Chairperson,

The aim of personal attacks on opponents, during debates like this, is always to take away the focus from the real issues – especially if one has nothing with which to counter the arguments of your opponent.

The approach therefore to the arguments of someone like the Hon Breytenbach is one along the lines of “OK, we have no rational and reasonable answers, so let’s rather delegitimise what the opponent is saying by questioning motives, casting aspersions and painting the person opposite us as a failure, a racist or maybe even a spy.”

Therefore, let us re-focus this debate:

This debate is obviously not about those hardworking prosecutors and other officials of the department and Legal Aid SA, who diligently play their role in ensuring that our justice system does not fall apart. We commend them.

This debate is however about the sorry saga of a deputy NDPP, Nomgcobo Jiba, who has been described by our High Courts as being “disingenuous”, offering “absurd” arguments, as being “loathe to take an independent view”, as displaying “a lack of interest in assisting the Court” and ultimately as conducting herself in a manner not “worthy of her office”.

It is also about the failure by the President to act on this intentional abuse of office by Ms Jiba, especially in light of the request by the NDPP to suspend her. This is about her abusing her position of trust for no other reason than to aid the President.

This sorry saga is also about the reaction of the Minister to this sordid state of affairs. The Minister first tried to abdicate responsibility by telling the Portfolio Committee that the hiring and firing of the deputy NDPP is the privilege and duty of the President. This is despite the fact that the Minister constantly reminds us that he is responsible for the administration of justice.

Even after Mac Maharaj informed the nation that Minister was dealing with this matter, the Minister told the Portfolio Committee that he really does not want to duplicate proceedings and would rather wait to see whether the High Court strikes Ms Jiba from the role of advocates before he takes any action whatsoever.

He is failing his office for no other reason than to aid the President.

Chairperson,

Let’s also re-focus this debate on another sorry saga, that of the position of the NDPP himself.

Despite the fact that the President was spoon-fed as to the proper and rational process to follow in order to appoint the NDPP by the Supreme Court of Appeal in the Simelane judgement, the President again managed to fail spectacularly to act in a presidential manner in this regard.

This debate is therefore about the appointment of Mr Nxasana in August 2013, only for the President, less than a year later, to inform the nation that he was no longer certain whether he appointed someone who is fit and proper for the position. This is a determination he ought to have come to before appointing Nxasana. The timing of this uncertainty is very suspicious. The DA believes this lends credence to the position that the attacks against Nxasana were a witchhunt and that issues of security clearance were a thinly veiled pretext to orchestrate a purge because Nxasana refused to bend to any undue political will.

It is about an inexplicable further delay of six months before establishing the inquiry into his fitness to hold office, only for it to be terminated hours before it was due to start, in all likelihood because the Commissioner informed the President’s legal team that they will have to pull the proverbial rabbit out of the hat to convince him that Mr Nxasana is not fit and proper for his job.

This is ultimately about the fact that that Mr Nxasana just may be willing and able to perform his functions without fear, favour or prejudice, instead of acting in aid of the President.

Chairperson,

This is also about the Honourable Motshekga and his ANC colleagues in the Portfolio Committee who, in a farcical manner, keep up appearances on this issue by treating the Minister and the NPA like you would treat a group of volunteers who manage the tuck shop at a pre-school concert.

“Thank you, thank you we can see that you are doing a very good job” is the message to the Minister and the NPA management as if we can wish away the constitutional turmoil the NPA is engulfed in.

That is the message to just about everybody who appears in front of the Committee, excluding of course the Public Protector.

In her case, the ANC members have developed what they hope we all will perceive as a backbone. But it is clear for all to see: It is not a backbone it is only a fever.

While in the grips of this fever they are deaf to any answer and explanation from the Public Protector. She would give detailed information as to her APP, including info on how her office has addressed issues raised by the AG last year; only to be confronted in the very same meeting, minutes later, with accusations from people like the Hon Bhongo and the Hon Motshekga that her presentation does not address any of these issues.

The reason is clear for all to see: These Honourable Members are still very upset with the Public Protector for not towing the line and not coming to the aid of the President when she was supposed to.

Ultimately, this debate is one between those in this house who want to uphold the Constitution and the Rule of Law and those who are prepared to ignore, subvert and maybe even destroy our Constitution in aid of one man.

This is what this debate is about. The challenge to those who will follow in this debate is therefore simple: Address these, the real issues.