Hansie Louw

Author, Coach, Entrepreneur

The Carte Blanche Law threatening the democracy in South Africa

by Leave a Comment

Carte Blanche means literally “a free hand” or “total freedom”. It is interesting that the term “carte blanche” originates from French where it is understood as “white (or blank paper)” – the military term for surrender. It is ironic that this is exactly what this law allows – the military could get free reign, but if we look at this carefully then it is not what it allows.

There is a law in South Africa that allows the government and armed forces “a free hand”.

This law is now used as basis to fight COVID-19 and the application reveals the dangers in this legislation.

 

French military personnel try to control supporters who are asking them to disarm fighting gangs, near the airport in Bangui December 23, 2013.

Disaster Management Act of 2002

The purpose of this act is to coordinate the efforts of state, provinces or municipalities to react to a disaster or the prospects of a disaster. A state of Disaster may be declared under this act without approval or oversight from Parliament or the Judiciary. Under disasters one would normally think floods, earthquakes, fires and drought or similar threats. Many of the regulations were probably written against the backdrop of that thinking and not so much dealing with the threat of a virus, although of course that is included in the act. It is therefore perfectly logical that you would not allow a person to travel by vehicle through an area that is engulfed in flames. It is a disaster and it is dangerous. When it is a virus that is causing this disaster, it clearly is more difficult to indicate where you can travel or where not. More on this aspect (freedom of movement) later.

There is a difference between a State of Emergency and a State of Disaster. A State of Emergency Act 64 of 1997 requires approval from Parliament, but it essentially cancels about all basic rights of citizens of the country. All of these possible events under a State of Emergency is clearly described in the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa. One of the matters that it prescribes is what should happen if a person is arrested and what the relevant days are within which certain actions should be fullfilled. This will give the citizen still a certain amount of security. The Constitution clearly refers to the State of Emergency. We know that all acts of parliament are subservient to the Constitution and the fact that the Constitution clearly refers to the State of Emergency strenthens that perception. It refers to the Constitution and the fact that a competent court may declare a State of Emergency nul and void.

Section 37 of the Constitution deals with the State of Emergency:

(3) Any competent court may decide on the validity of—
(a) a declaration of a state of emergency;
(b) any extension of a declaration of a state of emergency; or
(c) any legislation enacted, or other action taken, in consequence of a declaration
of a state of emergency.

The same is not true of the Disaster Management Act. It is not referred to or mentioned in the Constitution. You could argue that this act came into operation long after the Constitution was adopted (2002 vs 1995) and that is the reason for that. The act containing the Constitution has been amended several times after this, several years past 2002 with the latest in 2016. There has been enough time to include the DMA (Disaster Management Act) in the Constitution. It is not mentioned there at all.

Why is the DMA not mentioned in the Constitution?

I believe that this was on oversight from Parliament. The existing other legislation should be enough (or so the parliamentarians thought) to counter the DMA. It could also be that the current actions from Government during the Covid-19 crisis stems from authority that is not in the DMA but in the State of Emergency Act. The DMA does allow regulations to be issued by different departments/organs of state to deal with the particular issue at hand. It was probably never contemplated that these regulations will be what has transpired. Each organ of state had to draw up a Disaster Management Plan for their area of responsibility. One would think that some of these aspects would be indicated there, but it is not. As a matter of interest, the availability of alcohol for selling or trading is indicated in the DMA as something that could be stopped, but not the selling of cigarettes.

On the other hand – if this legislation is part of a clever plan and has been designed to stand separate from the Constitution (although it should not), then it will give the Government carte blanche, a free hand to do whatever they want to do. This is almost unthinkable, but not improbable.

