SACP Gauteng Supports Call for Appeal Against Highly Compromised Judgement on Janusz Walus`s Release on Parole
13 March 2016
SACP GAUTENG firmly support the principled call for an appeal against an extremely controversial and highly compromised judgement to release murderer Janusz Walus on parole.
Janusz Walus was found guilty of the heinous crime of murdering comrade Chris Hani, General Secretary of the SACP, and member of the National Executive Committee (NEC) of the African National Congress (ANC). He was sentenced to life imprisonment for this cold blooded murder.
SACP`s 2nd Deputy General Secretary, comrade Solly Mapaila made the call following the judgement delivered on Thursday, 10th March 2016 in the North Gauteng High Court by Judge Nicoline Janse van Nieuwenhuizen. Comrade Limpho Hani, the wife of comrade Chris Hani also made the call for an urgent appeal against this highly compromised judgement.
Reaffirming the principle of the rule of law
Whilst we respect the profound principle of the rule of law, we also note that the judicial system in our country is not yet transformed and oriented in the spirit and letter of our country`s constitution. Our judicial system still has a long way to go to internalise and practically give effect to the world renowned values and principles contained especially in the Bill of Rights.
We also seek to reaffirm our confidence in the judiciary, and the fact that Judges and presiding officers at all levels of the judiciary should make decisions without fear or favour but strictly within the law.
Regrettable and unfortunate subjective remarks made by the Judge
We strongly condemn the unwarranted and uncalled for remarks made by the Judge, calling on the family of comrade Chris Hani and the people of our country to simply forget, forgive and move on against this cold blooded murderer.
We find it extremely provocative and insensitive that the Judge made this remarks thereby setting aside the profound principle of full disclosure and the truth as the basis on which to possibly move forward. These regrettable subjective views by the Judge mechanically abstract the principles of full disclosure and the truth from the so-called "moving on."
We also note that the Judge made subjective remarks and exposed her slanderous views about communism and socialism, further exposing her stereotypes and prejudices. We firmly believe that the Judge`s personal views were allowed to interfere with the objective application of the law.
A Call for full disclosure and the truth as the basis to "move forward"
We are dismayed that in calling on the Hani family to move forward, forgive and forget, the Judge completely disregarded the historic call that was made throughout the entire history of this case, of full disclosure and truth about the murder of comrade Chris Hani.
We remain convinced that considering the magnitude and scale of the entire conspiracy and plot, from its planning and execution, the cold blooded murderers have not disclosed nor told the full truth.
We believe that any expectation to move forward and forgive without the truth is like putting the card before the horse. Such an attempt to move to the future without clearing its ugly past will continue to haunt and drag the future back to the past.
We believe that the Judge erred in expecting us to have a good future without clearing its ugly past. It is important to note that every future is directly linked to its past. Depending on how matters of the past were dealt with, they will have a bearing on the future. This a dialectic and science that the Judge intellectually failed to access in making her judgement.
It is in this context that we demand that the truth be told in respect of the following:
Considering the nature of the plot, how it was planned and executed, it was clearly not just the work of two men, they must still disclose who were their co-conspirators were.
Why did they draw up a list of the most senior and popular leaders of the movement such as Nelson Mandela, Joe Slovo and Mac Maharaj amongst others. Related to this, is what criteria did they use to compile the list and to re-order it?
They must also explain as to who helped them compile and reorder the list?
Why was Chrsi Hani the first target, and whether he was always the first target?
Given the fact that only Chris Hani was killed, was the plot therefore not completed, and what were the next plan?
Why did they have to use highly advanced weapons including those fitted with specialised devices such as silencers?
Who sponsored possibly such a costly plot?
We hope this questions will not be left hanging without answers, and we call on the Judge and those who belong to the "move on, forgive and forget category" to explain why the truth about this questions should be ignored.
A highly compromised and potentially conflicted Judge
Whilst we are deeply shocked that the Judge abandoned the application of the law and elevated her subjective and personal views, we also note that the profile and history of this Judge raises more questions and controversies that places her judgement in serious doubt.
In her profile appearing in the Bar News Pretoria Bar reported by Leon Dicker, it is stated that:
"She joined the Department of Justice in 1991 as a public prosecutor at the Boksburg Magistrate Court."
The article then proceed to state that:
"She mentions that Januzs Walus`s first appearance after the shooting of Chris Hani was in her court."
