What the judge actually said

So that people do not think that i smoked a bit of cow dung when i wrote this piece, let me first begin by setting out a bit of background about myself. I spend 7 years of my life reading a lot of books that tell you how judges reach their conclusions, what informs their thinking and how they communicate or rather impose their thinking to the rest of us mortal being. This is what you spend seven years doing if you are studying law.



Thereafter, i spend an extra 5 years in the Magistrate's Courts trying to use the little knowledge that i gained whilst studying trying to put criminals behind bars.Was successful at it because the last time i checked, i had managed to amass two thousand convictions during my stint as a public prosecutor.Do your maths and you will realise that i can be held accountable for whatever amount of money that was spend on at least a sizeable number of criminals for a period of approximately 1825.At R 20.00 (ASSUMPTION) per meal x by three meals a day this would be equal to R 109 500.00. NOT BAD FOR 5 YEARS WORK.



Thereafter, i spend a further five years entertaining Judges and calling them my Lord and my Lady at every perceivable opportunity. This was the best time of my life as i got to spend time in the same Court rooms and exchange verbal blows with the likes of Judge Levison and Judge Coetzee (both of whom have since departed from this world and Judge Cameron (who was the first Judge to say to me..." well done Advocate Tsholanku") to name but a few. Also, i got to share the same chairs with the best legal minds that South Africa has ever produced...Ishmael Semenya SC, Vincent Maleka SC, Judge Rami Mathopo, Tshepo Sibeko SC, George Bizos SC and the one and only QC to practise law during my time...Advocate Mendelow QC. ......Yah Neh...those were the days.



Before i shed a tear about my interesting past, let me now get to my point.



I believe that my Fifteen Years of working and sharing moments with great legal minds qualifies me to conclude that when Judge Harmse said..."the Court below failed to adhere to some basic tenets, in particular that in exercising the judicial function judges are themselves constrained by law."...."This commendable approach was unfortunately subverted by a failure to confine the judgement to the issues before the Court; by deciding matters that were not germane or relevant;by creating new factual issues by making gratuitous findings against persons who were not called upon to defend themselves; by failing to distinguish between allegation, fact and suspicion; and by transgressing the proper boundaries between judicial, executive and legislative functions.", he actually was saying...and this is based on drawing an analogy with the A NORMAL CORPORATE ENVIRONMENT, ...You have failed to adhere to normal Company policies and procedures and you have dragged the name of the Company in the mud and thus the decision is to suspend you, charge you with misconduct.



After the hearing, with such an indictment, the learned Judge would have been dismissed...and i reiterate..this would only have happened in a Normal Corporate Environment. As to why it does not happen to Judges, i don't know.This is one secret we were not let into at Law School.