The unthinkable

The strategy for an overthrow of government could be as follows:

a. create a law that may allow exercise of powers not contained in the laws of the country

b. await an opportunity to enact that law

c. create enough hardship (like food shortage) to lead to open revolt by citizens (incite this revolt internally)

d. promulgate a state of emergency

e. silence all opposition

f. take over control of the army

g. remove executive (including State President) and dissolve parliament

h. redistribute assets

i. impose martial law

This would be unthinkable, but it is not impossible.  In South Africa we are now in stage C where there is food supply uncertainty. Open revolt is not there yet.

man with his food parcel
one of the blessed ones to receive a food parcel

To confirm my perception: I do not think for a minute that this is the planning of government, but I do not exclude this “unthinkable” situation that may be planned by certain elements.

Should the unthinkable happen in South Africa, most of the citizens will pay dearly – many with their lives initially and others with their livelihood.

Government Action outside the Law

Subsection 27 (3) of the act (DMA) says clearly that the powers of government in terms of subsection (2) may only be exercised for the following reasons:

(a) assisting and protecting the public;
(b) providing relief to the public;
(c) protecting property;
(d) preventing or combating disruption: or
( e ) dealing with the destructive and other effects of the disaster.

This is subsection 27 (2):

(2) If a national state of disaster has been declared in terms of subsection ( 1 1. the
Minister may, subject to subsection (3),and after consulting the responsible Cabinet
member. make regulations or issue directions or authorise the issue of directions
concerning

(a) the release of any available resources of the national government. including
stores, equipment. vehicles and facilities;
(b) the release of personnel of a national organ of state for the rendering of
emergency services;
(c) the implementation of all or any of the provisions of a national disaster
management plan that are applicable in the circumstances;
(d) the evacuation to temporary shelters of all or part of the population from the
disaster-stricken or threatened area if such action is necessary for the
preservation of life;
( e ) the regulation of traffic to. from or within the disaster-stricken or threatened
area;
(f) the regulation of the movement of persons and goods to, from or within the
disaster-stricken or threatened area;

g) the control and occupancy of premises in the disaster-stricken or threatened area;
(h) the provision, control or use of temporary emergency accommodation:
(i) the suspension or limiting of the sale. dispensing or transportation of alcoholic beverages in the disaster-stricken or threatened area
(j) the maintenance or installation of temporary lines of communication to. from or within the disaster area;
( k ) the dissemination of information required for dealing with the disaster:
(I) emergency procurement procedures;
(m)the facilitation of response and post-disaster recovery and rehabilitation:
( n ) other steps that may be necessary to prevent an escalation of the disaster. or to alleviate. contain and minimise the effects of the disaster; or
(0) steps to facilitate international assistance.

Then follow subsection ( 3 )The powers referred to in subsection (2) may be exercised only to the extent that
this is necessary for the purpose of–

Practical examples of the actions outside the Law:

  1. You cannot use armed forces to enforce rules or regulations – they can only render “emergency services”
  2. You cannot enforce a ban on the sale of tobacco – the law does not make provision for this.
  3. You cannot force people not to work as you cannot force shops to close down – the law does not provide for this
  4. You cannot force people living on the street to congregate in temporary shelters
  5. You cannot institute a curfew – the law does not allow for that
  6. You cannot force to people to stay indoors when they are not ill – the law does not allow for that.
  7. You cannot prevent healthy people from exercising outside.
  8.  You cannot force churches to remain closed.

What about section (c) and (o) of the section 27 (2)?

Section (c) talks about a national disaster management plan that details mostly the organisation and coordination functions and not the other matters detailed above under the actions outside the Law.

Section (o) talks about other steps that may be necessary. Let us use the example of the sale of cigarettes and tobacco. Will this assist to prevent an escalation of the disaster or minimize it? One would be able to argue these matters and some of the other courses of action that the Government took under the current crisis (Covid-19).

This section should be removed from the legislation. If there is a course of action that may be contemplated, it should be debated in parliament first and then inserted in the act. You cannot have a wide open clause like this. It essentially says that you can “kill a person” if in your opinion that would prevent the escalation of the disaster.

What are the action steps now?

