What Goodall signed? Does it mean that these guys have now committed a criminal offense?

Yes, I think that the answer has to be that a fraud has been perpetrated.

That was indeed the finding in the civil proceedings in which Judge Denise Fisher gave judgment in 2024.

Remember that this deal, which was really dimension data getting on the face of it, getting a BEE partner into its campus in Bryanston, that was in order to polish its marble with the BEE scores that are required if you try to do business in South Africa.

And the original legal proceedings were started only in 2022. when NTT, the Japanese partner in Dimension Data, blew the whistle loudly and said, look, you six gentlemen have pulled a fast one on us and we want the status antiquo to be restored, which would involve giving back the campus to NTT.

Initially, there were six members gentlemen in Dimension Data who were alleged to be involved in this conspiracy to pull the wool over the eyes of NTT, the Japanese partner, by pretending to be doing a BEE deal to the advantage of everybody.

because you would then get BEE points and you'd be able to do more business in South Africa because of your enhanced BEE status.

So there's a loose thread there as well, which at some point in time might unravel

But imagine now if those appeal court judges were to find in favor of Jeremy Ord and co., what public outcry there might be.

No, I don't know that that's necessarily the case.

You see, what happened was that Judge Fisher was prepared to give final relief on paper rather than in the light of evidence given and tested in cross-examination, because she was satisfied that on their own version, the dreaded six had no defense in law.

And that proposition is what is being tested in the Supreme Court of Appeal.

Now, the Supreme Court of Appeal decides the matter on the basis of the information that was before Judge Fisher in 2024, when she was hearing the opposed application in Kharteng.

Only if one or other of the parties were to jump out of the woodwork now and say, excuse us, judges, we want to make an application for leave to lead evidence in the appeal because we now have this red hot statement.

And it suggests that, in fact, the applicants were right all along.

Surely, if they see the writing on the wall, they might be flat risks? They could

Why is that?

Yes.

I- if you, if you respect the rule of law, and you have been ordered by the highest court in the land to create a body outside executive control to deal with corruption efficiently, which is exactly what happened in the second Glenister case, then you have no business doing a workaround solution and pretending to compli- comply with that order of court, which, um, was made in, in 2011, and was, has, has never been promulgated.

And in the follow-up litigation, still the court insisted that corruption is rife, that we need to do something about it sooner rather than later, and that, um, a, a, a, an adequately independent body, a single adequately independent body is required.

Well, that still doesn't exist.

Uh, there, there...

You cannot even pretend that IDAK is or was, because it's probably pretty moribund at the moment, a, a, an independent body.

Uh, uh, uh, a cynic might say that MK's intentions are not entirely pure here, but, um, uh, what do you make of, of the, the chances of Glynnis' bill actually going through Parliament?

Now, that has been something that's been a hobby horse in Cape Town for

years.

Yes.

And I think it is perfectly constitutional.

They have now declared a governmental dispute with the acting Minister of Police.

And that dispute will go to litigation if they cannot sort it out among themselves.

And the court is likely to help the DA.

It

Is it then on the NPA to pursue prosecutions based on evidence exposed at the commissions?

As the system works at the moment, the anti-corruption element of the state's efforts is in the hands of IDAC.

IDAC has just decapitated itself.

It's leader... or resigned summarily without notice to anybody.

And there are question marks about whether IDAC will survive the work of the Madlanga Commission.

But as the structure works at the moment, it is the job of the NPA to... prosecute the corrupt.

And if you go back to what came out of the Glenister cases, it's the job of the hawks to investigate corrupt activities.

I was a Silk from 95 till

From BNC9, Accountability Now's Paul Hoffman on the Madlala Commission, what it can actually do, what it can't, and the one legal route that could still see IDAK ruled unconstitutional if the commission gets it wrong.

The, uh, chancellor of the University of Free State says that South Africa has a greed problem.

And the greed is the greed of the ANC, which has morphed itself from a glorious liberation movement into an organized crime syndicate.

The, the, uh, Madlala Commission, which is what we're here to discuss today, is the latest of many commissions of inquiry, uh, which has been appointed by the president to look into some complaints that were made by General Nkwanazi in July last year when he, he stood up and pointed out that corruption of the criminal justice administration has run rampant, not, not only in his home province of KZN, where I see they've just started getting to the evidence on that in the last 24 hours, but also in metros and in national police in other parts of the country.

And the, the commission has been active since September last year.

It's had its, uh, lifespan expanded or extended in order to, um, make room for the amount of tales that have been pouring out during the course of the evidence.

And it's probably as well as we start out on the discussion to look at what the terms of reference of the inquiry are.

Invest better with Brenthurst.

I suppose the first thing that I must do is thank you for not going to the Three Amigos, which is a big competition for little old me.

And, uh, I, I appreciate having an audience, and I do, uh, also appreciate that we are recording what we are doing here, so all is not lost.

The, uh, the organizers must be thanked for putting a 20-year-old photograph of me onto the program so that you can see from looking at the program just what 20 years in the NGO sector can do to an old lawyer.

It's, uh, a question of survival at this stage, and we are, we are still going strong.

Accountability now, uh, is, is fighting the good fight of exacting accountability and res- and, uh, promoting responsiveness to the needs of ordinary people.

And all too often, it leads us in the direction of corruption, maladministration, and unbridled greed.

Let's talk about Gle- uh, Glenister two and three judgments, um, because your argument is based on those judgments and the precedence that it sets.

