope to that of a ''FAILED STATE'' It will happen . .more

by RUS on April 14 2009, 04:59
Find this comment inappropriate? Report it

What's your point, James?
You are starting a hare, aren't you? And sure enough, the pack is off and running. But there is nothing in this unless it is snobbery. Snobbery that edges towards racism.

Sour grapes, James..

by Domza on April 14 2009, 06:35
Find this comment inappropriate? Report it

Seagrottt
Good night, sweet prince. It is all over. How is your blue-eyed boy now, Mr. Death?

SA justice is now just a set of chess pieces being moved over the board. All of them are political, none of them connected with justice or the law. In a . .more

by Peter on April 14 2009, 07:25
Find this comment inappropriate? Report it

They did it to Zuma...
now he is doing it back! We all act so shocked when these things happen...when are we going to learn to expect the abuse of state powers by "democratic" politicians.

by Schmocracy on April 14 2009, 07:34
Find this comment inappropriate? Report it

Congratulations
Such in-depth reporting is very rare nowadays.

by Peter on April 14 2009, 07:46
Find this comment inappropriate? Report it

@Domza: Skud jou kop dat jou ore jou kan wakker klap!
Ag Domza, suck it up. Be a bit objective for once in your miserable life.

by €$ on April 14 2009, 08:15
Find this comment inappropriate? Report it

Second rate students/lawyers/prosecutors beware...
Google. Google is your enemy. Well done James!

@Domza: Mpshe has been caught out in an act of plagiarism. Can you explain how Myburgh pointing this out is (a) snobbish and, more bizarrely, (b) `edging towards racism'?? Can you? No you can't. It's . .more

by Gus Gosling on April 14 2009, 08:30
Find this comment inappropriate? Report it

What I can't...
...understand is how the Rand started to strengthen against foreign currencies whilst the gold price took a slight breather at the same time. Is big business and their foreign friends happy that the road for JZ has been cleared? Have they been promised . .more

by Piet Pompies on April 14 2009, 08:40
Find this comment inappropriate? Report it

I am impressed
i kinda wonder if it is stupidity or just ignorance. Maybe Mpshe never realised that with today's technology things are so easily revealed. You actually have to feel sorry for him and then I think, feel sorry for us. Because truth is, he could have . .more

by Hester on April 14 2009, 08:48
Find this comment inappropriate? Report it

same old plagiarists
That's pretty much what the ANC kleptocrats do nowadays, if they aren't stealing real property, they steal intellectual property. Nothing's changed in this country in the last 300 years.

by ps on April 14 2009, 09:47
Find this comment inappropriate? Report it

Great journalism
Well done. More should be made of this.

by x on April 14 2009, 09:48
Find this comment inappropriate? Report it

Research on the above
Congratulations James, this is excellent work. Maybe not that difficult, but who would've thought of researching the details?

The feet of clay are crumbling. Surely, there should be some recourse, some way of getting the case back on track? In . .more

by Francois on April 14 2009, 10:01
Find this comment inappropriate? Report it

Prosecute Mpshe!
This is very damaging! It shows:

(1) That Mpshe went on an extremely extensive hunting expedition, which would have required a huge team of researchers, no doubt deployed by the SACP/ANC for the purpose, and led by poor old Heath -- who "can . .more

by Sagmoedige Neelsie on April 14 2009, 10:20
Find this comment inappropriate? Report it

Mpshe's precedents
I have no problem with an advocate or judge quoting another (tho it is customary to acknowledge source), what I find most disturbing is Mpshe's use of a precedent which is totally irrelevant to the case.
In Latif's case the accused was "incited" and . .more

by Theseus on April 14 2009, 10:32
Find this comment inappropriate? Report it

Constitutionally Speaking
I enjoy Prof Pierre de Vos's blog (constitutionallyspeaking.co.za) and I saw he posted a discussion entitled "Reckless Gamble" on 7 April, also questioning the references to Commonwealth sources, which has NOTHING to do with our Constitution. Well done on . .more

by Gus on April 14 2009, 10:42
Find this comment inappropriate? Report it

Alas poor Jacob
Domza:

As the medical man said to that other Dom-kop, Debrah Patta, you seem to lack listening [reading] skills, so let me spell it out in very simple language:

(1) Mpshe went on a fishing expedition to find inappropriate . .more

by @Domza on April 14 2009, 11:06
Find this comment inappropriate? Report it

No surprise
ANC officials and lackies and their communist parasites, including Domza, are not people of honour.
So it's hardly surprising that they can't or won't do anything in a legal and honest fashion.