  1. Approach the Counstituional Court to declare the DMA  inconsistent with the Constituion and to refer that back to Parliament to rectify
  2. Test one of the regulations in a competent court to see if the interpretation in this blog is correct.
  3. Share this blog as widely as possible.
  4. Ask for prayer intercessors to pray about this matter to bring possible plans of the enemy to nothing and to get the act rectified by parliament.
  5. Restart the economy
  6. Ask christian brothers (and sisters) to assist and provide for one another in the aftermath of the DMA-regulations.

8 May 2020 – last updated

Hansie Louw – 082 776 5462

 

 

sources –

https://www.phrases.org.uk/meanings/carte-blanche.html

 

AA, BEE, Apartheid – no Biblical base – reconciliation

by Leave a Comment

There is no Biblical base for affirmative action. Likewise there is no Biblical base for broad (or narrow as it plays out) economic empowerment. Reconciliation is Biblical and is the answer. As Christians we have been totally quiet about this for years and it is time to change this position. It does not matter where you are in the political spectrum in South Africa – if you are a christian you cannot defend this position. There is nothing new – there was no Biblical base for apartheid either, but many of the clergy leadership argued that there was at least an explanation (if not a principle) for that in Scripture. The church is quiet about the importance of this whole process and so is the ACDP (political party in South Africa).

entry to medical school
same person .. different application

The Bible talks about Restoration and Restitution. There is little room for this when there is “legislation” that is promoting to take care of it. The argument is that BEE and AA will adress the inequalities of the past. The Bible is full of the the principle of Restoration. You cannot legislate “racism” out of a  person’s mind. You may punish him for racist remarks, you may fine him for racist behaviour, but you cannot legislate his soul and mind – you have to win in that area. Similarly we cannot legislate “reconciliation”. Reconciliation is the Biblical process – that of restoring “friendly relations”. That is the also the action of making one view or belief compatible with another. To do this we need to talk. This is how our former state president described this aspect:

“In the end, reconciliation is a spiritual process, which requires more than just a legal framework. It has to happen in the hearts and minds of people.”

Nelson Mandela
Forgive
Forgiveness is a weapon
The Father of our Rainbow Nation said that reconciliation is a spiritual process and it is just that. The Father of all nations (the God of the Bible) says that we should reconcile with everybody. If we remember that someone has something against us, we should go and reconcile. He is not saying that I must go and reconcile if I have something against another – “So if you are about to offer your gift to God at the altar and there you remember that your brother has something against you, leave your gift there in front of the altar, go at once and make peace with your brother, and then come back and offer your gift to God.” (Matthew 5:23,24 – Good News Translation – GNBDK). Interesting that the verses after that talks about reconciling with your accuser when he takes you to court, otherwise you will pay the last cent!
So let me just turn to the churches and christians in South Africa. Let us forget politics for now. One of the functions of the church is to enable reconciliation in the country. It is not only there to enable it, but it is there to drive it, to motivate it and to mobilise its members to reconciliation. There are two parties to the process. To a large extent both parties are angry. There is anger because of apartheid and the legacy of apartheid. There is anger because of AA and BEE and the legacy of that. Contrary to what the Bible teaches, the young upcoming next generation is still punished. The punishment is on all sides of the colour spectrum.
Let me take the following example of reconciliation. You have a truck that you use in your building projects. You have a government contract and you are making a good living out of it. I ask you and you lend your truck to me on a particular Saturday as I want to get some sand on my property and it is much cheaper if I do it myself. I use your truck, but a crazy driver hits me in the borrowed truck as he is running a red light. There is damage of more than R150 000 to your truck. I am innocent, but I am responsible as I was using your truck. I come back to you and  I apologise. You accept my apology. However, you cannot work with your truck on Monday morning because of the accident. You lose money in the process. You will recover your losses from the guilty party (the other driver).
The situation of course is different if I am guilty of the offence. If I did not stop at the red light and I caused the damage, then I am responsible and guilty. Now it is not enough to apologise. Now it is also a requirement for me to ask for forgiveness. When I have asked forgiveness and you have granted it, you do not have a claim of the R150 000 (or the subsequent loss) anymore on a spiritual level. (Extending forgiveness means that you release the claim that you have against me – you release the right that you have to enforce justice).  At the same time I , however, have the love obligation to settle the damages and to put you in the same position as you were on the Friday afternoon before I borrowed your truck.
Reconciliation
Reconciliation crticical
So in South Africa we need to ask and extend forgiveness as christians. We cannot get reconciliation before we do that. We cannot get reconciliation if we do not hear the stories of ordinary people, of ordinary christians. We still live apart in our worlds almost two decades after apartheid was dismantled legally. We cannot expect the politicians to lift BBE and AA until we have demonstrated aptly that we are putting everything to work to reconcile and make restitution. Making restitution is so much more than what BEE or AA could achieve.
There is an enormous emotional relief when we ask for forgiveness and embark on the process of restitution. There is also enormous relief when we grant forgiveness and work together as brothers and sisters. There is much hatred or bitterness around in South Africa. There is much love and forgiveness needed. Love is action and not a feeling. If you do not act, you do not love. If you do not love, you are not a christian. If your church does not advocate this forgiveness and reconciliation and active love, then in the words of Sir Richard Branson, “Screw it, let’s do it”.
Let us go beyond AA and BEE. Let us go the route of Biblical love. Let us build South Africa. Let us reconcile!
19 March 2017

