The triumphant announcement of the 2016 matric results by the Minister and Department of Basic Education has subsequently been tempered as the harsh searchlight of reality has dawned.
The Day of Reconciliation was somewhat of a latecomer to the slate of negotiated and agreed on public holidays in the new South Africa.
The Day of Reconciliation was somewhat of a latecomer to the slate of negotiated and agreed on public holidays in the new South Africa. The first celebration took place on 16 December 1995 and was crafted in a way that aimed to acknowledge and affirm two different histories, one which emerged in 1838 at the Battle of Blood River, initially called Dingaan’s Day, and subsequently called Day of the Vow and Day of the Covenant. The second momentous event on the same day in 1961 was the formation of Umkhonto we Sizwe, the armed wing of the ANC.
The triumphant announcement of the 2016 matric results by the Minister and Department of Basic Education has subsequently been tempered as the harsh searchlight of reality has dawned.
Opposition political parties, specialist education NGOs, business, journalists and the private sector have rightly raised questions about the pass rate of 72.5%, announced by Minister Angie Motshekga on 4 January 2016. The questions have been motivated not by cynicism nor by opportunism but a shared concern that our children deserve better two decades since the demise of racially separate education. The Preamble of our Constitution, powerfully captures the aspiration envisaged for all citizens but perhaps especially so for the “born frees”, when it proclaims a commitment to “Improve the quality of life of all citizens and free the potential of each person”.
The deadline for President Zuma to appoint the commission of inquiry as per the Madonsela State Capture Report, came and went quietly at the end of November. Hours before the deadline, the President submitted a court application to review the Madonsela Report and its recommendations. With such an action, the recommendations are temporarily suspended. He and his legal advisors apparently don’t take any chances.
His argument is that her directive is invalid because he, as per the Constitution, did not decide independently to appoint such a Commission and that only he (and not the Chief Justice) can take this action. Mr Zuma further argues that he may not be judge and jury in his own court, as the Commission would have to report to him.
The Constitution does indeed state in section 84(2)(f) that the President is responsible for appointing commissions of inquiry. On the other hand, section 96(2)(b) provides that members of the Cabinet and Deputy Ministers may not “act in any way that is inconsistent with their office, or expose themselves to any situation involving the risk of a conflict between their official responsibilities and their private interests”. Surely that which applies to the Cabinet should also apply to the head of the Cabinet.
It is a great pleasure for me to be able to address the Margaret Thatcher Centre Gala Dinner. After we both retired from politics Baroness Thatcher and I, and our spouses, met on several occasions and became friends. I would like to share with you my thoughts about the contribution that she made to the constitutional transformation of South Africa.
It is a great pleasure for me to visit Scotland. I have always had an affinity with the Scots.
On 23 November 2016, Parliament’s Standing Committee on Public Accounts (SCOPA) in the National Assembly called the Minister of Social Development, the Auditor-General and members of the Hawks, together with the South African Social Security Agency (SASSA), to a hearing on the weighty matter of irregular, fruitless and wasteful expenditure.
It is a great pleasure for me to be able to speak to you this morning about the role that partnerships between government and business can play in ensuring economic growth and prosperity.
There can be no doubt that a sound partnership between business and government is essential for the promotion of economic growth.