Based on this undisputed fact, we challenge the Judge to state publicly whether she considered a possibility of failing the objective test in presiding over this matter and whether she notified those who proposed her to preside over this matter about this potential subjectivity creeping into her judgement.
A challenge to those who nominated the Judge to hear the case
We also challenge those who appointed this particular Judge to preside over this matter, to come out public and state whether they considered this fact, and if so whether they consciously and deliberately chose to ignore it.
We also challenge them to come clean on whether this historic fact in the profile of the Judge was considered favourably, or was just a mere coincidence of history without their influence.
Clearly, in case of the latter, it will indeed be an extremely controversial coincidence of history. Whilst history may repeat itself, it does so not under accidental circumstances but those directly are a product of human history and effort.
We therefore challenge them to clearly state whether this fact in the profile of the Judge played any role in allocating the case.
We say this very clear that this was clearly not the application of an acceptable court practice of a case returning to the court of first instance.
Although related in many respects, however, a case of first appearance in court on a murder charge and that of parole application certainly relate to different set of facts and circumstances. It therefore does not automatically follow that this particular Judge must hear this matter.
We say this fully aware that some slanderous and neo-liberal apologists of our past history and "pseudo-intellectuals" may cowardly claim that this was irrelevant and not worthy of any consideration.
Considering how the Judge elevated the interests of Janusz Walus to walk free at the expense of the Hani`s family right to the truth, we believe this fact may not be easily dismissed. The Judge assumed the role of not only judging the case, but the Hani family as well and also acting as "Holy Trinity" by also forgiving Janusz Wallus as well. Clearly the Judge overstepped her mark.
A Call to Action against the remarks by the Judge and in support of an appeal
SACP GP will engage its higher structures and Alliance partners in the province on the most appropriate form of action to take with a view to isolate and condemn the subjective remarks made by the Judge against the Hani family, and support the principled call for the appeal against the decision.
We eagerly await decision of Minister of Justice and Correctional Services, Hon Michael Masutha to make an announcement to appeal this judgement as a matter of principle.
Issued by SACP Gauteng Province
Contact
Jacob Mamabolo: SACP Gauteng Provincial Secretary
Mobile: 082 884 1868
Lucian Segami: SACP Gauteng Provincial Spokesperson
Mobile: 079 5220 098
SACP GAUTENG firmly support the principled call for an appeal against an extremely controversial and highly compromised judgement to release murderer Janusz Walus on parole.
Janusz Walus was found guilty of the heinous crime of murdering comrade Chris Hani, General Secretary of the SACP, and member of the National Executive Committee (NEC) of the African National Congress (ANC). He was sentenced to life imprisonment for this cold blooded murder.
SACP`s 2nd Deputy General Secretary, comrade Solly Mapaila made the call following the judgement delivered on Thursday, 10th March 2016 in the North Gauteng High Court by Judge Nicoline Janse van Nieuwenhuizen. Comrade Limpho Hani, the wife of comrade Chris Hani also made the call for an urgent appeal against this highly compromised judgement.
Reaffirming the principle of the rule of law
Whilst we respect the profound principle of the rule of law, we also note that the judicial system in our country is not yet transformed and oriented in the spirit and letter of our country`s constitution. Our judicial system still has a long way to go to internalise and practically give effect to the world renowned values and principles contained especially in the Bill of Rights.
We also seek to reaffirm our confidence in the judiciary, and the fact that Judges and presiding officers at all levels of the judiciary should make decisions without fear or favour but strictly within the law.
Regrettable and unfortunate subjective remarks made by the Judge
We strongly condemn the unwarranted and uncalled for remarks made by the Judge, calling on the family of comrade Chris Hani and the people of our country to simply forget, forgive and move on against this cold blooded murderer.
We find it extremely provocative and insensitive that the Judge made this remarks thereby setting aside the profound principle of full disclosure and the truth as the basis on which to possibly move forward. These regrettable subjective views by the Judge mechanically abstract the principles of full disclosure and the truth from the so-called "moving on."
We also note that the Judge made subjective remarks and exposed her slanderous views about communism and socialism, further exposing her stereotypes and prejudices. We firmly believe that the Judge`s personal views were allowed to interfere with the objective application of the law.
A Call for full disclosure and the truth as the basis to "move forward"
We are dismayed that in calling on the Hani family to move forward, forgive and forget, the Judge completely disregarded the historic call that was made throughout the entire history of this case, of full disclosure and truth about the murder of comrade Chris Hani.