together

Clothe our naked president

by Leave a Comment

Not many people would walk around in public totally naked. Not many would dare to do that, but the president of the Republic of South Africa is doing that. He is openly and confidently parading about without knowing that he is naked.

This reminds me of the story of Hans Christian Andersen, published many years ago (April 1837). The full story is quoted below as published at this link

 

scoundrels

The moral of the story is that the Emperor was naked, but that he was tricked into believing that he was wearing special magical clothes that would go invisible to anyone in his administration that was unfit for his own position. The clothes though was supposed to be “beautiful”. Every time that the Emperor sent one of his ministers to investigate the progress while the so called weavers (they were swindlers that sold the Emperor the lie in the first place) were busy weaving these spectacular garments they would come back and report that it is just so beautiful.

The sad thing was that the Emperor was walking outside until a kid shouted that he was naked and the whole town agreed with him. You would expect that the King would be covered immediately,  but he continues to walk on – the show must go on. That is truly the sad aspect.

The story around Mr Zuma is so alike the story of this Emperor. He has advisors that tell him that he is wearing the finest attire possible, that everything is going well. He has ministers that cannot see what is going wrong or what has gone wrong. They continue to say that everything is fine and under control.

Then he has supporters in the church in the country as well. It surely is not wrong to have supporters amongst the churches as such, but it is wrong if the churches do not tell him when he is naked that he is naked. In 2007 Mr Zuma was declared an “honorary” pastor at a meeting of independent churches – “Bishop Ben Mthethwa then put a cleric’s collar on Zuma and declared him a priest.”  In an apparent swipe at President Thabo Mbeki, pastor Qiniso Shabalala said, “We want a leader who sees poverty and walks and lives among poverty-stricken people in Nkandla, rather than a person who learns about poverty through the Internet.” This is how it was reported in the media in May 2007

Now Mr Zuma is a polygamist. He has married quite a number of wives and what is laudable is that he is supporting them. What is not so positive is that he is using state funds to support his wives. It is true that some may argue that there is a valid point for being a polygamist from the biblical point of view. This, however, is not the case for Mr Zuma.  In the Old Testament Kings like Dawid and Solomon had many wives (Solomon in particular) and this was done mainly for political reasons to retain control over their respective Kingdoms. Mr Zuma does not need this for control. He has total control as the ANC has total control. Churches should just point out that he is naked in certain areas. This is not the area to address now (although for a priest or pastor this would be a vital point).

The most important aspect that the church needs to point out to Mr Zuma is in the area of asking and obtaining forgiveness. The Constitutional Court was clear on Nkandla  and there is no need to go into the matter in detail here.

