Latest News Archive

Please select Category, Year, and then Month to display items
Previous Archive
10 March 2021 | Story Prof Sethulego Matebesi | Photo Supplied
Dr Sethulego Matebesi
Prof Sethulego Matebesi is a Senior Lecturer and Academic Head of the Department of Sociology at the University of the Free State.

No South African will deny that the most criticised Chapter Nine institution in recent times has been the Public Protector, Busisiwe Mkhwebane.

Five years ago, the National Assembly endorsed Advocate Mkhwebane’s candidacy as the fourth Public Protector with an overwhelming majority vote in 2016. Since then, a litany of adverse court rulings created a seesaw effect between those who support her and those who vehemently oppose her continuation as Public Protector. This rift is likely to widen after an independent panel appointed by Parliament recently concluded that there is prima facie evidence of repeated incompetence and misconduct. 

Still a long way before the Public Protector can be impeached

Of great concern is that the Public Protector failed in her attempts to obtain a court interdict to halt the inquiry into her fitness to hold office, pending her challenge of the rules that the National Assembly adopted for the impeachment process.

It is still a long way before the Public Protector can be impeached. In this regard, it is not the aim of this contribution to rehash the events leading up to the findings of the preliminary inquiry. The purpose here is to answer a question being asked about how the ANC will respond to the impeachment of the Public Protector.

One can use two critical points as prisms to understand the likely scenario that will play out: the history of voting in Parliament and the political currency of the Radical Economic Transformation (RET) faction inside the ANC.

For most of our history, voting in Parliament since the dawn of democracy has been – as can be expected – along party lines. Even when deviation occurred, this was extremely low. A safe bet is that this voting pattern will persist because of MPs' strong inclination to conformity.

What is less predictable, is just how the whippery of the ANC will respond to the possibility of voting for or against the removal of the Public Protector. Elsewhere in the world, legislators are allowed to vote according to their conscience, rather than their party's official line on contentious issues.

The PP's future depends on the ravenous political trade-offs between two ANC factions

Outside of Parliament, the ANC's RET faction has been encouraged by the actions of the party's Secretary-General and the former president. They are aptly using the political currency of victimhood to their advantage. The longer the court cases of Ace Magashule and Jacob Zuma drag on, the more political currency they gain in support of the ANC's RET faction. With so many party members facing legal challenges, some of them are inevitably drawn to conspiracies. The political behaviour fostered by this group is an antithesis of constitutional democracy. This has turned into a power conundrum for the ANC, which has exploded over the past two years.

Ironically, the Public Protector's future depends on the ravenous political trade-offs between the two factions within the ANC. Like a swinging pendulum, her support is tilted mainly by those who trust and distrust her. These differences are not part of the normal give-and-take dynamics of politics. It is an outcome of politicians whose future depends entirely on their fightback strategy. Why then would an ANC MP who is sympathetic to the cause of the RET forces vote for the removal of the Public Protector? 

In hindsight, this seems to be an eminently sensible general analysis of the issue. However, this analysis may be highly untenable in the eyes of an ANC MP. That the motion to remove the Public Protector came from the DA further compounds this situation.

But what is absurd and difficult to explain is the legal counsel of the Public Protector's argument that the DA has a vendetta against her and National Speaker Thandi Modise's questionable attitude. This is the narrative that some ANC MPs will advance to vote against the DA's motion and not protect constitutional democracy in South Africa. 

Meanwhile, the pendulum of trust and distrust in the Public Protector keeps on swinging. But if we think the only solution to deal with the myriad and severe challenges faced by the Public Protector is her removal by Parliament, our wait for a solution will be much longer.

Opinion article by Prof Sethulego Matebesi, Senior Lecturer and Academic Head of the Department of Sociology, University of the Free State

 


News Archive

UFS awarded R3,6-million to train court interpreters
2008-05-15

 
 At the training session for court interpreters that took place on the Main Campus of the UFS in Bloemfontein recently are, from the left, front: Ms Zandile Mtolo, Pietermaritzburg, Ms Lindiwe Gamede, Bethlehem; back: Mr Sipho Majombozi, Port Shepstone, Prof. Lotriet, and Mr Mzi Nombewu, Upington. The four learners are working at their respective magistrates courts.
Photo: Lacea Loader

UFS awarded R3,6-million to train court interpreters

A contract to the value of R3,6-million has been awarded to the University of the Free State (UFS) to train court interpreters throughout South Africa.

The contract was awarded to the Department of Afro-asiatic Studies, Sign Language and Language Practice at the UFS by the Safety and Security Sector Education and Training Authority (SASSETA).

“We are the only tertiary institution in the country that offers a national diploma in court interpreting. It provides a unique opportunity to court interpreters to be trained by a group of eight lecturers who are experts in the field,” says Prof. Annelie Lotriet, associate professor at the Department of Afro-asiatic Studies, Sign Language and Language Practice.

Prof. Lotriet is an internationally renowned interpreting expert who was also responsible for the training of interpreters for the former Truth and Reconciliation Commission.

According to Prof. Lotriet no co-ordinated training programmes for court interpreters existed and there was also no control over the training processes. The programme, initiated by the Department of Justice and Constitutional Development, is managed by the SASSETA. “It is the first time that the Department of Justice and Constitutional Development initiates such an extensive training programme for court interpreters,” says Prof. Lotriet.

The group of 100 court interpreters on the programme are from all over the country. Of the group, ten are unemployed learners who interpret for the Department of Justice and Constitutional Development on an ad-hoc basis.

The programme, which stretches over two years, comprises of theoretical and service training. Contact sessions take place in Bloemfontein, Pretoria and Cape Town, four times a year for two weeks at a time. The second contact session for Bloemfontein was recently completed.

“Learners are nominated by their regional offices. The programme consists of interpreting theory, interpreting practice and basic law subjects. The training material is developed and written by the SASSETA and facilitated and presented by the UFS. The learners interpret in all the 11 languages. Some of them can speak a couple of languages each,” says Prof. Lotriet.

“Everything is going very well with the programme and we are receiving a lot of positive feedback from the learners. This first group is an experiment and it depends on their success whether the Department of Justice and Constitutional Development will expand the programme,” says Prof. Lotriet.

Media Release
Issued by: Lacea Loader
Assistant Director: Media Liaison
Tel: 051 401 2584
Cell: 083 645 2454
E-mail: loaderl.stg@ufs.ac.za
15 May 2008 
 

We use cookies to make interactions with our websites and services easy and meaningful. To better understand how they are used, read more about the UFS cookie policy. By continuing to use this site you are giving us your consent to do this.

Accept