Yes.

It's not, it's not really an argument that I'm putting up.

What I'm doing is explaining, uh, mainly to government, I think the public has heard me many a time, but government doesn't seem to hear too well.

I'm explaining what the court has ruled in the litigation over the anti-corruption machinery of state in South Africa.

Remember, once upon a time, we had the Scorpions, and they were very good.

They were so good that they got a lot of politicians locked up, and for their efforts, they were closed down rather suddenly when Jacob Zuma came to power.

Is it, is it misplaced, Advocate?

Mm.

Corruption in high places, they have got a, a huge duck, as a, uh, to use a cricketing term, um, on, on, on, on their scoreboard because they are under the control of the Minister of Police.

And that is the, the, the bottom line in relation to the Hawks.

And what, what has happened recently, as recently as 2024, uh, is that government has realized that, that, that this sleight of hand with, with Hawks doing what the, uh, Scorpions were, were, were doing before was just not working.

So they created a new body within the National Prosecuting Authority, without touching on any of the features of the National Prosecuting Authority that render it a less than independent body.

They created the Investigating Directorate Against Corruption, IDAC, um, who has, uh, a tiny staff, very limited capacity, and, uh, quite poor leadership.

Uh, the, the, uh, the, um...

And what do you think distinguishes those Chapter 9 institutions from the ones that have, in your own experience, like the Human Rights Commission, not really been up to snuff?

The Scorpions were disbanded because a resolution was taken at its Polokwane conference in 2007 by the ANC to close down the, uh, the Scorpions and to, to replace the Scorpions with

withWhat turned out to be the Hawks in due course.

And the Hawks is a, a priority crime investigation body which falls within the South African Police Service.

And when Mr. Glenister went to court, the, the, the take-home message from the second case that he took, the one that's called Glenister 2 today, is that, and I'm quoting the court now, "Our law demands a body outside executive control to deal effectively with corruption." Unquote.

Now, you, you, you can stand on your head and whistle Dixie.

You cannot say that the NPA is outside executive control.

And because IDAK is part of the NPA, it also is not outside executive control.

Uh, Mr., Mr. Hoffman, do, do you think those are the skills that are needed here?

Mr. Hoffman?

Mr.

Chief Justice, and may it please the Court.

This case is about the systematic persecution of a religious minority by Chinese authorities and Cisco's partnership in that persecution.

Each of the plaintiffs were tortured or killed by Chinese authorities because of their religious beliefs.

Cisco provided substantial assistance to this persecution from U.S. territory by providing a customized surveillance system designed to identify Falun Gong believers to Chinese authorities for detention and forced conversion through torture and other barbaric treatment.

Under petitioner's theory, Cisco cannot be held responsible for aiding and abetting these violations, no matter how substantial and direct their contributions were.

Uh, Mr. Hoffman, uh, how available was, uh, were, uh, uh, or common was aiding and abetting liability in tort cases in 1789?

Mr. Hoffman?

Mr.

Chief Justice, and may it please the Court, this case is about the systematic persecution of a religious minority by Chinese authorities and Cisco's partnership in that persecution.

Each of the plaintiffs were tortured or killed by Chinese authorities because of their religious beliefs.

Cisco provided substantial assistance to this persecution from U.S. territory by providing a customized surveillance system designed to identify Falun Gong believers to Chinese authorities for detention and forced conversion through torture and other barbaric treatment.

Under petitioner's theory, Cisco cannot be held responsible for aiding and abetting these violations, no matter how substantial and direct their contributions were.

Under Cisco's theory, even the corporate actors who provided the poison gas for Nazi crematoria would not be liable under either the ATS or the TVPA.

Uh, Mr. Hoffman, uh, how available was, uh, were, uh, uh, or common was aiding and abetting liability in tort cases in 1789?

Mr. Hoffman.

Mr.

Chief Justice, and may it please the Court, this case is about the systematic persecution of a religious minority by Chinese authorities and Cisco's partnership in that persecution.

Each of the plaintiffs were tortured or killed by Chinese authorities because of their religious beliefs.

Cisco provided substantial assistance to this persecution from U.S. territory by providing a customized surveillance system designed to identify Falun Gong believers to Chinese authorities for detention and forced conversion through torture and other barbaric treatment.

Under Petitioner's theory, Cisco cannot be held responsible for aiding and abetting these violations, no matter how substantial and direct their contributions were.

Under Cisco's theory, even the corporate actors who provided the poison gas for Nazi crematoria would not be liable under either the ATS or the TBPA.

Mr. Hoffman, how available or common was aiding and abetting liability in tort cases in 1789?

You think Otto Candy says increasing the risk of harm is the connecting tissue for foreseeability?

Well, I th- I think what Otto Candies does, and, and it's an easier case factually in Otto Candies, right, is the, the, the link is substantiality, right? I mean, the, the issue in aiding and abetting liability always is a c- there's a continuum of causation, right? At one end you've got the social media cases that have very ex- extended s- chains of causation, right? And, and that's where they come out.

And then on, on Halberstam, which by the way Twitter says, you know, that is the 876B case.

In, in Halberstam the, the person who's found liable didn't know anything about the murder.

But what, what she was involved in was she knew that there was an ongoing burglary thing, right? And so...

And, and the equivalent here is Shaquita knew what it was doing when it was giving substantial assistance to the AUC.

In fact, they were saying they were terrified of the AUC to try to bolster their defense.

That's certainly true.