The church could have assisted the president to draw up a response to the country. What Mr Zuma’s response to the country could have been is as clear as this: “My fellow South Africans, I have failed you as I have failed in my duty to uphold the Constitution of our Republic. Although I was advised in many of these areas, I am taking  full responsibility for it. I will put measures in place to see that it will not happen again and I will remove the advisors that did not give appropriate advice. I am asking for your forgiveness. Will you forgive me? Will you assist me to get the best advisors from church and the political arena?”

This is telling the president that he is naked, but at the same time clothing him. Is there anyone in South Africa that is willing to cloth the president? Will we continue to tell him that he is wearing the most beautiful clothes? Will others keep on shouting that he is naked?

 

Hansie Louw

+2782 776 5462

(in my capacity as citizen in the Republic of South Africa)

28 April 2016

 

 

evidence of no clothes

 

The naked Emperor:

Many years ago there was an Emperor so exceedingly fond of new clothes that he spent all his money on being well dressed. He cared nothing about reviewing his soldiers, going to the theatre, or going for a ride in his carriage, except to show off his new clothes. He had a coat for every hour of the day, and instead of saying, as one might, about any other ruler, “The King’s in council,” here they always said. “The Emperor’s in his dressing room.”

In the great city where he lived, life was always gay. Every day many strangers came to town, and among them one day came two swindlers. They let it be known they were weavers, and they said they could weave the most magnificent fabrics imaginable. Not only were their colors and patterns uncommonly fine, but clothes made of this cloth had a wonderful way of becoming invisible to anyone who was unfit for his office, or who was unusually stupid.

“Those would be just the clothes for me,” thought the Emperor. “If I wore them I would be able to discover which men in my empire are unfit for their posts. And I could tell the wise men from the fools. Yes, I certainly must get some of the stuff woven for me right away.” He paid the two swindlers a large sum of money to start work at once.

They set up two looms and pretended to weave, though there was nothing on the looms. All the finest silk and the purest old thread which they demanded went into their traveling bags, while they worked the empty looms far into the night.

“I’d like to know how those weavers are getting on with the cloth,” the Emperor thought, but he felt slightly uncomfortable when he remembered that those who were unfit for their position would not be able to see the fabric. It couldn’t have been that he doubted himself, yet he thought he’d rather send someone else to see how things were going. The whole town knew about the cloth’s peculiar power, and all were impatient to find out how stupid their neighbors were.

“I’ll send my honest old minister to the weavers,” the Emperor decided. “He’ll be the best one to tell me how the material looks, for he’s a sensible man and no one does his duty better.”

So the honest old minister went to the room where the two swindlers sat working away at their empty looms.

“Heaven help me,” he thought as his eyes flew wide open, “I can’t see anything at all”. But he did not say so.

Both the swindlers begged him to be so kind as to come near to approve the excellent pattern, the beautiful colors. They pointed to the empty looms, and the poor old minister stared as hard as he dared. He couldn’t see anything, because there was nothing to see. “Heaven have mercy,” he thought. “Can it be that I’m a fool? I’d have never guessed it, and not a soul must know. Am I unfit to be the minister? It would never do to let on that I can’t see the cloth.”

“Don’t hesitate to tell us what you think of it,” said one of the weavers.

“Oh, it’s beautiful -it’s enchanting.” The old minister peered through his spectacles. “Such a pattern, what colors!” I’ll be sure to tell the Emperor how delighted I am with it.”

“We’re pleased to hear that,” the swindlers said. They proceeded to name all the colors and to explain the intricate pattern. The old minister paid the closest attention, so that he could tell it all to the Emperor. And so he did.

The swindlers at once asked for more money, more silk and gold thread, to get on with the weaving. But it all went into their pockets. Not a thread went into the looms, though they worked at their weaving as hard as ever.

The Emperor presently sent another trustworthy official to see how the work progressed and how soon it would be ready. The same thing happened to him that had happened to the minister. He looked and he looked, but as there was nothing to see in the looms he couldn’t see anything.

