EFF statement in defense of Advocate Dumisa Ntsebeza

17 August 2015

The EFF rejects the Presidency’s statement in relation to the legitimate criticism by Advocate Dumisa Ntsebeza of the outcomes of the Farlam Commission of Inquiry into Marikana Massacre. In a hypocritical and opportunistic statement the presidency, which includes Zuma and Ramaphosa, communicated their shock and disgust at the advocate’s criticism claiming that it is wrong to criticize members of the judiciary, both former and present ones. However, a commission of enquiry appointed by the President is hardly a court, even in the most basic reading of our constitution.

Advocate Dumisa Ntsebeza was well within his rights to differ with Judge Farlam because Judge Farlam was acting in the commission not as judge, but as a commissioner. He was not acting in terms of the constitutional remit of Courts, but in terms of the constitutional provisions of the President of the Republic, section 84 (2)(f). His commission is not a court of law and that is why it is subject to a judicial review which Ntsebeza has called for.

President Zuma must explain to the country why he provides protection only for a head of a commission who is appointed by himself and yet leaves all judges presiding over our honorable courts to be publicly attacked by his cabinet and the ANC. Judges who each day act in the name of our courts, have been attacked and criticized by Ministers Nzimande and Nhleko, as well as Gwede Mantashe, yet there has never been a single statement in defense of the judiciary or to a reprimand of the cabinet.

Zuma and Ramaphosa must explain if they are confirming the suspicion that they and Farlam enjoy a personal relationship which makes Farlam rule in Ramaphosa’s favour, protecting all other politicians involved in the killing workers.

Of all judges who get attacked by politicians of the ANC none has received such a public protection from the presidency of Zuma and Ramaphosa, and this leaves no other reason but to believe that Farlam deserves their protection because he vindicated Ramaphosa in terms of his role in the mass murder of workers.

Advocate Ntsebeza’s criticisms are based on evidence and facts presented to Farlam and must be defended. He did not question the integrity of the Judge, but criticized his conclusions on the basis of superior logic which is the best respect someone one so senior in the legal profession like Nstebeza can show to a former Judge in a democracy.

Zuma and Ramaphosa must be reminded that a commission, although critical, is not a court of law. The final word on Marikana can only be arrived at by an independent court not appointed on the basis of a mandate by Zuma and Ramaphosa. It is for that reason that the EFF has pressed criminal charges on all politicians involved including the police for a court of law to decide.

In addition, the EFF, like Ntsebeza, will never reconcile with Judge Farlam’s conclusion that police acted in self-defense in scene one. We reiterate, Marikana was a premeditated mass murder which was initiated and supervised by Cyril Ramaphosa.

Statement issued by the Economic Freedom Fighters, August 17 2015