We remain convinced that considering the magnitude and scale of the entire conspiracy and plot, from its planning and execution, the cold blooded murderers have not disclosed nor told the full truth.
We believe that any expectation to move forward and forgive without the truth is like putting the card before the horse. Such an attempt to move to the future without clearing its ugly past will continue to haunt and drag the future back to the past.
We believe that the Judge erred in expecting us to have a good future without clearing its ugly past. It is important to note that every future is directly linked to its past. Depending on how matters of the past were dealt with, they will have a bearing on the future. This a dialectic and science that the Judge intellectually failed to access in making her judgement.
It is in this context that we demand that the truth be told in respect of the following:
Considering the nature of the plot, how it was planned and executed, it was clearly not just the work of two men, they must still disclose who were their co-conspirators were.
Why did they draw up a list of the most senior and popular leaders of the movement such as Nelson Mandela, Joe Slovo and Mac Maharaj amongst others. Related to this, is what criteria did they use to compile the list and to re-order it?
They must also explain as to who helped them compile and reorder the list?
Why was Chrsi Hani the first target, and whether he was always the first target?
Given the fact that only Chris Hani was killed, was the plot therefore not completed, and what were the next plan?
Why did they have to use highly advanced weapons including those fitted with specialised devices such as silencers?
Who sponsored possibly such a costly plot?
We hope this questions will not be left hanging without answers, and we call on the Judge and those who belong to the "move on, forgive and forget category" to explain why the truth about this questions should be ignored.
A highly compromised and potentially conflicted Judge
Whilst we are deeply shocked that the Judge abandoned the application of the law and elevated her subjective and personal views, we also note that the profile and history of this Judge raises more questions and controversies that places her judgement in serious doubt.
In her profile appearing in the Bar News Pretoria Bar reported by Leon Dicker, it is stated that:
"She joined the Department of Justice in 1991 as a public prosecutor at the Boksburg Magistrate Court."
The article then proceed to state that:
"She mentions that Januzs Walus`s first appearance after the shooting of Chris Hani was in her court."
Based on this undisputed fact, we challenge the Judge to state publicly whether she considered a possibility of failing the objective test in presiding over this matter and whether she notified those who proposed her to preside over this matter about this potential subjectivity creeping into her judgement.
A challenge to those who nominated the Judge to hear the case
We also challenge those who appointed this particular Judge to preside over this matter, to come out public and state whether they considered this fact, and if so whether they consciously and deliberately chose to ignore it.
We also challenge them to come clean on whether this historic fact in the profile of the Judge was considered favourably, or was just a mere coincidence of history without their influence.
Clearly, in case of the latter, it will indeed be an extremely controversial coincidence of history. Whilst history may repeat itself, it does so not under accidental circumstances but those directly are a product of human history and effort.
We therefore challenge them to clearly state whether this fact in the profile of the Judge played any role in allocating the case.
We say this very clear that this was clearly not the application of an acceptable court practice of a case returning to the court of first instance.
Although related in many respects, however, a case of first appearance in court on a murder charge and that of parole application certainly relate to different set of facts and circumstances. It therefore does not automatically follow that this particular Judge must hear this matter.
We say this fully aware that some slanderous and neo-liberal apologists of our past history and "pseudo-intellectuals" may cowardly claim that this was irrelevant and not worthy of any consideration.
Considering how the Judge elevated the interests of Janusz Walus to walk free at the expense of the Hani`s family right to the truth, we believe this fact may not be easily dismissed. The Judge assumed the role of not only judging the case, but the Hani family as well and also acting as "Holy Trinity" by also forgiving Janusz Wallus as well. Clearly the Judge overstepped her mark.
A Call to Action against the remarks by the Judge and in support of an appeal
SACP GP will engage its higher structures and Alliance partners in the province on the most appropriate form of action to take with a view to isolate and condemn the subjective remarks made by the Judge against the Hani family, and support the principled call for the appeal against the decision.
We eagerly await decision of Minister of Justice and Correctional Services, Hon Michael Masutha to make an announcement to appeal this judgement as a matter of principle.
Issued by SACP Gauteng Province
Contact
Jacob Mamabolo: SACP Gauteng Provincial Secretary
Mobile: 082 884 1868
Lucian Segami: SACP Gauteng Provincial Spokesperson
Mobile: 079 5220 098
No comments:
Post a Comment