by Reitz on April 14 2009, 11:20
Find this comment inappropriate? Report it

Domza jou DOM D**S
Domza u obviously are so dom that u know NOTHING!!! ke????

by Rickb on April 14 2009, 11:41
Find this comment inappropriate? Report it

Plagiarism
Looking at the two judgments, the one was almost certainly used as a template for the other. Only a fool would deny this. This is of course, irrelevant. You are considering the judgement from a perspective that the legal system is intact when clearly it . .more

by Lord Max on April 14 2009, 12:29
Find this comment inappropriate? Report it

@ Sagmoedige Neelsie
The only reason why I did not steal from the High Court of Vanuatu is that we've already stolen their flag. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vanuatu

by M Mpshe on April 14 2009, 12:37
Find this comment inappropriate? Report it

This is unbelievable
And I don't think you can argue that it isn't plagiarism. The similarites ... the British cases ... it's too uncanny. Why in God's name would anyone do this when it's the most important moment of your professional life?
Well done, James, this is real . .more

by Gill on April 14 2009, 12:52
Find this comment inappropriate? Report it

@@Domza
@Domza 11:06. Couldn't have said it better. What do people not understand? This is an illegal and unconstitutional decision! If Bulelani and Leonard is charged, the full contents of the tapes MUST be made public, so charge them and whoever else necessary! . .more

by Gus on April 14 2009, 12:52
Find this comment inappropriate? Report it

Nice article
Pity about the dumbass comments

by ThaboM on April 14 2009, 12:54
Find this comment inappropriate? Report it

QUESTION?
WHICH POLITICAL PARTY DOES MONEYWEB ENDORSE?

by justasking on April 14 2009, 13:16
Find this comment inappropriate? Report it

@ M Mphse
LOL!

by Gus on April 14 2009, 13:31
Find this comment inappropriate? Report it

DOMZA
What Domza is doing is that he is setting up a platform where his kids in the future will be victims of crime and fraud and when they then seek justice and protection in the system, it wont be there. The system will be corrupt. Thanks to . .more

by J on April 14 2009, 13:49
Find this comment inappropriate? Report it

Quote
If you steal from one person it is plagiarism, if you steal from many it is research.....

by Steven Wright on April 14 2009, 13:52
Find this comment inappropriate? Report it

Non-Prosecuting Authority
They don't prosecute, and they don't write their own statements. Sounds like the civil service to me. Why are we not surprised?

by Donn Edwards on April 14 2009, 15:01
Find this comment inappropriate? Report it

Mirrors and Mirages
Mpshe you cheapskate!

It became apparent very early during your address what your decision would be despite your attempts to hide behind the build-up of selective and self-serving quotes and extracts from legal precedent to justify what was . .more

by Disgusted on April 14 2009, 15:49
Find this comment inappropriate? Report it

So what - if he did?
Zuma is free at the end of the day. Keep on crying...

by Me on April 14 2009, 15:57
Find this comment inappropriate? Report it

@African
I am sure you would have done the same as Mpshe, you are both African. You are right Zuma is free, but his people will never be while he is around!

by AP on April 14 2009, 16:26
Find this comment inappropriate? Report it

domza
Domza is an authoritarian personality who likes the feel of the lash. MAybe he went to a British boarding school where he was someone's fag and was regularly caned.

by pietie on April 14 2009, 17:26
Find this comment inappropriate? Report it

Mpshe
The Worst failure.

by Thembi on April 14 2009, 17:28
Find this comment inappropriate? Report it

@ James
Really, really good work! Very well done.

by CA Bez on April 14 2009, 17:50
Find this comment inappropriate? Report it

Internal memo to NPA insiders - confidential
Urgent - for senior NPA staff only - highly confidential

"Looks like the new Big Man will be in power in 2 weeks time - our jobs are at risk, so it is time to do some serious sucking up. Search the legal historical files from the Orient, the UK, . .more

by Sad Days on April 14 2009, 18:21
Find this comment inappropriate? Report it

Plagiarism
Plagiarism is theft, and no white man would have gotten away with this without losing his job immediately.

But this is not unusual for the ANC -- the one thing they can do well, is to steal. Money (BEE), Jobs (AA), Land (Land Reform), . .more

by JVR on April 14 2009, 19:33
Find this comment inappropriate? Report it

npse or whatever
Whatch this guy, he's going to up the ranks like a rocket.......
he'll become the next chief judge's coffee boy - sorry coffee man..., coffee maker..., coffee can.., sorry..

by huh on April 14 2009, 19:39
Find this comment inappropriate? Report it

James, don't be so shocked
You have obviously never worked in a Government department.