“Isn’t it a beautiful piece of goods?” the swindlers asked him, as they displayed and described their imaginary pattern.

“I know I’m not stupid,” the man thought, “so it must be that I’m unworthy of my good office. That’s strange. I mustn’t let anyone find it out, though.” So he praised the material he did not see. He declared he was delighted with the beautiful colours and the exquisite pattern. To the Emperor he said, “It held me spellbound.”

All the town was talking of this splendid cloth, and the Emperor wanted to see it for himself while it was still in the looms. Attended by a band of chosen men, among whom were his two old trusted officials-the ones who had been to the weavers-he set out to see the two swindlers. He found them weaving with might and main, but without a thread in their looms.

“Magnificent,” said the two officials already duped. “Just look, Your Majesty, what colors! What a design!” They pointed to the empty looms, each supposing that the others could see the stuff.

“What’s this?” thought the Emperor. “I can’t see anything. This is terrible!

Am I a fool? Am I unfit to be the Emperor? What a thing to happen to me of all people! – Oh! It’s very pretty,” he said. “It has my highest approval.” And he nodded approbation at the empty loom. Nothing could make him say that he couldn’t see anything.

His whole retinue stared and stared. One saw no more than another, but they all joined the Emperor in exclaiming, “Oh! It’s very pretty,” and they advised him to wear clothes made of this wonderful cloth especially for the great procession he was soon to lead. “Magnificent! Excellent! Unsurpassed!” were bandied from mouth to mouth, and everyone did his best to seem well pleased. The Emperor gave each of the swindlers a cross to wear in his buttonhole, and the title of “Sir Weaver.”

Before the procession the swindlers sat up all night and burned more than six candles, to show how busy they were finishing the Emperor’s new clothes. They pretended to take the cloth off the loom. They made cuts in the air with huge scissors. And at last they said, “Now the Emperor’s new clothes are ready for him.”

Then the Emperor himself came with his noblest noblemen, and the swindlers each raised an arm as if they were holding something. They said, “These are the trousers, here’s the coat, and this is the mantle,” naming each garment. “All of them are as light as a spider web. One would almost think he had nothing on, but that’s what makes them so fine.”

“Exactly,” all the noblemen agreed, though they could see nothing, for there was nothing to see.

“If Your Imperial Majesty will condescend to take your clothes off,” said the swindlers, “we will help you on with your new ones here in front of the long mirror.”

The Emperor undressed, and the swindlers pretended to put his new clothes on him, one garment after another. They took him around the waist and seemed to be fastening something – that was his train-as the Emperor turned round and round before the looking glass.

“How well Your Majesty’s new clothes look. Aren’t they becoming!” He heard on all sides, “That pattern, so perfect! Those colors, so suitable! It is a magnificent outfit.”

Then the minister of public processions announced: “Your Majesty’s canopy is waiting outside.”

“Well, I’m supposed to be ready,” the Emperor said, and turned again for one last look in the mirror. “It is a remarkable fit, isn’t it?” He seemed to regard his costume with the greatest interest.

The noblemen who were to carry his train stooped low and reached for the floor as if they were picking up his mantle. Then they pretended to lift and hold it high. They didn’t dare admit they had nothing to hold.

So off went the Emperor in procession under his splendid canopy. Everyone in the streets and the windows said, “Oh, how fine are the Emperor’s new clothes! Don’t they fit him to perfection? And see his long train!” Nobody would confess that he couldn’t see anything, for that would prove him either unfit for his position, or a fool. No costume the Emperor had worn before was ever such a complete success.

“But he hasn’t got anything on,” a little child said.

“Did you ever hear such innocent prattle?” said its father. And one person whispered to another what the child had said, “He hasn’t anything on. A child says he hasn’t anything on.”

“But he hasn’t got anything on!” the whole town cried out at last.

The Emperor shivered, for he suspected they were right. But he thought, “This procession has got to go on.” So he walked more proudly than ever, as his noblemen held high the train that wasn’t there at all.

© The Hans Christian Andersen Center, Department for the Study of Culture