Most AA-ers in management positions attend Head office meetings/workshops/courses with their flash-stick, copy the Power-Points and use them as their own. The bright ones change some of . .more

by Racist = 1 who does not support the ANC on April 14 2009, 20:26
Find this comment inappropriate? Report it

U.r. a beaut James.
James, you are such a rare and beautiful brain, a real gem. You give me hope. If I was a young boy heading to university for law studies, not to be an a party MC or such, but a real nerd, I'd insist that you be conscripted. Beautiful work. You are a . .more

by papadi on April 15 2009, 01:32
Find this comment inappropriate? Report it

@racist=1
Maybe it was deliberately done to embarrass Mpshe? He would not know the difference himself. Hell, its not just in government. Even so-called black academics steal other peoples projects and submit them as their own.

by pietie on April 15 2009, 07:06
Find this comment inappropriate? Report it

The irony of it all
To think that a lawyer would go to the extent of stealing almost an entire judgement, but then neglecting to admit that that judgement was overturned on appeal !

by Former Spook on April 15 2009, 07:06
Find this comment inappropriate? Report it

At least be embarrassed about it!!!
African and Dumbsa don't even have the grace to feel embarrassed about their stance. Mpshe clearly does not give a rats #rse about how he looks, as long as he gets his farm.

To me this is more about setting yourself standards of behaviour. If . .more

by Excalibur on April 15 2009, 09:12
Find this comment inappropriate? Report it

"This is Africa"
I hear that quote alot....from friends, family and even stated during press conferences by local political fat cats. What does it mean? As a Canadian living her in SA, it is the one statement that seems to 'cure' every problem that this nation faces. The . .more

by I'm leaving.... on April 15 2009, 09:29
Find this comment inappropriate? Report it

anc and Zuma Sucks
Its high time that we allrealise that we are now being taken by a ride. anc has taken ALL the state resources and it influences who so ever they want to.I think its high time we All stand up and act Against All this power mongers(Opportunists). I wish Dr . .more

by Dada on April 15 2009, 10:04
Find this comment inappropriate? Report it

goodbye and good riddance Zuma!
An excelleant discovery. Two cardinal points:
-Mpshe's judgement is revealed as a scam; 'this is the most serious decision I have taken"; the gall, to plagiarise a non-relevant ruling and claim such sincerity, will doubtless throw his entire . .more

by hope for SA on April 15 2009, 10:12
Find this comment inappropriate? Report it

Well Done James !!
I can only re-iterate what so many have already said. This is really good work and I hope that this will strengthen the case for further action against Mpshe's disgraceful act.

by Johnny Ace on April 15 2009, 11:17
Find this comment inappropriate? Report it

Well done james
Whats the bet that the quote was provided to the NPA and Mpshe in the submissions made by Zuma's legal team and quoted verbatim as justification? I certainly question that the NPA had the time or resources to find the obscure judgment he clearly relied . .more

by richard on April 15 2009, 11:56
Find this comment inappropriate? Report it

There is no plagiarism in legal judgements, sour grapes I am sorry
Judges and prosecutors normally refer to decided cases when they have to decide on a similar matter and it is accepted in legal circles and there is nothing like plagiarism. Mpshe was not writing a scientific document for publication but merely stating . .more

by tito on April 15 2009, 12:20
Find this comment inappropriate? Report it

Mpshe
Mpshe had to make a statement and he did so what? you want to see more in future? vote ANC..

by Lusfeg on April 15 2009, 12:28
Find this comment inappropriate? Report it

Come to think of it!
Why did Mpshe take long to reach a decision that had been given to him? why did it take long to plagerise the learned judge's notes? He is unfit to even act as a court interpreter.

by Thabisa on April 15 2009, 12:37
Find this comment inappropriate? Report it

@tito: plagiarism
It's the lack of attribution that's the problem, not the fact that another judgement was cited (and btw the NPA has now acknowledged this as a problem). Sour grapes to you.

by Gus Gosling on April 15 2009, 13:00
Find this comment inappropriate? Report it

Insulting Mphse intelligence
How funny and how amusing to the rest of you that this article has been published. Mphse's intelligence is being insulted. When are the people of this country going to start to respect its citizens. Anything that has to do with ANC is being attacked, . .more

by African Nation on April 15 2009, 13:26
Find this comment inappropriate? Report it

Africa
It is in this website that a lot of comments are made about IQ's of African people. It is in this website that the have's always threaten to take everything they came with and leave us in mud huts that they find us in.

Africa wake up. Vote . .more

by African Nation on April 15 2009, 13:35
Find this comment inappropriate? Report it

Journalists and Politicians and Attorneys
According to Business Day, James Myburgh is the Democratic Alliance's researcher. Why would a journalist or for that matter an editor as is the case with James wanna do research for a political party. Does this explain the many DA's articles on this . .more

by justasking on April 15 2009, 13:46
Find this comment inappropriate? Report it

It 's ANC business as usual ,

S.A Government makes huge profits from crime. Question: "What is the influence of crime on the S.A. Govt?" Answer: Crime generates millions and millions of Rand?s for the SA Government Here are the facts.... Example 1: Take just one million home . .more

by Witman in exile on April 15 2009, 14:09
Find this comment inappropriate? Report it

CATCH A WAKE UP!
WE ARE "RULED" BY IMPOSTERS AND FRAUDS, CHARLATANS IN VERSACHI SUITS AND BMW's, NONE OF WHICH THEY HAVE ANY IDEA OF HOW THEY CAME INTO BEING. TO QUOTE A FOREIGN JUDGEMENT IN SUPPORT OF ONE'S DECISION, WITHOUT ADDING THAT THE VERY JUDGEMENT QUOTED WAS . .more

by JOHNNY COMELATELY on April 15 2009, 15:33
Find this comment inappropriate? Report it

What is wrong with wearing Versachi Suits
Are you jealous that you cannot afford them versachi suits and BMWs. They do not have to know how it is made. There is something called "trading" Mr high IQ Johnny Comelately. RSA exchanges its own resources with Italy and Germany to import Versachis . .more

by To Johnny Comelately on April 15 2009, 16:37
Find this comment inappropriate? Report it

Shame on you!
When Mpshe suspend his Xmas break to come and '(re)charge' the newly-elected ANC President JZ, most of you demonising him thought that was the best gift ever....
When the same Mpshe goes the other way around, against your evil wishes, see what is . .more

by Malema on April 15 2009, 17:46
Find this comment inappropriate? Report it

A few important points
1/ The justice system and Zuma have between them dragged and stretched the Zuma case for many years.

2/ Suddenly, 2 weeks before the NPA are to get a new boss, they put together a ramshackled reason to abandon all their previous work to prosecute . .more

by Sad Days on April 15 2009, 19:24
Find this comment inappropriate? Report it

A few questions for "African Nation"
I have frequently listed why I believe Zuma is a dangerous buffoon. I would be very interested in getting your own list as to what skills you believe Zuma has to -

- solve crime
- improve the deteriating infrastructure
- alleviate the . .more

by Sad days on April 15 2009, 20:01
Find this comment inappropriate? Report it

Another angle - Pikoli
Was Pikoli not suspended and eventually fired for not taking "national security" into consideration when he prosecuted Selebi? What is the difference between Pikoli/ Selebi and McCarthy/ Zuma? It sounds to me as if McCarthy DID exactly what Pikoli was . .more

by Piet Strydom on April 16 2009, 08:10
Find this comment inappropriate? Report it

@ African Nation 15 April 13:35
Maybe you should go and study at least Economics 1, because you have no idea how wealth is created. Perhaps your type believes it comes from digging up gold and diamonds. It is created by investment, especially FDI, with value adding through expertise to . .more

by Gus on April 16 2009, 11:59
Find this comment inappropriate? Report it

You deserve an award for this.
Well done.

by x on April 16 2009, 13:06
Find this comment inappropriate? Report it

Failing NPA
It seems the NPA does not know what is happening they even have to copy what someone else says. They listen to high powers and they copy from other judges so why do we need them.

Thank god we have Helen Zille who will sort this out!!

by another said story on April 16 2009, 17:59
Find this comment inappropriate? Report it

ZOOLOO
TRIBESMEN IN VERSACI SUITS AND BMWs WHO THOUGHT THEY WERE CLEVVA APPOINTING A ZULU AS DEPUTY PRESIDENT TO GET THE KZN VOTE...NOW HE'S GOING TO BE PRESIDENT. HAU!

by Johnny Comelately on April 17 2009, 14:28
Find this comment inappropriate? Report it

All for one and one for all.....
Excellent article. Just one huge difference. In Hong Kong situation it was actually a court of law that decided the case and all evidence was presented and tested, in Zuma's case it was the Public prosecutor that made this decision without the facts and . .more

by Peter Thinksumore on April 18 2009, 05:52
Find this comment inappropriate? Report it

Nice one, James...
...more than.

by Paul Pereira on April 18 2009, 16:07
Find this comment inappropriate? Report it


Name
Subject
Comment